While states like New York are actively advancing assisted suicide legislation, Republicans in Nevada are working hard to quash any such effort.

On Friday, the Nevada Legislature put the brakes on a controversial bill, Assembly Bill 346, that would have legalized physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill, mentally competent adults with six months or less to live. Before it was shelved, the legislation already had a rocky journey.

It barely passed the Assembly with a 23-19 vote. But it hit a wall in the Senate as it failed to advance past a critical committee deadline of last Friday. Assemblymember Joe Dalia, the Democratic co-sponsor of the bill, told News 4 Fox that he predicted the bill’s failure — partly because he lacked confidence in Senate support, and partly because state Governor Joe Lombardo (R) had promised to veto the measure if it ever made it to his desk.

“We’re not deterred,” Dalia said on behalf of the Democrats pushing the effort. “[W]e’re going to keep pressing forward. … Hopefully, next session we can come back with a full head of steam and get this done.” He continued to note that their “goal from day one was to bring a bipartisan bill that got through both houses in a position where the governor would be comfortable signing it. Coming into this deadline day, we just didn’t feel like we were going to get there and bridge that divide.”

Follow LifeNews on the MeWe social media network for the latest pro-life news free from Facebook’s censorship!

Despite Dalia’s confidence, state Republicans have proven to be equally as passionate about blocking his legislation. In fact, Friday’s development marks the sixth time since 2017 that assisted suicide legislation has been shut down. And should a bill related to this issue pass the Senate committee in the future, Lombardo’s promise remains intact.

Sarah Davenport-Smith of the Patients’ Rights Action Fund explained to LifeNews, “The bill started out in the Assembly and the first hearing was through a non-traditional ad-hoc committee of hand-picked proponents of assisted suicide.” From there, she added, “The rules of public testimony and a fair hearing did not apply. AB 346 unfortunately was amended and passed the Assembly in a 23-19 vote.” But after this, Davenport-Smith said that the NV Coalition and advocates came together to help score Friday’s pro-life victory.

As she put it, “Our NV Coalition and fellow advocates wasted no time in constantly meeting with key Senators, sending in emails, reaching outside of our Coalition to pull in more influence, and writing excellent op-eds and letters to the editor in various newspapers. Their work paid off! In the end, the votes were not even present in the Senate committee.” Looking ahead, she emphasized resilience. “We know that pro-assisted suicide advocates won’t be giving up, so we certainly won’t quit.”

Dr. Kirk Bronander, an internal medicine physician, also weighed in. In an op-ed published in the Reno Gazette Journal, he noted that, “once again, the proponents of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) or ‘medical aid in dying’ have brought forth another bill to the Legislature trying to legalize this dangerous practice in Nevada.” He went on to explain how the bill “has many flaws, just like the laws that legalize this in other states.”

For instance, “Eligibility will be open to anyone who has been diagnosed with a terminal condition and are likely to die within six months without treatment.” The problem with this, the doctor argued, is that [the] timing of death is “difficult to determine.” And the reality is that “inaccurate diagnoses or prognoses coupled with physician-assisted suicide will result in patients dying that may have years of a good quality life remaining.”

In addition to this issue, Bronander emphasized that “PAS laws allow physicians to diagnose a terminal condition, give the prognosis and prescribe a deadly treatment.” He warned that “having a second doctor or provider sign off is not a safeguard” since it’s “easy to find one other prescriber to agree with the prescribing physician.” Ultimately, he asked, “Do you trust that every doctor has the patient’s best interest at heart? I do not.”

In his conclusion, Bronander advised caution. “Remember, it will always be cheaper for an insurance company to pay for this over expensive life-sustaining treatments,” he wrote. “The safeguards that will be touted by proponents are inadequate making it easy for abuses to occur with no ability to discover the abuse since the only victim and witness will be dead. I urge you to look into the facts and think about the unintended consequences of this bill. Let’s work to give people more care at the end of life but let’s refuse to legalize physician-assisted suicide in Nevada.”

