Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

The Ethics and Public Policy Center released the results of a new study on the health risks of chemical abortions. Obtaining data from a private health insurance registry, they were able to analyze health outcomes from over 800,000 women who obtained chemical abortions between 2017 and 2023.

They found that over 4 percent of these women visited an emergency room and that nearly 11 percent suffered a serious adverse event. These risks are far greater than the health risks reported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This study is important for several reasons. First, it considers relatively recent data on the health outcomes of women who obtained chemical abortions. Most of the previous research on the safety of chemical abortions analyzed older data. Prior to 2016, women obtaining chemical abortions had to make multiple in-person visits to a medical professional. Additionally, only pregnant women at less than seven weeks’ gestation could obtain chemical abortions.

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

However, in 2016 the Obama administration FDA allowed women up to ten weeks’ pregnant to obtain chemical abortions and reduced the number of in-person visits to a medical professional from three to one. Then in July 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, a federal district court suspended the requirement that mifepristone be distributed in person.

That allowed women to obtain chemical abortion drugs through the mail without an in-person medical exam. The Biden administration continued this unwise policy after the conclusion of the Covid-19 pandemic.

These policy changes clearly increased the health risks involved with chemical abortions. However, there was scant hard data to demonstrate this. Making matters worse, in 2016 the FDA ceased mandating the reporting of complications related to chemical abortions — with the exception of deaths. Now these health risks can be documented.

Finally, it is important that the data came from a private health insurance registry. Supporters of legal abortion have downplayed previous research that analyzed Medicaid recipients who had obtained chemical abortions. They often claimed that poor public health outcomes were due to the fact that women on Medicaid are disproportionately low-income. They also argued that women on Medicaid are more likely than other women to seek health care at emergency rooms.

They cannot make those arguments here.

Protecting women and preborn children from chemical abortion drugs has become an important priority for the pro-life movement. After a fairly consistent 37-year decline, the U.S. abortion rate started to increase in 2017, shortly after the Obama administration FDA loosened regulations on chemical abortion drugs. Furthermore, many women in states with strong pro-life laws circumvent these laws by obtaining chemical abortion drugs through the mail.

Hopefully, this study will give Trump FDA appointees the data they need to place limits on chemical abortion drugs and even to reconsider FDA approval of mifepristone.

LifeNews Note: Michael J. New is an assistant professor at the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America and is an associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Follow him on Twitter @Michael_J_New

The post Over 4% of Women Taking Abortion Pill Wind Up in ER appeared first on LifeNews.com.

America’s new realism means peace with Russia and focus on China

The first 100 days of Donald Trump’s second presidency have sparked a wave of commentary portraying him as a revolutionary. Indeed, the speed, pressure, and determination with which he has acted are striking. But this view is superficial. Trump is not dismantling the foundations of the American state or society. On the contrary, he seeks to restore the pre-globalist republic that the liberal elite long ago diverted onto a utopian internationalist path. In this sense, Trump is not a revolutionary, but a counterrevolutionary – an ideological revisionist determined to reverse the excesses of the liberal era.

At home, Trump benefits from Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. Legal challenges to his policies – particularly on downsizing government and deporting illegal immigrants – have so far made little progress. Accustomed to media attacks, Trump continues to hit back hard. The recent story alleging that top officials debated strikes on Yemen over Signal has not gained political traction. If anything, it reinforces Trump’s image as a president who acts decisively and without fear of scandal.

Trump’s economic course is clear: re-industrialization, tariff protectionism, and investment in cutting-edge technologies. He is reversing decades of globalist integration, pressing allies to pool financial and technological resources with the US to rebuild its industrial base. Tactically, Trump applies pressure early, then offers retreats and compromises to lure competitors into negotiations favorable to America. This approach has been effective, particularly with Washington’s allies. Even with China, Trump is betting that Beijing’s reliance on the US market, and America’s influence over EU and Japanese trade policy, will yield strategic concessions.

In geopolitics, Trump embraces a realist doctrine grounded in great-power competition. He has defined his global priorities: secure North America as a geopolitical fortress from Greenland to Panama; redirect US and allied power toward containing China; make peace with Russia; and consolidate influence in the Middle East by supporting Israel, partnering with Gulf monarchies, and confronting Iran.

In the military sphere, Trump is pursuing greater American strength by purging the armed forces of “gender liberalism” and accelerating strategic nuclear modernization. Despite his public peace overtures, he has continued airstrikes against the Houthis in Yemen and has warned of devastating retaliation against Iran should negotiations fail.

His approach to Ukraine reflects strategic pragmatism. Trump aims to end the war quickly, not out of sympathy for Russia, but to free US resources for the Pacific theater and to reduce the risk of escalation into a nuclear conflict. He expects Western Europe to assume more responsibility for its own defense.

Importantly, Trump does not see Russia as a primary adversary. He views Moscow as a geopolitical rival, but not a military or ideological threat. Rather than pushing to sever Russia from China, he aims to re-engage Russia economically – in areas like energy, the Arctic, and rare earths – with the expectation that greater Western economic engagement will reduce Moscow’s dependence on Beijing.

In fact, outreach to the Kremlin has become the centerpiece of Trump’s foreign policy in his second term. His goal is not to divide Moscow and Beijing outright, but to lay the groundwork for a new global balance of power in which Russia has options beyond the Chinese orbit.

In sum, Trump is not tearing down the American system but striving to restore it. His counterrevolution is aimed at reversing liberal-globalist distortions, reinforcing sovereignty, and returning realism to international affairs. It is this mission – not chaos or confrontation – that is defining his presidency.

This article was first published by Kommersant, and was translated and edited by the RT team.

Kiev’s team introduced surprise changes to the agreement just as the US was about to sign, Secretary Scott Bessent has said

Kiev has made last-minute changes to a minerals deal it was expected to sign with Washington on Tuesday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said.

