Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Another East Texas city has passed an ordinance outlawing abortion. The City of Avinger (pop. 371) passed their ordinance on Monday, becoming the 74th city in the nation to pass such a measure. The measure, which was presented by Right to Life Across Texas, was placed on the city council agenda by Mayor Jeff Patterson and passed in a 3-1 vote.

Alderwoman Kelli Spencer, Alderman Adam Young, and Alderman Marvin Parvino voted for and Alderwoman Lois Montgomery voted against. Alderwoman Margaret Ford did not attend the meeting.

The vote came after a new report was released which found that about 11% of women experience “sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another adverse event within 45 days following a mifepristone abortion.”

LifeNews is on GETTR. Please follow us for the latest pro-life news

In a written statement to the Avinger City Council, Avinger resident Kori Peterson wrote, “Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion forces have continued the dishonest narrative that abortion isn’t a big deal, is liberating to women, and is a right. This is grossly false. Abortion is deadly to a child, harms and causes trauma for women, and no one has a right to end human life.”

The Avinger Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance states, in the second declaration, “abortion at all times and at all stages of pregnancy is an unlawful act, unless the abortion is performed to save the life of the pregnant woman in a medical emergency.” The term “Medical emergency” is defined in the ordinance to mean “a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.”

The ordinance is clear that it does not prohibit “abortions performed or induced in response to a medical emergency, or any conduct that aids or abets or attempts to aid or abet such abortions” and is also clear that it does not prohibit “conduct taken by a licensed medical professional that is necessary to perform, induce, or facilitate an abortion in response to a medical emergency, or to ensure that the licensed medical professional is prepared to perform, induce, or facilitate an abortion in response to a medical emergency, so long as that conduct is not in any way intended to facilitate an elective abortion.”

The ordinance extends the private right of action found in the Texas Heartbeat Act from the point of a detectable heartbeat to the point of conception – allowing a lawsuit to be filed against anyone in violation of the ordinance. The ordinance is clear that no action may be brought against the mother of the unborn child upon whom the abortion was performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of the ordinance. The ordinance also prohibits the mailing of abortion-inducing drugs into Avinger, prohibits abortion trafficking through Avinger, and prohibits waste management companies from trafficking aborted babies through Avinger or disposing of dead babies anywhere within Avinger.

Upon the passage of the measure, Avinger resident and former State Representative David Simpson said, “Avinger is blessed to join cities and counties across Texas who are going as far as they can to address the tragedy of abortion, specifically abortion trafficking and the mailing of abortion-inducing drugs.” The ordinance is part of a cultural shift which views abortion trafficking as no different as sex trafficking or drug trafficking.

Texas Right to Life estimates that there are 30,000 Texas babies aborted each year due to the mailing of abortion-inducing drugs into the state and the abortion trafficking of pregnant mothers and their unborn children outside the state of Texas. The Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinances, which have now been passed in 57 cities and 7 counties across the state, help to reduce these numbers to the best of their ability.

Part of what several cities and counties have accomplished at the local level is being attempted at the state level through bills like the Woman and Child Protection Act (TX HB 5510 / TX SB 2880) and the Stop Tax-Funded Abortion Travel Act (TX SB 33 / TX HB 1806). Those who wish to encourage the Texas legislature to prioritize the passage of such bills can do so by sending the legislature a message through contacting Texas Right to Life.

Citizens who are interested in seeing their city or county pass an ordinance going as far as their city or county can to prohibit abortion are encouraged to sign the online petition on the Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn website.

LifeNews Note: Mark Lee Dickson lives in Texas and is the founder of the Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn Initiative.

The post 74th City in America Passes Law to Ban Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

2 Timothy 4:3

For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires.

Bergoglio's disciples stubbornly continue to rely on him to defy the laws of God and the Church.

Bergoglio's apostate "Bishop" Stowe Affirms Support for ‘Blessings’ of Same-Sex ‘Couples’

Apostate Stowe received New Ways Ministry Award  for his homosexual activism.  

Apostate Stowe’s Diocese Promotes Homosexual Pride Month

Heretic Bishop John Stowe Participates Catholic Dissenters’ Pride Month Event

Episode 77: The Jew And His Bank
April 29 2025

___________________________________
More Vids!
+BN Vids Archive! HERE!
___________________________________
Support The Brother Nathanael Foundation!
Br Nathanael Fnd Is Tax Exempt/EIN 27-2983459

Or Send Your Contribution To:
The Brother Nathanael Foundation, POB 547, Priest River, ID 83856
E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]com
Scroll Down For Comments

Steve Witkoff met the Russian president last week in the latest round of diplomacy on the Ukraine conflict

US special envoy Steve Witkoff sought to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire last week that would halt fighting in the Ukraine conflict along the current frontlines, Bloomberg has reported, citing sources. Putin maintained a firm stance during the lengthy meeting, the sources said.