LifeNews Note: Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand, where this originally appeared.

The post Nevada Democrats Threaten to Keep Pushing Bill to Legalize Assisted Suicide appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The furor over a landmark bill legalizing assisted suicide in the United Kingdom is growing more acute day by day. Originally scheduled to proceed to a near-final vote in the House of Commons on April 25, resistance to the measure continues to build so that final passage now seems far from assured. Meanwhile, news stories about assisted suicide in Canada and the United States show that Britain is not the only locus of historic debates over the future of a practice that confronts a foundational principle of Hippocratic medicine — “First, Do No Harm.”

The U.K. bill, which passed its first vote last November, is now in the Parliamentary stage called Third Reading, having completed what is known in Britain as the committee stage, where a smaller group of members of Parliament (MPs) gathered to hear testimony and considered amendments to the bill, called the “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.” Fourteen of the 23 members of Parliament who participated in the committee stage were supportive of the bill in November but perhaps dozens of the original votes for the bill, which passed the full Commons 330-275, were cast with the expressed intention to move the legislation along to the next stage of the process and not to provide final endorsement.

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

As it turned out, the committee stage elucidated continuing criticisms of what is also known as the Leadbeater bill, for its prime sponsor, MP Kim Leadbeater, a Labour Party member from Spen Valley, who is a younger member of Parliament with a history in physical health as a personal trainer. The committee stage ended on March 25 with the adoption and rejection of various amendments that did not, overall, resolve questions about the impact of the legislation.

The vast majority of the amendments, and the bulk of continuing concern, can be traced to the bill’s lack of safeguards for the most vulnerable people under its jurisdiction. The lack of specific protection for the mentally ill, the financially stressed, people who fear becoming a burden on society or their family, people with physical anomalies that are difficult but not a harbinger of death in the near term — all of these, not slippery slope arguments so much as recognition of the self-sacrificing character that might persuade someone to end their life via assisted suicide, were debated in the committee stage without positive resolution. One proposed amendment would have ensured that applicants could not seek assisted suicide “because of an impairment of judgment arising from a mental disorder.” It was voted down, 12-9. Another amendment ensuring that applicants must be told the side effects of lethal drugs was rejected, 13-9.

Last week, the bill moved again before the full House of Commons in what is termed the Report Stage. As in the United States, a measure fraught with medical judgments about not only the capacity of individuals to choose assisted suicide but the adequacy of physicians and other providers to evaluate patients and assess palliative care and other options has continued to spur professional medical opposition. The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP), in advance of the debate on May 16, issued a statement reaffirming its inability to support the Leadbeater bill. Among the statement’s concerns is the lack of “a requirement for holistic assessment of unmet needs” that might lead a vulnerable person to request assisted suicide. “Treatable needs,” the RCP said, “such as intolerable pain, financial hardship and inadequate care or housing can make a person want to die. Yet the Bill makes no provision to assess unmet needs at any stage, nor consult others involved in the person’s care or life.”

The RCP statement raises practical concerns as well about the lack of a sufficient number of psychiatrists able to participate in the review panels envisioned under the bill. In the committee stage, Leadbeater advocates replaced the guarantee of individual judicial review of requests for suicide with the panel approach, and each panel would be required to have a psychiatrist among its members. The RCP argues that this is unworkable. Moreover, it raises the concern that while the bill now allows physicians, including psychiatrists, to refuse to participate in assisted suicide decisions and refer patients to another doctor instead, psychiatrists “are still required to signpost patients to information on AD/AS. For some psychiatrists who wish to conscientiously object, this would constitute being involved in the AD/AS process.”