Tense talks over the agreement have simmered between the US and Ukraine for months. President Donald Trump has advertised the deal as a way for Washington to recoup what he describes as some $350 billion the US has spent on backing Kiev in the current conflict, through the future joint exploitation of its mineral resources.

The Ukrainian side made alterations to the document just as they were expected to seal the deal, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said during a press conference in the Oval Office on Wednesday.

“Our side’s ready to sign. The Ukrainians decided last night to make some last-minute changes,” he told reporters.

“We’re assured that they will reconsider that,” Bessent said, adding that he hopes the deal will be signed on Wednesday afternoon.

A delegation from Ukraine led by Economy Minister Yulia Sviridenko went to the US after securing a clause that stipulated only future military aid would count for Washington’s contribution to the deal, rather than the totality of the aid provided so far, Financial Times wrote on Wednesday.

According to a copy of the agreement seen by the outlet, under the deal, the US and Ukraine would invest into Ukrainian mining, energy and related technology sectors via a joint investment fund and through the exploitation of the country’s mineral wealth.

Sviridenko was told to “be ready to sign all agreements, or go back home,” FT wrote, citing anonymous Ukrainian officials.

The US wants Ukraine to sign both the framework pact and a detailed agreement on the proposed fund that would seal the full minerals deal, the newspaper wrote.

Kiev’s team refused to sign the documents as “the fund agreement must be ratified by their country’s parliament before it can be signed,” FT wrote, citing its Ukrainian sources.

Trump has increasingly criticized Kiev and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky for slow progress towards concluding the agreement.

In late February, the two had a public altercation in the Oval Office, just as the deal was widely expected to be signed. During the heated exchange, Trump accused Zelensky of not being thankful for US aid, and of “gambling with World War III,” for not negotiating with Russia.

Good evening, distinguished guests, steadfast supporters, and cherished friends. It’s a joy to stand before you tonight, to celebrate a milestone that feels both monumental and humbling—25 years of the Center for Bioethics and Culture. As we prepare to celebrate not only the longevity and legacy of the CBC, but the important work of Dr. Robbie George, I stand in front of you filled with gratitude- for our dedicated team, our supporters, and everyone here who is celebrating with us. Thank you for joining us to honor this remarkable journey and to chart the course ahead.

Let’s rewind to the year 2000, when Y2K fears faded but science surged forward —genetic engineering, stem cell research, and assisted reproductive technologies were no longer science fiction but headlines. Terms like “egg donation,” “surrogacy,” and “designer babies” entered the mainstream, often hailed as progress. Amid the enthusiasm of a new millennium, a quiet but profound question emerged: What does it mean to be human in an age where we can reshape life itself? Our founder, Jennifer Lahl, didn’t shy away from that question. Instead, she leaned into it, launching the Center for Bioethics and Culture with a vision as bold as it was compassionate—to ensure that biotechnology serves humanity, not the other way around. When the culture around science and medicine was charging full speed ahead—driven by profit, prestige, and promise—Jennifer paused, looked closer, and asked: “At what cost?”

From a small spark of one woman’s resolve, the CBC has grown into a global force, tackling issues like euthanasia, surrogacy, egg “donation”, genetic manipulation, and the gender ideology industry. We’ve done so not with fear, but with clarity, reason, and an unshakable belief in the worth of every person. Our mission has never been to halt progress but to ask the hard questions: Who benefits? Who is harmed? And how do we protect the vulnerable in a world that often prioritizes profit over people?

Over the last 25 years we have witnessed a deep ethical erosion happening beneath the surface of medicine and in our culture celebrating the reduction and erasure of women, treating children as products and science experiments- ordered, delivered, maimed or rejected. But we have not wavered in our mission to work with cultural leaders, decision makers and others, so that progress in biotechnology will unite around a common human good promoting human flourishing. Tonight, you’ll hear first-hand from Dr. Eithain Haim, a young surgeon who stood up to such erosion.

Before we hear from our award winner and keynote speaker, let me paint a picture of what these 25 years have meant- of what we have accomplished. One of our most powerful tools in educating has always been storytelling. In 2006, we released our first, award-winning documentary Eggsploitation, which peeled back the curtain on the egg “donation” industry – exposing the physical and emotional toll on young women who sell their eggs. That film didn’t just inform—it ignited a movement, giving voice to women who’d been silenced and prompting policy discussions worldwide. Currently, we are working with women around the world who were harmed after traveling to Canada to sell their eggs. These women are pursuing justice through a class action lawsuit. Our second film Breeders: A Subclass of Women?, exposed the human cost of surrogacy. Since that film debuted, we have been the go-to organization for the countless women exploited through surrogacy. Women like Brenda* who was told to abort the twins she was carrying because they had in-utero health complications. Women like Kelly* who wanted to share about her high-risk surrogate pregnancy that ended with a stay in the ICU, 7 blood transfusions, and the loss of her uterus. Women like Emma* who need legal support during their surrogate pregnancy because things didn’t go as planned and her and her children face homelessness or breach of contract. We will continue to amplify the voices of women and children who have been directly affected by third-party reproduction —many of whom are speaking out for the first time.

In 25 years the CBC has produced eleven original documentary films. Our last three a trilogy of films which courageously navigated the complexities of gender ideology with empathy and truth.

Our films have reached millions—screened in universities, churches, and parliaments, translated into multiple languages, and shared by people hungry for honest answers. They don’t just educate; they humanize, putting faces and stories to issues too often reduced to soundbites. Film after film, story after story, we’ve asked our audience—and the culture at large—not to look away.