The discussions on Friday marked the latest in a series of contacts between Moscow and Washington in recent months. Witkoff, seen as a key figure in kickstarting negotiations on the Ukraine conflict, has held multiple rounds of talks with senior Russian officials, including at least three meetings with Putin.

People familiar with the process told Bloomberg on Tuesday that Putin insisted any viable peace deal must include formal recognition of the four former Ukrainian regions that joined Russia after referendums in 2022.

Moscow has long said it is open to negotiations but maintains that the status of Crimea – which joined Russia in 2014 – and the four other regions is not up for discussion.  Moscow insists that recognition of the “reality on the ground” is vital for a lasting peace.

Last week, Axios reported that Washington had presented Kiev with what US President Donald Trump described as a “final offer” to end the conflict. Under the proposal, the US is said to be prepared to grant “de jure” recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, and unofficially acknowledge Moscow’s “de facto” control over the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, as well as the regions of Kherson and Zaporozhye.

Vladimir Zelensky’s subsequent declaration that Kiev would never recognize Crimea as Russian prompted a warning from Trump that he risked losing his whole country if he continued stalling talks with Moscow.

Trump, who met with the Ukrainian leader on the sidelines of Pope Francis’ funeral at the Vatican on Saturday, was later asked by journalists if Zelensky was now prepared to “give up” the peninsula. “Oh, I think so, yeah,” he replied.

One source told Bloomberg that negotiations have stalled for now and that progress would likely require direct contact between Putin and Trump.

The two leaders held a two-hour phone call in March, during which they reaffirmed their commitment to achieving a “lasting peace” rather than a temporary solution to the Ukraine conflict.  Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said earlier this month that a Putin-Trump meeting “will take place” but only “at the appropriate time.”

The upcoming Australian election will be an illustration of how most Western elections will play out in the near future

Australian voters go to the polls next Saturday – voting in this country is compulsory, unlike in most Western democracies – but this is not a task that the electorate is looking forward to with any degree of enthusiasm, let alone optimism.

The choice that confronts the electorate is a bleak one – one commentator has fittingly described this election as “the most dismal in decades.”

Serious policy debate has been non-existent, with both leaders happy to offer meagre handouts to voters – an electricity price reduction from Prime Minister Albanese and a petrol price reduction from Conservative opposition leader Peter Dutton.    

The first term Albanese Labor government has, from any rational viewpoint, proved to be a rank failure and does not deserve to be re-elected – and any competent opposition leader should have been able to win this election easily and dispatch Labor to the opposition benches.

Cost-of-living pressures have increased exponentially over the past three years – energy and food prices have skyrocketed, and house prices and rents in the major cities are now far beyond what ordinary wage earners in this country can afford to pay.

This, according to every poll, is the major issue troubling voters – and the Albanese government has done absolutely nothing to alleviate it.

Australian voters intuitively know, even if they are reluctant to admit it, that both the incumbent Labor government and the Conservative Liberal/National party opposition are incapable of alleviating the cost-of-living crisis. In fact, during the election campaign, both leaders have been reduced to telling outright lies (for example, that heavily subsidized renewable energy projects lead to lower energy prices) about how they will solve the crisis. The electorate’s escalating disenchantment with both major parties should come as no surprise to either Albanese or Dutton.

As yet, however, no political alternative has emerged that offers voters a way out (no matter how illusory) of this seemingly intractable impasse. Australia, in this respect, appears to be a decade or so behind Donald Trump’s America, Nigel Farage’s UK and Marine Le Pen’s France.   

Both major parties in Australia are firmly committed to policies that favor the ruling global elites – with the result that the gap between the economic ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ will only grow wider in the future as the cost-of-living crisis intensifies.

This is hardly surprising, given that Australia has always been a colonial political and economic satrap state of both the UK and the US.

So dependent still is Australia on these waning and decrepit colonial empires – they differ only in the way they enforce their respective colonial hegemonies – that our current head of state is King Charles III, and our economic overlords remain, in the apt words of Woody Guthrie, the “money grubbing racket boys” of Wall Street.

What then are we to make of next week’s election?