On May 9, another RCP, the Royal College of Physicians, while still officially neutral on the legalization of assisted suicide, issued a formal statement powerfully objecting to the adequacy of the safeguards in the Leadbeater bill. It endorsed the concerns of RCPsychiatrists that another longstanding U.K. law, the Mental Capacity Act, is inadequate to the task of properly assessing the validity of a patient decision to elect suicide, compromising doctors’ ability to participate in these judgments. “We are concerned,” the RCPhysicians declared, “that patients would not have equitable choice of services because of the inequity of availability, and under-provision of end of life care and palliative care in England and Wales. These inequities of care are particularly present for more disadvantaged populations. There are widespread shortages in health and social care staff who provide these services, alongside increasing demand and very wide variation of where, when and how the services are delivered or available.”

The medical professionals’ judgments are matched by those of a wide variety of social service agencies in the nation, some of whom have taken to labeling the proposal a “state suicide service.” Groups described by one media outlet as “including Christians and other religious groups, humanists, medics and disability groups” rallied outside Parliament last Friday in opposition to the bill, which they say will have a devastating impact in an environment where health and social services are inadequate and will drive many patients to select death due to a perception of no better alternatives.

The U.K. might be the current leader in this debate over the future of a Culture of Death, but it is not the only place where this controversy is roiling the public mind. The Leadbeater bill would cover England and Wales. Meanwhile, the Scottish Parliament on May 14 voted 70 to 56 to approve separate legislation to legalize assisted suicide in that nation. The bill, backed by member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) Liam McArthur, titled the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) bill, is described as “extreme” by right to life advocates. Unlike the British bill, which requires a judgment that an applicant for suicide have only six months to live, no time limit is specified — only that the person have an “advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death.” Opponents contend this definition is so vague that it could reach people whose death is decades in the future, including “conditions such as anorexia, Down’s syndrome, and people with disabilities.”

Recent media reports from Canada describe how some physicians there are promptly suggesting assisted suicide to patients with less than terminal conditions or who have been denied medical care they seek under the nation’s unitary health care system. The situation has become so stark that in mid-April even the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) slammed the underlying Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) law as promotion of “negative, ableist perceptions” of disabled people. As in the U.K., where social service availability is under question and budgets are strained, the impulse to advance death-dealing initiatives to reduce costs is an underplayed aspect of the debate.

In the United States, news is more mixed. A proposal for assisted suicide failed in Nevada, a relatively liberal state not known for its taste in sound social policy. A bill, which has received favorable votes in the legislature, failed when Republican Governor Joe Lombardo issued a strong veto threat against it: “Expansions in palliative care services and continued improvements in advanced pain management make the end-of-life-provisions in AB346 unnecessary, and I would encourage the 2025 Legislature to disregard AB346 because I will not sign it.”

Meanwhile, in New York, where assisted suicide would potentially affect a large swath of people, the state legislature greeted the month of May by passing the Medical Aid in Dying Act (A136/S138). U.S. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) promptly scorned its passage as “putting the elderly, disabled, and terminally ill at risk of coercion and despair.” While the bill passed the State Assembly by a margin of 81-67, advocates for the disabled and their allies hope that the opposition of 20 Assembly Democrats on final passage and the need for New York Senate approval may upend the bill before it reaches Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul, who has not expressed her intentions should it reach her desk.

If approved in New York, assisted suicide would be the law in 11 states and the District of Columbia. Budgetary woes in the United States alongside erosion of respect for human life are a potentially potent combination in the debate over New York’s and similar laws. As in the U.K., disability groups remain strong opponents of these statutes. They have played a major role in the U.K. in holding up passage of the Leadbeater bill, which may yet fail of final adoption and which has consumed far more time and debate than its original sponsors hoped for. An organization in the U.K. called Our Duty of Care frames the debate well. It opposes assisted suicide because “Vulnerable people must be protected from pressure to take their own lives. The lives of disabled & dying people have value and worth. Trust in the clinician-patient relationship must be preserved. It’s the only way to prevent future extension to children, people with non-terminal illness and those who are tired of life.”

We will soon know if the heroic campaign by churches, disability campaigners, members of Parliament, media voices, right to life groups, and medical leaders in the U.K. will be enough to block a law its sponsors thought would sail through to Royal Assent. In many ways, this may be the most important bill considered by any democratic body in a generation. In any event, the narrow margins at work here are a strong reminder why every vote counts.