Our impact goes far beyond the screen. We’ve hosted symposiums, published hundreds of articles, op-eds, policy briefs, educational resources, and reports offering a steady voice in a noisy world and ensuring that ethical considerations are not overshadowed by profit motives or political pressure. We’ve testified before legislatures, advocating for laws that protect rather than exploit. Our team has brought research, compassion, and clarity to rooms where difficult decisions were being made. Whether the issue was commercial surrogacy or puberty blockers, the CBC has consistently been a voice for human dignity and the protection of the most vulnerable. Just this past year, we provided expert testimony in legislative hearings across several states including Minnesota and our nation’s capital and in 2024 we made a permanent mark on the right side of history. The CBC, along with Jordan Peterson, Chloe Cole, Laura Becker, Gays Against Groomers and numerous other detransitioners, scholars, researchers, healthcare providers, and public officials we supported and signed an amicus brief for U.S. v Skrmetti, backing the State of Tennessee’s restrictions on “gender-affirming” care for minors.

We’ve also hosted podcasts and been podcast guests ourselves. In the last few months, I had the privilege of sitting down with influential voices like Nicole Shanahan, Robert Kennedy’s VP running mate, and Allie Beth Stuckey, host of Relatable with over 1/2 million subscribers. In those conversations, I was able to dive deep into the ethical challenges of surrogacy and assisted reproduction—conversations that reached thousands and sparked meaningful dialogue across diverse audiences.

Through our Paul Ramsey Award, we’ve honored giants in bioethics—thinkers like Leon Kass Gilbert Meilaender, and Dr. Robbie George—who remind us that rigorous scholarship can coexist with moral courage. Our Paul Ramsey Institute now celebrates over 50 graduates and is growing.

And let’s not forget the quieter victories—the lives touched one conversation at a time.

I want to rewind and share a story that captures the heart of our work. In 2013, a young woman named Jessica Kern testified before the Washington, D.C., City Council alongside our founder during debates over a surrogacy bill. Jessica, featured in our film Breeders, had learned at 16 that she was born via surrogacy. She described the pain of feeling like a product, carrying a “price tag” in a system that prioritized adult desires over children’s identities. Her courage to speak out, amplified by our film, challenged lawmakers to consider the human cost of surrogacy and inspired countless others to question the ethics of an industry that often ignores its consequences. Stories like Jessica’s—public yet deeply personal—are the soul of our mission.

I can think of others, such as the young women who, after watching one of our films, reconsiders her decision to pursue egg selling. I think about the men and women who email me sharing their personal stories and struggles with infertility. One couple recently wrote, “Through your organization we have become increasingly uncomfortable with doing IVF and the ethics with it. We just want to make sure what we are doing is moral, and healthy and helpful for the child and for us.” I think of the policymaker who cites our groundbreaking research on surrogate mothers to draft legislation banning commercial surrogacy in their country. These moments—some public, most quiet—are the threads of a tapestry woven over 25 years, a testament to what’s possible when compassion meets conviction.

And yet, as we celebrate, we know the road ahead is steep. The challenges we face today are complex. Artificial intelligence is raising questions about personhood and autonomy. Genetic editing technologies like CRISPR and preimplantation genetic testing tempt us with godlike power to design life itself. The fertility industry is inventing new ways to profit off of women and children with little oversight. And debates over gender and identity are reshaping culture, medicine, and law. We are navigating a ship in a culture increasingly confused about what it means to be male, female, embodied, and whole. As I hope I have made clear in the stories I’ve shared, these aren’t abstract issues—they touch real lives, real families, real futures.

Tonight, I stand here filled with optimism, despite the challenges, because I know the strength of this organization and this community. You- Our supporters. Our donors. Our allies. Our skeptics who asked hard questions and helped sharpen our focus-You have carried us through 25 years of impact.

Your donations have funded our films, our research, our outreach, and the next generation of scholars through our prestigious Paul Ramsey Institute. Your encouragement has given us the courage to speak truth, even when we might get cancelled. Your prayers and partnership have reminded us we’re not alone. And your presence here tonight is a powerful declaration that you believe in a world where every life is valued, where technology bends toward justice, and where dignity is non-negotiable.

Now, let’s dream together about the future. Picture a world where no woman is pressured to sell her body or her children for profit. A world where children are welcomed as gifts, not products designed to order. A world where science heals without harming, where the vulnerable are shielded, and where truth cuts through confusion like a lighthouse in a storm. That’s the world CBC is fighting for, and we need your help to build it.

We dream of expanding our educational reach—creating accessible, thoughtful toolkits for schools, homeschoolers, churches, and communities to navigate complex bioethical issues with clarity and confidence.

We’ll continue to inform and inspire through compelling films and impactful writing. A new book is on the horizon, and new films are in the works.

We are developing a digital hub of resources for women and children harmed by Big Fertility, so when someone reaches out after experiencing exploitation or coercion, we can respond with compassion and practical guidance on the path to healing.

Our work on the ethical, medical, and legal implications of third-party reproduction continues to shape conversations across the globe—crossing ideological divides and cultural boundaries. Because no matter where you live or what you believe, the human longing for dignity, connection, and truth is universal.

We envision building on this momentum through expanded research and the creation of a CBC Network Research Institute—a dedicated space for rigorous study, data collection, and thought leadership in bioethics.

At the same time, as laws and policies around the world shift at an unprecedented pace, we recognize the urgent need for a Center for Bioethics and Public Policy—to track these changes, influence outcomes, and ensure that ethics keep pace with technology.

But dreams don’t become reality without resources. Tonight’s gala is more than a celebration—it’s a call to action. Your generosity will fuel our next chapter. Every dollar you give extends our reach, amplifies our voice, and brings us closer to that better world.

Let me close with one final story. Alana Newman, featured in our 2011 film Anonymous Father’s Day, grew up knowing she was donor-conceived but struggled with the void of not knowing her biological father. Through her involvement with CBC, she found a platform to share her story and advocate for others like her. After the film’s release, Alana spoke at events and wrote publicly, saying that the film gave her the courage to demand better protections for donor-conceived children, who’s right to know their origins is often ignored. Her voice, amplified by our work, has reached thousands. That’s the ripple effect of our work—one life, one story, one community at a time.