If almost all recent polls are to be believed, the inept Albanese Labor government appears to be on track to be re-elected with an increased majority.

How is this altogether surprising state of affairs to be explained?

It cannot be explained by the “achievements” of the Albanese government because, as intelligent Labor supporters know, there have been no achievements. Nor can it be explained by Albanese’s political skills or charisma – he is completely lacking in both – although perhaps his dogged blandness and non-threatening demeanor appeal to some voters.

Nor can it be explained by opposition leader Peter Dutton’s gross political incompetence, his brief flirtation with Trump that backfired disastrously when tariffs were imposed and the stock market crashed (Canada’s Liberal leader did not make this mistake), or the fact that he has run probably the worst election campaign in Australian political history.

The answer lies rather in the inability of the conservative opposition to formulate an effective alternative political agenda to that of the Labor party – and this failure arises not from Dutton’s manifold personal shortcomings, but from the fundamental ideological division at the heart of all mainstream conservative parties in the West.

A deep-seated ideological division has emerged over the past few decades within these parties: between those adhering to traditional middle-class values (individual autonomy, individual rights, the rule of law, a traditional definition of the family, etc.) and those that have embraced the newer woke ideologies of the emerging global elites  (catastrophic climate change, identity politics, DEI, transgender rights, etc).  This division has both economic and cultural aspects, and in the UK it was intensified by the Brexit referendum.

This ideological division has caused serious ongoing instability within all mainstream conservative parties in the West – in Australia and the UK, for example, these parties have been characterized by endless leadership coups that eventually led voters to throw them out of office in recent years.

One important consequence of this ideological division is that mainstream conservative parties cannot wholeheartedly and openly attack woke global ideologies with any degree of vigor  – because many of their politicians and supporters firmly subscribe to such views.

It is this issue that has crippled Dutton’s election campaign.

The Murdoch press and other conservative commentators have constantly urged Dutton to come out and explicitly attack dominant woke ideologies – that is, to adopt a fully-fledged Trump-like populist political agenda.

Dutton, however, has refused to do so – because it is simply impossible for him to do so within the framework of the mainstream conservative political party that he so tenuously leads.

If he tried to, he would alienate a large segment of his own party as well as a sizable component of conservative voters – thereby causing the coalition parties to split. More importantly, no traditional mainstream political party that is serious about winning an election can at present afford to openly attack dominant global ideologies – a majority of voters adhere to them, and no mainstream party can win office if it alienates a significant segment of these voters.

Dutton, therefore, has found himself in an impossible position.  

This was graphically illustrated in one of the recent televised debates, when a journalist asked Dutton if he believed in climate change. Dutton responded by saying “I will leave that to the scientists” – notwithstanding that the opposition is committed to the Paris accords and net zero.

This non-answer, of course, pleased no one. It alienated those conservative and undecided voters who firmly believe in climate change ideology – but it also alienated those conservative voters who believe that the climate change ideology has had lasting and pernicious economic effects.

In refusing to take a firm stand on this key issue, Dutton appears to stand for nothing. Does he really think that disgruntled voters who cannot afford to pay their electricity bills believe that climate change is just a matter for the scientists? 

It must surely be obvious to Dutton that, in order to win over those disaffected voters who have been left behind by globalization and who are being increasingly marginalized by the cost-of-living crisis, he has to openly attack dominant woke ideologies like catastrophic climate change – because it is precisely these voters who completely reject, for very sound economic and cultural reasons, such elite doctrines.

This, however, is Dutton’s dilemma – in order to differentiate the opposition from Labor and attract the increasing number of disaffected voters, Dutton is obliged to openly attack dominant woke ideologies, but, as the leader of a mainstream conservative party, he simply cannot do so. 

Dutton’s dilemma is also UK opposition leader Kemi Badenoch’s dilemma – and it is a dilemma that right-wing commentators who urge mainstream conservative party leaders to miraculously transform themselves into Trump-like populists utterly fail to understand.

These commentators also fail to appreciate that, apart from the difficulties described above, two further insurmountable problems face conservative leaders seeking to instantly morph into populists – they would have to adopt an isolationist foreign policy stance, and they would have to at least pretend to represent the interests of the displaced working class.

Dutton – just like Badenoch – is, however, a fervent Cold War warrior (fiercely anti-Russian and anti-Chinese) and a supporter of the Zelensky regime in Ukraine, as well as being a strident opponent of moderate trade union demands (he even consistently opposes basic wage increases).