LifeNews Note: Chuck Donovan is a 50-year veteran of the national debate over the right to life and served from 1981-89 as a writer in the Reagan White House.He is the former Executive Vice President of Family Research Council.

The post British Pro-Life Groups Fighting Hard to Defeat Radical Assisted Suicide Bill appeared first on LifeNews.com.

 The Chicago Way — Yore 

Posted by Elizabeth Yore with comments-

As a lifetime Chicago cradle Catholic and clergy sex abuse investigator and child advocate attorney, the address by Cardinal Prevost in May of 2023 at the Universidad Católica Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo, portends alarming theological and ecclesiastic tribulation for the Catholic Church as the newly elected Pope Leo XIV guides the Catholic Church—I mean the “New Synodal Church.”

Frankly, it’s shocking and inconceivable that a newly elected pontiff would cite as his guiding light the theology of Joseph Bernardin, a known sexual predator and radical collaborator of Marxist and community activist, Saul Alinsky. Here are a few books for Pope Leo XIV to read in the first months of his pontificate: 1)Malachi Martin’s Windswept House- Special attention should be given to the grotesque and demonic first chapter where a priest assists in the Satanic Enthronement of the Fallen Angel Lucifer Ceremony. That person in the satanic ritual is known as Cardinal Leonardine aka Joseph Bernardin. Malachi Martin described the scene as pure fact, only the names were changed. 2) The Rite of Sodomy-Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church authored by Randy Engel. In grueling and authoritative detail, Ms. Engel lays out the radical progressive agenda of the Catholic clerical homosexuals which not only shaped the “AmChurch” and destroyed the lives of thousands of innocent boys. To learn about your mentor, Joseph Bernardin begin on page 562 where he is described as “a flaming homosexual.”

In 1986, Bernardin paid to send Barack Obama to California to attend an Alinsky community organizing Marxist training seminar. The radical alignment of the Chicago Catholic Archdiocese under Bernardin and the Alinsky Marxists undermined the American Catholic Church and gave birth to the moral relativism of Bernardin’s seamless garment religion, which is referenced in Prevost’s speech.

Prevost espouses the “seamless garment” radical ideology of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, former Archbishop of Chicago. It is long overdue that American Catholics wake up about the real Joseph Bernardin, not the slick media puff pieces that defined his time in Chicago as Cardinal Archbishop. Pope Leo XIV better brush up on the Chicago Way of catholicism which ruined the American Catholic Church.

[https://www.yorechildren.com/blog/2025/5/20/the-chicago-way]

Card. Prevost: You can’t be pro-life without opposing capital punishment

Apostate Joseph Bernardin, a homosexual, anti-Catholic Satanist like the Predator McCarrick, usurped the position of cardinal.

Lavender Mafia 

Joseph Louis Bernardin homosexual predator and gay activist

Catholic bishops helped to fund Alinsky training for Barack Obama, according to documents

 Joseph Bernardin and his rapid pushing of the so-called social justice movement in the Church.

1986. Homosexual Infiltration Of The Catholic Clergy

The Dominican Fr. John O’Connor exposed the homosexual predator Joseph Bernardin

"A prominent Catholic layman who just returned from a business trip to the Vatican," O’Connor wrote in his open letter dated November 2, 1989, "told me that it is known all over Rome that Cardinal Bernardin is a practicing homosexual..."

Over the past few days, there have been many headlines about Adriana Smith, a pregnant woman who has been on life support for over three months.

Smith went to the hospital with a severe headache. The hospital negligently sent her home without doing a CT scan, and, therefore, missed multiple blood clots in her brain.

Smith slipped into a coma and, despite medical intervention, was declared brain dead. She has been kept on life support at a Georgia hospital ever since, in the hopes that her son may be born alive.

When the story broke, he was 21 weeks along, now 22 weeks. According to a recent study, babies born at 22 weeks who receive medical treatment have a 41% chance of surviving.