Twenty-five years ago, we planted a seed. It grew—not because the world was ready for it, but because the world needed it. We will continue to be the voice in the room that says: “Slow down. Ask questions. Consider the cost.” In a culture that often confuses progress with wisdom, we are here to remind people that human beings are not machines. That children are not products. That women’s bodies are not commodities. And that ethics must never be an afterthought—it must be the foundation.

We are not anti-technology, but we are pro-human. And in today’s landscape, that stance is not only necessary—it’s radical.

Here’s to another radical 25 years. Your encouragement fuels us. Your questions challenge us. And your presence reminds us that we are not alone.

The post Remarks by CBC Executive Director, Kallie Fell, at the Paul Ramsey Awards Dinner appeared first on The Center for Bioethics & Culture Network.

Above: Lipetsk, Russia Published in Paris in 1885, in order to protect the author from possible persecution by the Russian imperial authorities, Solovyov’s work La Russie et l’Église universelle (Russia and the Universal Church) [1] contains a section whose reading played a decisive role in my conversion from Eastern Orthodoxy to Rome. This part of Solovyov’s book bears a significant…

Source

The Canadian health care system is melting down — and yet the country still embraces radical euthanasia policies.

Here’s a current example: A woman injured in an auto accident has waited nearly two years for a consultation with a spinal surgeon — despite now having to use a wheelchair. So, she wants to come to the U.S. for a simple diagnosis, which will cost $40,000! From the CBC story:

A London woman injured in a car crash says she’s left with no choice but to pay to see a doctor in the United States after waiting almost two years for a diagnosis from an Ontario spine surgeon.

Sydney Gesualdi was rear-ended at a red light in July 2023, after which she was initially diagnosed with whiplash and tissue damage. In the weeks that followed, the 25-year-old lost the ability to walk, started having trouble swallowing and speaking, and had numbness in her face and limbs.

Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page!

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.10"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

“None of these symptoms have gone away, and it’s been almost two years,” Gesualdi said. “I’m 25 and I can’t walk.”

She now has to use a wheelchair and wears a neck brace at all times. Gesualdi’s family physician has referred her to eight doctors at spinal clinics across the province, but so far, she’s been denied a consultation.

CBC News has seen the rejections from Toronto Western Hospital, London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) and Trillium Spine Centre. Wait times and heavy caseloads are cited as the reason for not taking the patient, as well as the condition potentially being outside the scope of practice.

What a bitter tragedy. Ill and disabled Canadians with non-life-threatening but serious conditions have no assurance of prompt medical care, and some people wait in agony for many months — or, as in this case, years — to receive proper clinical services.

At the same time, in Canada, disabled and non-terminally-ill patients are eligible for euthanasia, and the homicide can take place within 90 days of the patient’s being deemed qualified. For patients whose deaths are “reasonably foreseeable,” there is no waiting time required once eligibility has been established.

It may also be far less difficult to secure a death doctor than a treating physician, since the killing process is much faster. As a result, there have already been cases in which euthanasia was chosen by patients precisely because proper care was so long in coming. What a travesty.

The U.K. has some of the same access problems, and it is perilously close to legalizing assisted suicide anyway. Meanwhile, assisted suicide might become legal in Delaware and perhaps other blue states this year.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism.

The post Canadian Woman Who Can’t Walk After Accident Has Waited Two Years to See a Surgeon appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Douglas Emhoff is reportedly among several appointees of former President Joe Biden removed from the institution’s board

Douglas Emhoff, the husband of former US Vice President Kamala Harris, has criticized the administration of President Donald Trump for what he describes as “politicizing” the Holocaust.

In a post on X on Tuesday, Emhoff said he had been informed of his removal from the US Holocaust Memorial Council, describing the move as a political decision that turned “one of the worst atrocities in history into a wedge issue.”

According to the New York Times, Emhoff is among several appointees of former US President Joe Biden dismissed from the council. Their appointments, announced in January, typically carry five-year terms. The council was created by Congress in 1980 to oversee the museum which opened in 1993 to commemorate the Holocaust.

The White House Presidential Personnel Office reportedly emailed council members on Tuesday on behalf of President Trump, stating their positions were “terminated, effective immediately.” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president “looks forward” to appointing members who will honor Holocaust victims and be “steadfast supporters of the State of Israel.”

In a similar move, Trump announced in February that he would end the terms of multiple members of the Kennedy Center board and make himself chair of a new board.

The Holocaust Museum did not mention the firings in its Tuesday statement, saying it looks forward to advancing its mission “in partnership with the Trump administration.”

The development comes as Harris, who lost the race for president in November, is set to deliver a ‘call to action’ speech on Wednesday at the Emerge 20th anniversary gala in San Francisco, which will urge activists to speak out against Trump, according to CNN.

Democrats are reportedly watching Harris for signs she may run again in 2028. Trump has ruled out seeking a third term, despite previously hinting at the possibility on multiple occasions. In an interview with The Atlantic published on Monday marking his first 100 days in office, he said bypassing the constitutional limit in 2028 would be a “hard thing to do.”

Sectarian clashes between government-linked armed groups and Druze fighters have broken out near Damascus

The Israel Defense Force (IDF) has launched a drone strike against an “extremist group” in Syria. In a joint statement Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz called the attack a “warning operation” aimed at preventing violence against a Syrian Druze minority.

The strike targeted a “gathering of an extremist group that was preparing to continue its attack on the Druze population” in Syria, according to the Times of Israel. IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir has reportedly ordered troops to further target Syrian government sites “if the violence against the Druze does not stop.”

Clashes between the Syrian government-linked armed groups and Druze fighters have erupted around Damascus, according to AFP.