Trump, of course, can readily promise to end the conflict in Ukraine and accept endorsement from the head of the Teamsters Union – policy stances utterly impossible for a conservative leader like Dutton to even contemplate.

If the above analysis is correct, and, as nearly all the polls predict, Dutton loses next week’s election, it follows that the conservative coalition in Australia will have no viable long-term future – in much the same way that the UK Conservative party appears to be doomed to political oblivion in the near future. This week’s local elections in the UK will be an important indicator of that party’s fate.

If the Albanese government is returned to office with a majority, as seems likely, Dutton will no doubt be deposed as leader, but in fairness to Dutton, his shadow cabinet colleagues – who he has wisely kept hidden away during the election campaign – are all far less competent politicians than he is.

There is, of course, an alternative scenario – one that mirrors the recent emergence of populist parties in other Western democracies – namely that the coalition parties will split and the right-wing segments of the Liberal and National parties will coalesce to form a new, genuinely populist party with a radically different political program.

This is a distinct possibility – although it may take some time to eventuate and would involve a significant amount of blood-letting and political disruption.

A new populist party would face a revitalized Labor party – energized by winning an election under an uninspiring leader that it did not deserve to win – but still firmly committed to elite ideologies and programs that can only deepen the cost-of-living crisis that continues to brutally divide Australia.

If the conservative coalition’s dilemma is that it cannot attack elite ideologies and programs, the Labor party’s dilemma (much like that of the Democratic party in America and the UK Labour party) is that it is firmly and irretrievably committed to them.

Whatever the consequences of next Saturday’s election it is safe to predict that the chronic ongoing instability that has characterized Australian politics for the past few decades – and politics in the West more generally – will only intensify.

In that sense nothing much will change – and there is a more fundamental historical continuity in the Australian context at work here.

In 1964, Donald Horne, a prominent Australian intellectual, wrote a book titled “The Lucky Country” in which he described Australia as follows: “Australia is a lucky country ruled mainly by second-rate people… It lives on other people’s ideas, and although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders… lack curiosity about the events that surround them.”

Horne could easily have been writing about Dutton and Albanese and next Saturday’s federal election.

The bloc’s attempts to belittle the Soviet role in the victory over Nazism are a “disgrace,” the filmmaker has told RT

Attempts by EU elites to diminish the significance of the USSR’s contribution to the victory over Nazism are a “perversion of history,” Oscar-winning American movie director Oliver Stone has told RT ahead of World War II Victory Day celebrations in Russia.

The bloc’s “elitist leadership” has distorted the message that World War II provides to humanity, the filmmaker has said. “I’m shocked by it, by [what] is happening,” he stated, calling it “a shame” and “a disgrace that we forgot or pretend to [have forgotten]” about the sacrifices the Soviet Union made during the war. Stone also said he did not believe people in Europe “buy this at all.”

“I think the people don’t agree with the government,” Stone maintained, going on to say that “the futility of this campaign against Russia by the EU” is obvious to “anybody, who reads history [books] and is intelligent.” The director of ‘Platoon’ and ‘JFK’ expressed his doubts that “fascism is popular” nowadays and stated instead that European elites had lost their way because of their “worship of the EU.”

“We are not back to the times of Hitler, but what is happening is a loss of perspective and we need to get back to a sense of reason,” Stone told RT as he called on Western leaders to “listen to the Russians” instead of antagonizing them.

He also expressed his hope that the US and Russia would manage to mend their relationship, opening the way to a better future for humanity. “Russia and the United States are a great partnership, as is China, by the way, and I think we could have a world that is much safer… if we all get together and realize that it’s a multilateral world.”

US President Donald Trump’s administration has been engaged in efforts to restore bilateral ties with Russia and resolve the Ukraine conflict.

On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that America now has a “better” understanding of the Russian position on the crisis. Moscow’s key conditions for ending the conflict are Ukraine’s neutrality, demilitarization, and recognition of the new territorial reality on the ground.

Last week, Trump also said that Russian President Vladimir Putin was easier to deal with than Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky.

Russian officials maintain they have always been ready to engage in peace talks, provided the discussions aim for a permanent solution that addresses the root causes of the conflict. Moscow has rejected any temporary agreement, explaining that it could be used by Kiev and its backers to rearm the Ukrainian military.

As President Donald Trump marks his first 100 days in office, National Right to Life praises the work the president has done on behalf of the right to life.

“We thank President Trump for his steadfast commitment to the right to life,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance have been vital allies of the pro-life movement and the work the movement is doing to protect innocent preborn lives.”