April Newkirk, Smith’s mother, ignited a media firestorm when she spoke to reporters about her daughter’s situation. She expressed grief over Smith’s condition and frustration that doctors didn’t allow her, as Smith’s closest relative, to make the decision whether to disconnect life support.

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

Newkirk said, “I’m not saying we would have chosen to terminate her pregnancy, but what I’m saying is we should have had a choice.” She claims Smith’s doctors told her they couldn’t disconnect Smith due to Georgia’s pro-life law.

Since then, pro-abortion groups have been loudly screaming about how egregious this case is. Mainstream media outlets have covered the story, all blaming Georgia’s pro-life law for putting a family through hell. Smith’s doctors are being condemned for trying to save her baby.

Even though Newkirk didn’t actually say she wanted life support shut off, pro-abortion activists have been demanding it.

Secular Pro-Life’s Monica Synder wrote a comprehensive article about the case. She cited a systematic review which found that, in cases of maternal brain death, 77% of babies were born alive, and 85% of those born alive were “normal” at 20 months of age (i.e., not disabled).

The women in the study were all over 20 weeks pregnant when they suffered brain death, and were on life support for an average of around seven weeks. Smith was earlier in her pregnancy. It’s possible this may change the odds for her son.

The Law in Question

Snyder discussed how, despite the strident headlines all over the mainstream media, it is likely not Georgia’s abortion ban that influenced Smith’s doctors, but a 15-year-old law that directly addresses pregnant people on life support. Synder writes:

It’s more likely that Georgia’s law regarding withdrawing life support for pregnant patients is the issue. GA Code § 31-32-9 states that doctors can’t withdraw life support from pregnant patients unless both (1) the fetus isn’t viable and (2) the patient had an advanced directive explicitly stating she wanted withdrawal of life-sustaining measures.

Note this code isn’t a result of Dobbs. It was enacted 15 years prior, in 2007. Most states have similar measures, including pro-choice states such as Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.

Snyder’s article has a map that shows which states have similar laws.

Other pro-life groups and news sites have published similar articles.

Pro-Abortion Denial and Demonization

If one reads Code 31-32-9, it seems obvious that it’s the reason life support hasn’t been discontinued in Smith’s case. It literally deals with that exact situation. But that hasn’t stopped pro-abortion activists from insisting pro-lifers are wrong.

Jessica Valenti, a pro-abortion activist whose Substack has a large following, wrote:

Now, faced with the incredible suffering [pro-lifers’] policies are inflicting on Americans, the anti-abortion movement is either looking away or shirking blame…

Live Action, for example, put out a release claiming that it’s not the state’s abortion ban forcing the hospital to keep Adriana’s body alive—but other state laws about the withdrawal of life-support. It’s an assertion I’ve seen repeated by close to a dozen other anti-abortion activists and organizations.

She then quotes Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr:

There is nothing in the LIFE Act that requires medical professionals to keep a woman on life support after brain death. Removing life support is not an action ‘with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy.’

One would think that Carr, who is in charge of prosecuting those who break Georgia’s law, would know what it says and means. But Valenti insists he’s lying. The evil pro-lifers, she insists, are covering things up, and we just want to hurt people:

They planned for this. Anti-abortion legislators and activists knew this would happen—they knew their laws would devastate families and lives—and they passed them anyway…

Republicans are running from the expected and planned consequences of their own law because they know that voters are furious. They’re cowards. It’s that simple [emphasis in original].

Jessica Valenti says her audience consists of “journalists, abortion providers, community activists, clinic escorts, policy-makers, and more.”

I don’t want to assume all her readers feel as she does. But to Valenti, and I’d guess to many pro-abortion activists, we pro-lifers aren’t people who have deeply-held beliefs about the value of early human life, we are cardboard cut-out villains who live only to tear apart families, hurt people, and control women.

What About Smith’s Choice?