At least 11 people were killed as “outlaw groups targeted civilians and security forces” in the Damascus suburb of Sahnaya on Wednesday, just a day after similar clashes claimed 17 lives in Jaramana, a mainly Druze and Christian suburb, according to the news agency.

The new Syrian authorities are dealing with tensions following sectarian violence in the coastal Latakia province, mostly targeting Alawites and Christians, that reportedly claimed 1,000 lives.

The violence prompted the US and Russia to denounce the persecution of Syrian minority groups, while the EU blamed “pro-Assad elements” attacking “interim government forces.”

Syria’s Interior Ministry has claimed the Israeli strike killed one member of the Syrian national security force, deployed to the area to stop clashes between armed groups, according to Reuters. The Syrian SANA news agency confirmed the Israeli strike but provided no information on any casualties.

Druze are a minority religious group that follows an offshoot of Islam and makes up 3% of Syria’s population. Some Druze in southern Syria asked for Israeli protection, calling it the “lesser evil” after the ousting of Bashar Assad in December following a surprise insurgency by Islamist forces.

A major study just revealed that the abortion drug mifepristone is far more dangerous than U.S. health agencies have admitted, prompting calls for President Donald Trump’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reinstate more stringent safeguards surrounding the drug’s prescription and use, reinvestigate the health risks, and if warranted, reconsider its approval altogether.

The Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) released its report Monday, revealing that the rate of serious adverse complications associated with mifepristone is at least 22 times higher than the 0.5% touted by the FDA.

In a letter to FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) joined the EPPC in demanding that the guidelines for administering mifepristone originally in place when the FDA approved the drug in 2000 be reinstated.

“An alarming new study has revealed that the safety risk of the chemical abortion drug, mifepristone, are far greater than the FDA currently acknowledges,” Hawley wrote. He continued, “I urge you to follow this new data and take all appropriate action to restore critical safeguards on the use of mifepristone. The health and safety of American women depend on it.” The senator concluded, “The time to act is now. It is time to revisit and restore the FDA’s longstanding safety measures governing mifepristone.”

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

Makary pledged last week to review new data regarding the safety of mifepristone, although he had not made a similar pledge when pressed by Hawley on the issue during his confirmation hearing before the Senate. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had previously told Republican senators that he plans to “study the safety of mifepristone” and implement policies consistent with the president’s position on the abortion drug. Kennedy said that the president “has not yet taken a stand on how to regulate it. Whatever he does, I will implement those policies.”

In comments to The Washington Stand, Mary Szoch, director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council, said, “I am encouraged to know that FDA Commissioner Makary will remain true to his roots as a scientist and examine all of the data on mifepristone. The newest data shows one in 10 women has a serious adverse event following the use of mifepristone.” She added, “I look forward to seeing the steps Director Makary will take in light of how dangerous this drug is for women.”

Regarding the results of the EPPC study, Szoch stated, “The FDA has never thoroughly investigated the impact of mifepristone on all women.” Noting the high rate of serious complications associated with mifepristone — more than one in nine women — she continued, “That number doesn’t even begin to touch the number of women who have serious psychological issues after seeing their clearly recognizable unborn baby dead in the toilet as the result of a mifepristone abortion. The FDA must re-examine mifepristone and revoke its approval.”

EPPC President Ryan Anderson, who co-authored the study, appeared on Monday night’s “Washington Watch” to discuss his findings. He clarified, “The major takeaway here is that it’s a 22-times-higher rate of serious adverse events for women who take the chemical abortion drug than what the FDA claims on the label.” He continued, “Why do we see such poor outcomes? Both the Obama and the Biden administrations got rid of almost all of the major safety protections that the FDA originally required when they approved of the pill. So what we’re calling on the Trump FDA to do is … reinstate those original safety provisions.”

Anderson also noted that, since the FDA has removed the requirement that mifepristone must be prescribed by a physician and dispensed and consumed in the physician’s office, the abortion drug has been increasingly ordered online or via “telehealth mail order” and has even been shipped across state lines, including into states with strong pro-life laws in place. He explained that “many blue states” are “mailing the abortion pill across state lines.”

Noting that the president has previously averred that the issue of abortion ought to be left to the states, Anderson continued, “Well, you can’t leave it to the states if California is mailing abortion pills to the other 49 states. You can’t make America healthy again if you have a 10.9% rate of serious adverse events. And you can’t undo all the stupid things Biden and Obama did unless you also undo what they did to the abortion pill. So that’s what we’re calling on the Trump FDA to do here.”

Also on Monday night’s episode of “Washington Watch,” Dr. Donna Harrison, director of research for the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said that her experience as an obstetrician/gynecologist confirms the EPPC study’s findings. She explained that doctors “across the country are seeing similar kinds of things in the [emergency room], seeing women with hemorrhages, women with tissue left inside, women who have ectopic pregnancies that never should have gotten the abortion pill at all. And they got it because they never had an in-patient visit, they never had an ultrasound,” because the FDA does not require it.

Harrison also explained that the FDA based its guidelines on clinical studies, which do not provide accurate data that corresponds to how the abortion drug is administered and used in the real world, especially without stringent safeguards in place. “Clinical trials are done under very controlled circumstances,” Harrison said. She noted that women who participated in these clinical trials had ultrasound results, were tested for ectopic pregnancies, were within a certain gestational timeframe, and were excluded from the trial if they did not meet specific criteria. She said, “So these trials sought out healthy women where their gestational age, the dating of the pregnancy, is perfectly known. And then they’re followed very, very, very carefully. That’s not what happens in the real world.”