Continued Tobias, “President Trump’s first actions in office include the critical undertaking of reversing the extreme pro-abortion policies of the Biden-Harris administration.”

Pro-life accomplishments of the Trump administration include:

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

• Enforcing the Hyde Amendment – Over the course of nearly five decades, the Hyde Amendment has saved an estimated 250,000 lives. An Executive Order signed by President Trump reversed Biden-era Executive Orders that blatantly violated the Hyde Amendment as well as other similar riders and amendments. The Biden-era Orders reversed were: Executive Order 14076 which mandated a whole-of-government approach of protecting unlimited abortions and imposing draconian measures on violations and Executive Order 14079 which recategorized abortion as “health care.”
• Ended the Federal Funding of Abortion Overseas – President Trump reinstated Mexico City Policy and the United States also reentered the Geneva Consensus Declaration. Co-founded by the United States in 2020 under President Trump, the Declaration is a coalition of more than 30 countries united in affirming the inherent dignity of every human being, the importance of women’s health without endorsing abortion, and the sovereignty of nations to protect life through their own laws.
• Working to Stop the Federal Funding of Abortion – President Trump stopped federal funds from being used to reimburse travel expenses for abortions by the Department of Defense, stopped the Department of Veterans Affairs from allowing VA hospitals to perform abortions and stopped the Department of Health and Human Services from paying for abortions for those who entered the country illegally.
• Strongly Supports H.R. 21, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act – the White House applauded the House of Representatives for its efforts to protect the most vulnerable and prevent infanticide.
• Restored Millions in Title X Funding to Oklahoma and Tennessee – the two states were previously cut off under the Biden administration for refusing to provide abortion referrals.
• Title X Funding on Hold to Planned Parenthood Affiliates – According to an HHS spokesperson, this is “to ensure these entities are in full compliance with Federal law and applicable grant terms, and to ensure responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.”
• President Trump was the first president to attend the March for Life in person during his first administration. Though unable to attend in person in 2025, the president addressed the March via video and Vice President Vance addressed the March in person.

“The Trump administration continues to protect and defend innocent human life,” said Tobias. “We look forward to seeing more great things from President Trump and Vice President Vance.”

The post Here’s 7 Pro-Life Actions President Trump Has Taken During His First 100 Days appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The feast day of the great Saint Catherine of Siena is on April 29.

Known for her holiness, Saint Catherine was a mystic, theologian, philosopher, and spiritual advisor.

Famously, she helped convince Pope Gregory XI to return to Rome (the papacy had resided in Avignon, France, for decades).

Today, she is honored as a Doctor of the Church and is the patron saint of Europe, Rome, and Italy. She is generally revered as one of the greatest saints in Church history.

Despite all of her accomplishments, one of the most inspiring and instructive events of Saint Catherine of Siena's life was her death.

Attached to the end of her most famous work, The Dialogue of Saint Catherine of Siena, is a letter written by Ser Barduccio di Piero Canigiani, where he describes his eyewitness experience of the final moments of Saint Catherine.

Here’s what he says happened to Saint Catherine of Siena:

Just before her 33rd birthday, Saint Catherine became ill such that eating and drinking became difficult for her. After a few weeks of suffering, she had a stroke so terrible that her caregivers thought she had died. However, while they were mourning her apparent passing, she suddenly awoke, stood up, and “did not seem the same person as she who had fallen.”

That’s when things started to get interesting.

Her bodily suffering increased, but so did her devotion to prayer. She would pray 1 to 2 hours in the morning, walk a mile to Saint Peter’s Basilica (she was in Rome), and spend the rest of the day there in prayer, “returning to the house so worn out that she seemed a corpse.”

Finally, her body gave out again, and she was confined to her bed. But her suffering was not only physical, but spiritual:

These sufferings continued for the next eight weeks. Yet as a new wave of pain washed over her,

This continual suffering took a physical toll:

This all continued until the morning of the next Sunday, when she seemed to become aware that her end was drawing near and asked for absolution from a priest for her sins. A priest arrived and offered her both absolution and Extreme Unction (Anointing of the Sick).

Then suddenly, it appeared to those around Saint Catherine of Siena that she was experiencing a demonic attack:

Then Saint Catherine of Siena sat up, fixed her eyes on the crucifix in the room, and prayed aloud:

“It is my fault, oh eternal Trinity, that I have offended You so miserably with my negligence, ignorance, ingratitude, and disobedience, and many other defects. Wretch that I am! For I have not observed Your commandments, either those which are given in general to all, or those which Your goodness laid upon me in particular! Oh, mean creature that I am!