Several pro-life groups, including Live Action, have pointed out that Smith was pregnant with a wanted child. This wasn’t a woman who was hit by a car on her way to an abortion facility. Smith had chosen life and was, by all accounts, looking forward to bringing her child into the world.

Yet none of the pro-abortion activists commenting on the case seem particularly concerned about what Smith herself would have wanted.

Monica Synder says:

If abortion advocacy were primarily about autonomy, you’d think Smith’s likely perspective would be worth at least considering…

It’s a testament to how very little abortion advocates value unborn children, that even in a case where the woman (1) cannot be harmed by continuing the pregnancy and (2) may very well have wanted her child to live, the framing is outrage that her son’s life is prioritized.

Pro-Choice activists claim decisions about abortion should be left to the pregnant person—the person whose body the baby is developing in. So, one would think their main concern would be determining what Smith would have wanted for her own body and her own baby. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Monica Hesse at the Washington Post

An example of this is Monica Hesse’s piece in The Washington Post:

Hesse describes herself as a “professional feminist.” She summarizes Smith’s case, and writes:

Those events already constitute almost any definition of tragedy; in addition to the baby [Smith] was planning to welcome with her boyfriend, she already had another young son who will now be left without a mother. But what happened next turned the situation from a tragedy into an absolute horror show.

Hesse then quotes Ed Setzler, the Republican senator who sponsored Georgia’s pro-life law:

I think there’s a valuable human life that we have an opportunity to save, and I think it’s the right thing to save it. To suggest otherwise is to declare the child as being other than human.

Hesse responds:

This is hideous. This is hideous. The person who is not currently being treated as human is Adriana Smith. She is being treated as an incubator in the most literal sense of the word, her lifeless body forced to breathe so that it can sustain the struggling baby inside it.

And, yes, I am using the word “baby” instead of “fetus.” I am using that word because I have no doubts that Smith would have used that word. This was a wanted pregnancy and a planned dream of a planned family, and when that is your mindset, you think of the embryo as your baby from the moment you see a flickering heartbeat. [Emphasis in original]

Hesse engages in the same type of magical thinking I see so often, where whether a baby in the womb is a person depends on whether his mother wants him. A wanted fetus/baby is a human being. An unwanted one is just tissue.

There is, of course, no logic to this. But Hesse admits that Smith wanted her baby, and wanted to give birth. She demands that the baby die anyway.

I read a few of the comments. Those commenting all agreed with Hesse and discussed how awful it was that Smith is being kept on life support. There was the usual demonization of those horrible pro-lifers, and much criticism of Republicans on other issues (some of which I agreed with, but little of which was relevant to the actual case).

What Does “Pro-Choice” Mean?

I decided to post my own comment. This is what I wrote:

Can I ask a question to the pro-choice people in these comments?

Doesn’t being pro-choice mean that the pregnant person (and no one else) decides what happens to her pregnancy? That she has control over whether her fetus/baby can use her body? My body my choice?

And didn’t this woman WANT her baby? Didn’t she decide she wanted to give birth? She didn’t get hit by a car on the way to an abortion clinic. She was planning a birth.

Wouldn’t the pro-choice stand be to go with her wishes?

Monica Hesse seems to be saying, Adriana Smith wanted her baby and wanted to give birth. She made a CHOICE to have her baby. But she’s dead now, so what she wanted doesn’t matter.

Now it’s MY choice. I’m going to overrule what she actually wanted and make her pregnancy end, make sure the baby she wanted to live will die, because I think the whole idea of keeping her on a respirator is icky.

It if were me- if I were Adriana, and I was excited and happy to be pregnant, I would WANT my baby born. I would WANT them to keep me on life support. Why would I want my baby to die with me?

Today, I’ve seen many of my friends say the same thing on FB.

I’ve read numerous articles about this case, talking about how horrible it is. And not a single ONE has said anything about what Adriana Smith would have wanted. It’s like nobody cares.

So what does pro-choice actually mean? If the woman whose body the BABY IS IN doesn’t matter? If her wishes don’t matter one bit?