Harrison detailed, “In the real world, Sally Smith, who may be 14, gets online, gives her gift credit card, and gets mailed mifeprex [the brand name for mifepristone]. She has no idea how far along she is. She may think that she’s eight weeks. And I’ve seen cases where women were told, ‘Oh, you’re eight weeks along,’ and they take the mifeprex and they deliver a 22-week baby who could have survived if that baby had been delivered under the right circumstances. It’s this kind of horrendous care…”

Anderson also criticized the FDA’s handling of the dangers of mifepristone. “[W]hat we saw in the Obama years and now, most recently, from the Biden administration, it was clearly politicized medicine to get rid of these original safety provisions,” Anderson continued. He noted that regulations such as requiring multiple in-person physician visits, requiring a physician to prescribe mifepristone, requiring that the abortion drug be dispensed and consumed in the physician’s office, requiring a follow-up appointment, and requiring adverse complications be reported were eliminated by the Obama and Biden administrations. Anderson stated, “This isn’t looking out for the best interest of women. Certainly not looking out for the best interest of their unborn children.”

LifeNews Note: S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

The post Experts Urge Trump to Stop Abortion Pill After Study Shows Huge Complication Rates appeared first on LifeNews.com.

One in ten patients experience a “serious adverse event” after taking the abortion pill, according to a study released Monday by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), a conservative think tank and advocacy group.

The study found that 10.93% of women experienced sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another serious adverse event within 45 days after a mifepristone abortion. The real-world rate of serious adverse events after mifepristone abortions is at least 22 times as high as the summary figure of “less than 0.5%” in clinical trials reported on the drug label, according to the study.

Mifepristone, when used together with another medication called misoprostol, is used to have an abortion during the first ten weeks of pregnancy, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Danco Laboratories, a pharmaceutical distributor based in Manhattan, distributes mifepristone under the brand name Mifeprex, and claims on their website that the drug is “safe and effective.”

Get the latest pro-life news and information on X (Twitter). Follow @LifeNewsHQ//

The study, which the EPPC claims to be the largest-known review of the abortion pill conducted in the U.S., is based on analysis of data from an all-payer insurance claims database that includes 865,727 prescribed mifepristone abortions from 2017 to 2023.

“Danco Laboratories markets Mifeprex as ‘the safe and effective abortion pill,’ but our research shows that mifepristone abortion, as currently practiced in the U.S., is not safe and effective,” the EPPC wrote in the study. “The manufacturer and the FDA rely on the results of 10 clinical trials with a total of 30,966 participants, less than 0.5% of whom reportedly experienced serious adverse reactions. In contrast, we analyzed real-world insurance claims data for 865,727 prescribed mifepristone abortions, broadly representative of women who obtain mifepristone abortions in the U.S. today, and we find a serious adverse event rate of 10.93%—at least 22 times as high as the summary figure reported on the drug label.”

“Simply stated, mifepristone, as used in real-world conditions, is not ‘safe and effective,’” the think tank went on to write.

The EPPC’s study was written by its President Ryan T. Anderson and Director of Data Analysis Jamie Bryan Hall.

A similar study released by the Foundation for the Restoration of America (FFROA) on April 25 also found that more than 10% of women who underwent a mifepristone abortion “experience a serious adverse event.”

FFROA founder Doug Truax, who commissioned the study, told the DCNF in a statement: “These shocking findings should alert all women that the abortion pills are extremely dangerous to their well-being — a conclusion completely at odds with what the FDA tells us. Once again, we are learning that our government will put political ideology above science, data, and the health and safety of its citizens.”

“This bombshell report is further evidence that our government uses phony data and politicized science to lie to its people. In this case, those lies further political ideologies rather than the health, safety, and well-being of women and children,” Truax added.

With many states implementing pro-life laws after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, many women have used telehealth — using technology to deliver healthcare services remotely — to bypass abortion bans. As of December 2023, telehealth constituted 19% of abortions in the U.S. healthcare system, according to the Society of Family Planning’s #WeCount project.

In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone lacked standing, allowing the drug to remain widely available.

The number of abortions in the U.S. has grown in recent years partially due to the increased availability and use of the abortion pill, which accounted for 63% of abortions in 2023, according to a March 2024 study from the Guttmacher Institute.

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary notably said on April 24 that he has “no plans to take action” to limit the availability of mifepristone.

Danco Laboratories did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

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

The post Sepsis, Hemorrhaging, Infection. These are Major Problems Women Experience After the Abortion Pill appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The catastrophic electricity outage in Spain and Portugal earlier this week should serve as a wake-up call for the bloc’s officials

It was probably the weather that triggered the ten-hour breakdown of all utilities on the Iberian Peninsula earlier this week.

It was also the weather that has turned Germany into Europe’s top CO2 emitter. There are days when the sun does not shine, and the wind does not blow. And then the backup is coal in the absence of nuclear power or natural gas (from Russia).

The issue is transmission, not generation, of energy

An even bigger threat to the grid, however, stems from overproduction of electricity due to too much sun and wind. Both Spain and Germany proudly point out their statistics in terms of power generation based on huge onshore and offshore wind farms and extensive photovoltaic panels, often constructed on precious arable soil. Spain and Portugal are champions of green energy in the EU, and were sourcing 80 percent of their electricity from renewables just before the outage hit on Monday. 

The larger underlying problem is in transmitting rather than generating electricity. Large parts of the existing grids in the EU were constructed in the 1950 and 1960s, when it was fairly easy to build infrastructure in the post-war towns. When Angela Merkel announced her ambitious energy transition, Peter Altmaier, the head of the Chancellor’s office announced the building of several thousands of kilometers of “electricity highways” (Strom Autobahnen). The slated budget was one trillion euros. But that budget was never established and nobody in Merkel’s government calculated the years for administrative planning and implementation.

So, the new grid was never built, neither in Germany nor elsewhere. The current grid is not made for to absorb constantly increasing volumes. The “electrification” of all forms of energy production and consumption, above all in mobility, poses a serious problem for the stability of the existing grids. Electric vehicles were supposed to replace cars with the traditional internal combustion engines. The hype surrounding the electric car has already died down. Customers simply refrain from buying an electric car. But the ambitious green agendas rarely take into account serious investments and above all solid timeframes for an enlarged electrical grid.