“Saying which, she struck her breast, repeating her confession, and continued: I have not observed Your precept, with which You commanded me to seek always to give You honor, and to spend myself in labors for my neighbor, while I, on the contrary, have fled from labors, especially where they were necessary.

“Did You not command me, oh, my God! to abandon all thought of myself and to consider solely the praise and glory of Your Name in the salvation of souls, and with this food alone, taken from the table of the most holy Cross, to comfort myself? But I have sought my own consolation. You did ever invite me to bind myself to You alone by sweet, loving, and fervent desires, by tears and humble and continuous prayers for the salvation of the whole world and for the reformation of the holy Church, promising me that, on account of them, You would use mercy with the world, and give new beauty to Your Spouse; but I, wretched one, have not corresponded with Your desire, but have remained asleep in the bed of negligence.

“Oh, unhappy that I am! You have placed me in charge of souls, assigning to me so many beloved sons, that I should love them with singular love and direct them to You by the way of Life, but I have been to them nothing but a mirror of human weakness; I have had no care of them; I have not helped them with continuous and humble prayer in Your presence, nor have I given them sufficient examples of the good life or the warnings of salutary doctrine.

“Oh, mean creature that I am! With how little reverence have I received Your innumerable gifts, the graces of such sweet torments and labors which it pleased You to accumulate on this fragile body, nor have I endured them with that burning desire and ardent love with which You sent them to me.

“Alas! oh, my Love, through Your excessive goodness You chose me for Your spouse, from the beginning of my childhood, but I was not faithful enough; in fact, I was unfaithful to You, because I did not keep my memory faithful to You alone and to Your most high benefits; nor have I fixed my intelligence on the thought of them only or disposed my will to love You immediately with all its strength.”

Then Saint Catherine of Siena requested a plenary indulgence from the priest, saying the pope granted it to her.

She turned her attention to those present and, among other things, asked them to forgive her for not caring enough about their salvation. She exhorted everyone to love and follow Jesus above all other things.

She turned her attention back to God, and, making the Sign of the Cross, prayed aloud, 

Finally, imitating the example of Christ, she said, “Father, into Your Hands I commend my soul and my spirit,” and died.

Ser Barduccio di Piero Canigiani reports she died “sweetly, with a face all shining and angelical, she bent her head, and gave up the ghost.”

Her body was left unburied for two days, “without any odor being perceptible, her body remaining so pure, intact, and fragrant, that her arms, her neck, and her legs remained as flexible as if she were still alive.”

Saint Catherine of Siena, pray for us!

An explosive new study is revealing that the abortion drug is significantly more dangerous than government health agencies have previously claimed. The Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) published a report Monday detailing the dangers associated with the use of the abortion drug mifepristone. The study found that, although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims that less than half a percent of women experience serious complications, the actual rate of damage done by the drug is significantly higher.

Touted as the “largest-known study of the abortion pill,” the EPPC report examined data from an insurance database, covering 865,727 prescribed mifepristone abortions committed between 2017 and 2023. Here are some of the study’s most important findings.

More than 1 in 10 Women Experience Complications from Mifepristone

According to the EPPC’s report, 10.93% of women who used the abortion drug mifepristone experienced serious complications within 45 days as a result. Complications included sepsis (0.10% of cases), infection (1.34%), transfusion (0.15%), hemorrhage (3.31%), abortion-related hospitalization (0.66%), abortion-related emergency room visit (4.73%), ectopic pregnancy (0.35%), unspecified other abortion-specific complications (5.68%), and other life-threatening adverse events (0.22%), including cardiac and pulmonary events, thrombosis, anaphylaxis, and the necessity of surgery. In nearly 3% of instances, use of mifepristone to commit abortion was followed by surgical abortion because the drug failed.

EPPC’s report noted, “Simply stated, mifepristone, as used in real-world conditions, is not ‘safe and effective.’”

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

The FDA’s Research on Mifepristone Is Inadequate

The EPPC’s report finds that complications arising from mifepristone are at least 22 times more common than the 0.5% of cases touted by the FDA. The new report is, according to EPPC, “the most comprehensive study of chemical abortion safety ever conducted in the U.S.” It relies on data collected from 28 times more mifepristone abortions than the FDA’s research does and, further, is more recent and more accurate to real-world circumstances. The EPPC noted that the FDA relies “entirely on data from more than a decade ago” from “a prescreened group of generally healthy women recruited into various clinical trials conducted at different times around the world.”