Hesse, can you please explain to me– WHY are you pro-choice? What do you base your beliefs on? Because it doesn’t seem to be the woman’s right to choose. Otherwise, why would you disregard Adriana’s?

Responses to My Comment

There were only a handful of responses, and, not surprisingly, none answered the question.

Two people claimed that the baby would be disabled and wouldn’t have a life worth living. One claimed the family should make the decision. Another said whoever was going to raise the baby should decide. This commenter mentioned the father. No one seems to have bothered to interview him and ask his opinion.

One commenter said that many women choose themselves over their babies when pregnancy threatens their life, but this isn’t relevant. Smith is already brain-dead; the death of her baby won’t save her life. It’s not a choice of one life or another, it’s a choice between one death or two deaths.

The last commenter said that she had once been in a medically induced coma and found the experience so traumatic that she now has a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate Order). If she were pregnant, she said, she would want them to honor the DNR, and would want her baby to die with her. A decision she can make—but what would Smith have wanted?

Hesse herself, unsurprisingly, never responded to my comment.

A Wanted Baby After All

Since I started this article, April Newkirk gave another interview. Despite all the assumptions from pro-abortion people over the past week, Newkirk WANTS her daughter’s baby to live.

She is quoted as saying, “We’re just hoping he makes it.”

She isn’t upset about the life support, it turns out, she is upset that the decision wasn’t hers. It seems she would have made the same decision the doctors did. She just wanted to be the one to decide.

Newkirk says:

We didn’t have a choice or a say about it. We want the baby. That’s a part of my daughter. But the decision should have been left to us — not the state…

[R]ight now, the journey is for baby Chance to survive — and whatever condition God allows him to come here in, we’re going to love him just the same [emphasis mine].

In the original interview that touched off the whole media firestorm, Newkirk never said she didn’t want the baby. That was widely assumed by pro-abortion people, but it appears it was never true.

Pro-Abortion Reactions on GoFundMe

Newkirk has started a GoFundMe. Some of the comments from donors reflect the belief that life support should be turned off.

For example:

[W]hat’s being done to Adriana and her unborn child in the name of “preserving life” is not a miracle. This is not God’s will. It is not divine intervention. It is a misuse of power, a violation of dignity, and a painful delay of sacred closure.

Your daughter’s soul deserves peace. Your grandchild deserves a transition—into life or into spirit—that is led by love, not experimentation.

I believe in a God who honors free will, the natural cycle of life and death, and the sacredness of grief.

And I believe that Adriana’s story is awakening many of us to truths that society tries to bury… Many of us see the truth and are standing with you, not in false hope, but in real love and spiritual clarity.

And:

I pray Justice will prevail and Adriana and her baby will be allowed to rest together. You should have been given a choice.

We should all be rioting outside of that hospital and demanding this broken law be rectified.

The GoFundMe has so far earned over $90,700.

As recently as an hour ago, I was still seeing memes on Facebook declaring that Smith was being kept on life support against her family’s wishes. It remains to be seen if anyone on the pro-abortion side will acknowledge that the family actually wants the baby.

LifeNews Note: Sarah Terzo covered the abortion issue for over 13 years as a professional journalist. In this capacity, she has written nearly a thousand articles about abortion and read over 850 books on the topic. She has been researching and writing about abortion since attending The College of New Jersey (class of 1997) where she minored in Women’s Studies. This article originally appeared on Sarah Terzo’s Substack. You can read more of her articles here.

The post Adriana Smith Wanted Her Baby. Her Choice Should be Respected appeared first on LifeNews.com.

President Donald Trump urged House Republicans to unite behind his sweeping “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” Tuesday morning, highlighting the legislation’s major tax cuts, pro-family provisions, and conservative reforms.

“It’s important for the country,” Trump said Tuesday morning. “It’s the biggest tax reduction in history, incredible for Medicaid, Medicare.”

Responding to Democratic claims that the bill would cut core entitlements, Trump added: “The only thing we’re cutting is waste, fraud, and abuse… We’re not changing Medicaid, and we’re not changing Medicare, and we’re not changing Social Security.”