The European electrical grid stretches from Türkiye across the European continent to North Africa. Its technical name is Continental European Synchronous Area, and it is vulnerable. It is fed with an alternating current with a frequency of approximately 50 Hertz. In case of an overload, as probably happened on Monday in Spain, the risk is high that the frequency is destabilised. In order to pre-empt a power cut, since power plants will automatically shut down, the overload is sent abroad. Some voices claim that the Iberian Peninsula lacks interconnectors, while others warn against more interconnectors since this would only put the entire grid at risk, a domino blackout across more than 30 countries.

In 2012, the Austrian writer Marc Elsberg published his thriller “Blackout.” The plot describes a fictional 13-day power outage and the ensuing total breakdown of life as we know it. In the well-researched book, the blackout is caused by a cyber-attack. Many commentators eagerly suggested that one was behind the real-world crisis on Monday. Apparently, no one is ready to discuss the problem with the grid and green deal ambitions.

Attending energy conferences for years and teaching the topic of geopolitics of energy, I often wondered about the romantic fantasy models that Brussels officials and other climate experts presented.  For the last 15 years, we witness an inflationary concept of “energy transition” or even worse, zero-carbon economy. Throughout the entire EU we have seen a focus on climate change. The approach lacks a solid energy policy, one which covers security in supply, affordability, and investments into grids.

New vulnerability due to the boom of renewables

I expected a major blackout to happen in Germany, rather than on the Iberian Peninsula.

The so-called energy transition declared by the Angela Merkel government in spring 2011 did not deliver at all. In the first quarter of 2025, instead of more electricity from wind and sun, more electricity was generated from coal and gas. Easter week also showed why the so-called energy transition is causing problems.

Despite the record expansion of wind and solar power, renewables are producing less electricity than at any time since 2021. Compared to the first quarter of last year, the amount of electricity produced by renewables in the same period this year fell by 16 percent.

The wind was not particularly strong in February and March. Electricity production from offshore wind turbines fell by a total of 31 percent, while production on land fell by 22 percent. As a result, electricity production from coal, oil, and gas had to be drastically increased. The logical consequence: CO2 emissions have risen dramatically. Electricity in Germany was dirtier than it had been since the winter of 2018.

However, it is not only in the medium term that the energy transition is not doing what its supporters believe it should. Easter week exemplifies all the problems associated with the plan to switch Germany’s energy production to mainly wind and solar.

On a sunny Easter Sunday, for example, the five million or so solar installations in Germany produced far more electricity than would have been needed to cover demand during the holiday.

However, electricity must be consumed exactly when it is produced, otherwise the electricity grid may be disrupted. This applies both nationally and to the local electricity grids on site and the regional capacities of the weather-dependent energy sources.

Due to the gigantic oversupply – 15 gigawatts too much, the output of a dozen average nuclear power plants – the price of electricity has fallen into negative territory at times, as low as -5 cents per kilowatt-hour. Germany has paid the French, Belgians etc. millions of euros to buy Germany’s surplus electricity so that the German electricity grids do not collapse.

However, this blatant surplus of electricity has not only meant that a lot of electricity has had to be sold abroad for a fee and lines to France and Belgium have had to operate at full capacity, there have also been numerous power outages in south-west Germany in particular, which could be linked to the oversupply and local grid overload.

The real drama is that the numerous solar plants in Germany cannot be controlled, regulated or even taken off the grid when electricity production exceeds demand. If there is a lot of sunshine – possibly accompanied by a lot of wind – on an afternoon with low electricity demand, Germany has increasing problems getting rid of the surplus energy.

This not only increases the potential for regional power outages and so-called “brownouts,” it also greatly increases the cost of electricity production overall – as Easter has shown.

The Siemens disaster

Storing electricity is a fundamental problem that has not been solved. Big companies like Siemens experimented for more than a decade with steam engines transforming electricity produced by windmills into hydrogen, in order to stock and transport it. Those experiments did not result in a viable commercial business model. Meanwhile Siemens, once upon a time in the 1960s a leader in nuclear technology, has abandoned its entire energy branch.

In 2020, the energy division was separated from Siemens. However, Siemens Energy ambitiously wanted to grow in the wind energy business and merged with the Spanish company Gamesa. But just three years later, it was clear that this would not work. Were the reasons additional management mistakes, was it Chinese competition or were there other issues?

Siemens Energy turned from a beacon of hope to a stock market nightmare. New bad news came from quarter to quarter. It was the wind power business, of all things, that slipped deeper and deeper into deficit. The Managing Board of Siemens Energy had to lower its forecasts countless times, and Siemens lost lots of money with its mergers in Spain. If the management had stamina, they would investigate thoroughly the power outage of last Monday and publish the conclusions. What happened in Spain and Portugal could happen at any moment in Germany and Austria.

Twenty-five years ago, I was involved in the municipal council of the village where I lived in Austria until 2020, when I was forced to quit. We had worked on emergency scenarios for a blackout. One item was to organize “islands of infrastructure” in military barracks and other buildings. The plan was that in case of emergency, people would be able to walk there and be provided with food, water, and first aid.  In those days, there was still a generation of leaders who were hands-on and who knew how to get things done. Later I realized that this generation of men and women had passed away. In today’s EU, any such crisis would probably lead to a humanitarian disaster, to a total breakdown of public order. 

I remember well the blackout that hit Northern Italy in 2003 and another one in the US; both were protracted and citizens were left in the dark and cold. In war-torn Iraq, people were wondering how those Western armies and NGOs would ever build up the electricity after the US invasion since they were unable to do it back home.