The cases examined by the organization “are broadly representative of the women who obtain mifepristone abortions in the U.S.” and “receive (or fail to receive) pre- and post-abortion healthcare of the real-world quality that prevails in the America today, not the carefully controlled regimen of care that ordinarily prevails in a clinical trial.”

The FDA Needs to Revise Its Standards for Mifepristone Prescription

Given the results of the report, the EPPC made several recommendations for the FDA to revise its policy regarding the prescription and use of mifepristone and “reinstate the original patient safety protocols that were required when mifepristone was first approved” in 2000. At that time, prerequisites for a mifepristone prescription included three in-person physician visits, the drug could only be prescribed by a physician, could only be dispensed in a physician’s office, and had to be taken in a physician’s office. There were also requirements for a follow-up physician visit and for adverse event reporting.

In 2016, under then-President Barack Obama, the safeguards were weakened, allowing for the drug to be prescribed up to 10 weeks instead of seven, removing the requirement for a physician to be the one prescribing the drug and eliminating the mandate that the manufacturer report any adverse events to the FDA other than death. The in-person dispensing requirement in the physician’s office, however, remained intact. In 2021, the Biden administration watered down the safeguards even further by eliminating the in-person visit requirement and the requirement for the drug to be dispensed in the physician’s office.

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

The post Abortion Pills Injure 11% of Women Who Take Them appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Depending on circumstance, habitual optimism can be both an American virtue and an American vice. Currently, there is a pervading atmosphere of misplaced political optimism regarding the Trump administration’s policies among many Catholics. I say misplaced, not only because of the false hope in Liberalism that it assumes and engenders, but because it distracts Catholics from taking advantage of…

Source

Last week Gov. Sanders signed a good law to prohibit certain abortions if Arkansas’ pro-life laws ever change.

Since 2022, abortion in Arkansas has been prohibited except to save the life of the mother. This year the Arkansas Legislature passed a law clarifying and closing possible loopholes in the state’s pro-life laws.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Arkansas enacted dozens of different laws restricting and prohibiting abortion — including laws protecting unborn children from being aborted because of their sex or because they may be at risk for Down Syndrome. Technically, those good laws are still on the books, and they could be enforced if a federal court ever blocked Arkansas’ laws that generally prohibit abortion.

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

S.B. 591 by Sen. Clint Penzo (R — Springdale) and Rep. Karilyn Brown (R — Sherwood) would prohibit abortions performed due to the unborn baby’s race if Arkansas’ pro-life laws are ever amended or struck down.

This good law passed with overwhelming support in the Arkansas House and Arkansas Senate. On April 22, Gov. Sanders signed it — making it Act 973 of 2025.

Family Council was very pleased to work with our friends in the legislature to secure passage of Act 973. We appreciate lawmakers’ continued dedication to upholding the sanctity and dignity of human life, and we appreciate Gov. Sanders signing this good law.

The post Arkansas Governor Signs Pro-Life Law to Ban Abortions on Babies With Down Syndrome appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Hungary’s parliament has approved a bill to withdraw from the International Criminal Court

Hungary’s National Assembly has voted to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has announced. He described the institution as biased and discredited.

The decision was passed with a more than two-thirds majority on Tuesday.

“The Hungarian Parliament just voted to withdraw from the @IntlCrimCourt. With this decision, we refuse to be part of a politicized institution that has lost its impartiality and credibility,” Szijjarto wrote on X.

Earlier this month, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban accused the ICC of losing its impartiality and becoming a “political tribunal.” He announced his intention to end Budapest’s participation during a visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Hungary.

Last November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as three figures in the Hamas leadership, accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

READ MORE: ICC responds to appeal of Netanyahu arrest warrant

US President Donald Trump has sanctioned the ICC and its chief prosecutor Karim Khan for going after top Israeli officials. The US is not a party to the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty, and neither are China, Russia, and Israel, among others.

In March of 2023, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and children’s rights commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova over alleged unlawful deportation and transfer of children from former Ukrainian territories. Moscow has criticized the order as “null and void,” insisting that the children were evacuated from the front line for their own safety, and can be returned to their legal guardians upon request.

The judicial body lacks the ability to enforce its warrants, and relies on member states to detain and transfer suspects.

Hungary’s withdrawal requires notifying the UN Secretary-General, after which it will take effect one year later. Until then, Hungary remains obligated to cooperate with the ICC under the terms of the Rome Statute.