Having lived in Lebanon until the summer of 2023, I am fully aware of constant power cuts and know the nuisance of running one’s own generator, the bad smell, and the noise of all the generators around. But diesel can provide a regular flow of electricity, which no solar panel can do. But thanks to affordable Chinese solar panels, nearly every household in Lebanon has one.

Good old diesel generator

Interestingly, hospitals in Spain and Portugal continued to provide services thanks to their diesel generators. Emergency operations could be done and intensive care was secured. But what about the internet and mobile phone providers? The entire system of mobile communication broke down. Even speeches by the heads of governments could be watched abroad but not by concerned citizens.

I sometimes joked with my Lebanese friends that they should do crash courses for EU institutions on how to live without a regular supply of electricity. Using common sense, keeping good relations with one’s neighbors and knowing how to handle a diesel generator are certainly helpful. And where does the diesel come from? Yes, Russian oil companies used to provide huge volumes of diesel to their EU customers. The Rosneft refinery of Schwedt close to Berlin was confiscated by the German authorities in 2022.

The back-up for all those renewable efforts used to be natural gas, mostly from Russia, termed the “energy of transition.” There was a consensus that cooperating on oil and gas within the European continent was of benefit to both sellers and buyers. These days are gone.

What happened on Monday on the Iberian Peninsula was another wake-up call. But so far EU officials seem stuck in their green agenda. They could have understood previous signals, but they refused to do so. In the EU, energy has become an ideological topic and is no longer a technical matter. What Spain and Portugal went through earlier this week lasted for about 10 hours, and I expect more such incidents. One can handle it in a country like Lebanon, but the question remains: can one run an industry with constant power cuts? Deindustrialisation inside the EU will only accelerate. If one day, certain countries would like to buy Russian gas again, the volumes will be much smaller due to more limited industrial production.

A groundbreaking report released yesterday reveals the chemical abortion drug Mifepristone is 22 times more dangerous than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims on its drug label. The Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) conducted and published the study finding that one in 10 women experience a serious adverse health event within 45 days after taking Mifepristone for an abortion.

“Simply stated, Mifepristone, as used in real-world conditions, is not ‘safe and effective,’” wrote the researchers, which consisted of a team of scientists, board-certified obstetricians and gynecologists, analysts, and engineers.

Get the latest pro-life news and information on X (Twitter). Follow @LifeNewsHQ//

Described as the “largest-known study of the abortion pill,” the EPPC analyzed 865,727 Mifepristone abortions under “real-world conditions” from 2017 to 2023 using an “all-payer insurance claims database.” In contrast, the report notes, the FDA relies on decade-old data from 10 clinical trials that involved just 30,966 “pre-screened” and “generally healthy” women. Under that small data set, which found less than 0.5 percent of women suffered serious adverse reactions, the FDA lets Danco Laboratories market Mifepristone, under the label “Mifeprex,” as “safe and effective.” However, the EPPC examined data that is more “broadly representative” of the women actually having Mifepristone abortions in America rather than just relying on data from the “carefully controlled regimen of care” of a clinical trial. These women would have had varying degrees of real-world “pre- and post-abortion health care,” if any care at all.

“The real-world rate of serious adverse events following Mifepristone abortions is at least 22 times as high as the summary figure of ‘less than 0.5 percent’ in clinical trials reported on the drug label,” read the report. “10.93 percent of women experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another serious or life-threatening adverse event within 45 days following a Mifepristone abortion.”

The specific rates of serious complications consisted of:

• abortion-related emergency room visit (4.73 percent)
• hemorrhage (3.31 percent)
• infection (1.34 percent)
• ectopic pregnancy (0.35 percent)
• abortion-related hospitalization (0.66 percent)
• transfusion (0.15 percent)
• sepsis (0.10 percent)
• unspecified other abortion-specific complications (5.68 percent),
• other life-threatening adverse events (0.22 percent), including cardiac and pulmonary events, thrombosis, anaphylaxis, and the necessity of surgery.

Notably, nearly three percent of the adverse events required a follow-on surgical abortion due the abortion drug failing.

As the report states, the FDA initially approved Mifepristone in 2000 under a “little-used approval process” for new drugs treating serious or life-threatening illnesses. Under this process, FDA considered an unwanted pregnancy a “serious or life-threatening illness” and concluded Mifepristone was more effective than surgical abortion. Then, under the Obama and Biden administrations, the drug’s safeguards were heavily deregulated between 2016 to 2021 where it can now be used through the 10th week of pregnancy, can be prescribed by health care providers who are not physicians, can be prescribed online through telehealth appointments, can be sent through the mail, and adverse events are no longer required to be reported.

Due to the report’s findings, the EPPC recommended the FDA reinstate all of the abortion pill’s original safety protocols. Specifically, the researchers recommended:

• Mifepristone should be prescribed only by physicians.
• A Mifepristone prescription should include three in-person physician visits.
• Mifepristone should be administered only in a clinic, medical office, or hospital, by or under the supervision of a physician.
• Physicians must be able to provide surgical intervention in cases of incomplete abortion or severe bleeding, or have made plans to provide such care through others.
• Health care providers should be required once again to report to the FDA (and manufacturers of Mifepristone) all serious adverse events resulting from the use of the drug.
• Mifepristone should only be prescribed to a woman who is confirmed by a physician to be in the first seven weeks of pregnancy, as originally required by the FDA.

Liberty Counsel Action Chairman Mat Staver said, “This study from the Ethics and Public Policy Center shows that abortion is never safe for women and it certainly is not ‘health care.’ Chemical abortions harm women physically and emotionally and cruelly kill defenseless children in the womb. There is a deliberate strategy to misinform people about chemical abortion and the science clearly proves that it is unsafe and devastatingly harmful to women.”

The post How Can the Abortion Pill be Health Care When it Kills Babies and Hurts Women? appeared first on LifeNews.com.