Compromise is sometimes necessary for survival, Alexander Stubb has told The New York Times

Finnish President Alexander Stubb has suggested that Ukraine will have to make certain concessions to Russia in order to ensure its survival and continue receiving Western military support. Moscow has dismissed any resolution of the conflict that allows Ukraine to remain a threat.

On Sunday, Stubb shared his thoughts with The New York Times on how to align US President Donald Trump more closely with the positions held by Kiev and Washington’s European NATO allies, as the White House seeks to mediate a compromise in the ongoing Ukraine conflict.

He drew a historical parallel between Ukraine and Finland, which participated in Nazi Germany’s 1941 invasion of the USSR to reclaim territory it had lost in the Winter War earlier. As a result of being on the losing side, Finland faced military restrictions and observed neutrality during the Cold War. It formally joined NATO only in 2023, after years of military cooperation with the US-led alliance.

Stubb reflected on the essence of statehood, comprising land, sovereignty, and independence. He noted that Finland lost two of these three elements in the 1940s, adding, “If we get at least two out of the three for Ukraine, I think it’s great.”

Earlier this month, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky publicly rejected American proposals reported in the media. Subsequently, Kiev and its European backers crafted a counteroffer for Trump’s consideration.

Stubb suggested that the two plans should be “repackaged” into a viable proposal through “a little bit of creative writing.” If a ceasefire with Russia is achieved, Ukraine could be armed “to the teeth” by European NATO members, with a “backstop from the US,” he asserted. The current objective is to “maximize the pressure” on Russian President Vladimir Putin, Stubb added.

Russia perceives the Ukraine conflict as a NATO proxy war led by a Western-backed “neo-Nazi regime” in Kiev.

Moscow has repeatedly criticized the EU’s continued flow of armaments to Ukraine, arguing that Western European nations appear more interested in prolonging the fighting rather than resolving the conflict diplomatically.

Michael Waltz has urged Washington to closely monitor how Kiev is spending the financial aid it receives

US National Security Adviser Michael Waltz has called for proper oversight of the financial assistance Washington provides to Kiev. In a Monday interview with Fox News, the top state official called Ukraine one of the most corrupt nations in the world.

The US Congress has authorized roughly $175 billion for Ukraine since 2022, although a significant portion of that funding has gone to American industries and government activities related to the conflict.

Waltz’s comment comes days after US President Donald Trump held a face-to-face conversation with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky on the sidelines of Pope Francis’ funeral at the Vatican.

“I will say Ukraine was one of, and is one of, the most corrupt countries in the world,” Waltz said, highlighting that Washington has to “always guard the taxpayer dollars.”

The official also rebuked the administration of Trump’s predecessor for its failure to provide proper oversight of the way Kiev was spending the financial aid provided by the White House at the time.

“We have to keep a hard eye on that, […] but secondly we have to find opportunities to end the war,” he said.

Waltz, who had previously said that Washington must be reimbursed by Kiev for the “investments” it has made in the conflict, also accused the Ukrainian leader of intractability. He recalled the shouting match which took place at the White House earlier this year.

“Rather than trying to correct the President of the US and the Vice President in the Oval Office when he was invited there for the first meeting, he could have sat side by side with the president, signing a minerals deal that bound our economies,” the adviser said.

Washington and Kiev have been discussing a deal for weeks that would grant the US access to Ukraine’s deposits of rare-earth minerals.

The Trump administration insists that the agreement should be used to compensate the US for past aid to Ukraine. Kiev, however, has maintained that the assistance was provided unconditionally.

According to Germany’s Kiel Institute for the World Economy, as of October 2024, the US had provided Ukraine with approximately $92 billion in financial and military assistance. Meanwhile, the US-based Council on Foreign Relations estimated that Washington’s financial assistance to Kiev amounted to $195 billion as of April 2024, with $128 billion worth of the aid having gone straight to the government of Ukraine.

Pentagon Inspector General Robert Storch reported last November that “corruption continues to complicate Ukraine’s efforts to achieve its EU and NATO aspirations,” particularly due to multiple scandals in the Defense Ministry.

I finally watched the film Conclave and, as I had expected, I was distinctly unimpressed by it. It was very well produced and right up until the end was quite convincingly and realistically portrayed and then… …it descended into ludicrous farce. The result is a highly pernicious, not to say diabolical, film. Why? Because the beginning air of realism and apparent normality…

Source