The bill was approved Sunday night by the House Budget Committee, days after a GOP-led block temporarily stalled it due to concerns about its projected impact on the national debt. It includes large tax breaks for working-class Americans, small businesses, and domestic manufacturers, while targeting several Biden-era policies.

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

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called it “the single most pro-small business, pro-family, and pro-American worker legislation ever.” She noted provisions including no taxes on tips, no overtime tax for law enforcement and firefighters, and a large tax deduction for Americans buying American-made cars.

“Despite desperate Democrat lies, the biggest beneficiary of this tax cut will be working-class Americans and their families,” Leavitt said Monday. “Americans earning between $30,000 and 80,000 per year will pay about 15% less in taxes after this bill is passed.”

The bill also advances longtime conservative priorities, including defunding Planned Parenthood, banning taxpayer-funded “gender transition procedures” for minors through Medicaid, and expanding school choice.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA, praised the bill’s repeal of over $500 billion in “radical ‘Green New Deal’” funding, calling it a decisive move to end “Biden’s war on American energy.”

White House Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Steve Miran, citing a new analysis, said the plan could boost GDP by up to 5%, create as many as seven million jobs, and raise the average family’s take-home pay by $8,000-$13,000.

“President Trump’s budget blueprint has a lot of great things in it, not the least of which is stripping federal funding from Planned Parenthood,” said CatholicVote Vice President Joshua Mercer. “That alone is reason enough to support this bill. Factor in the tax breaks for families, pro-worker policies, educational choice, and more, and the ‘big-beautiful bill’ adds up to a major win for Americans.”

A key committee hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, with House leaders aiming for a floor vote soon. If the bill clears the House, it will advance to the Senate, where Republicans are reportedly considering amendments.

LifeNews Note: Elise DeGeeter writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.

The post Trump Tells Republicans to Vote for One Big Beautiful Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Perhaps Putin should tell the Russian people and the Russian Army that his interest in resolving the conflict in Ukraine with peace negotiations lies in the possibility that the negotiations could be used to achieve a Great Power Agreement like what he and Lavrov tried to achieve with the West during the winter of 2021-2022 prior to Russia’s forced intervention in Ukraine. A New Yalta in effect.  

Russian foreign affairs commentators have been speaking for some time about the need for a new Yalta agreement.  A few years ago I was asked to address the Russian Academy of Sciences on the subject.  I told them something that they did not want to hear:  that Washington’s claim to hegemony prevented accommodation to Russian sovereignty.

A few thinking people have been perplexed at Putin’s conduct of the conflict in Ukraine. Russia could have ended the war quickly with conquest, but  instead has fought a slow, restrained war that has greatly expanded the war with Putin and Lavrov bleating constantly for “peace negotiations.”

Why has Putin done this despite the protests of the Wagner Group and the Chechnya leader of the Muslim troops fighting in the Ukraine conflict?  The only answer seems to be that he wants a New Yalta Agreement.  If he wins the war, he loses the opportunity. So he drags out the war in the hopes that negotiations will provide a platform for addressing the “root cause of the conflict”–which he sees as the absence of a Great Power Agreement.

One problem Putin’s wishful strategy faces is Washington’s commitment to hegemony.  No American president has repudiated the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Another is that the absence of victory goes down poorly with the Russian nationalists and with the troops themselves.  There are news reports that Russians are suspicious  and resentful of peace negotiations in Ukraine that stop short of victory. 

Russian soldiers doing the fighting have told media that as tired as they are and as much as they want to go home, they want to liberate all of the regions that are once again part of Russia so that they don’t have to renew the fight in the future.  As one of the soldiers asked, “Otherwise, have all the guys died in vain?”

Russia’s rescue of the Russian territories assigned to Ukraine by Soviet leaders is important to Putin, but more important is to secure a Great Power Agreement, a New Yalta, that accepts Russia as a member county free of sanctions, overthrow attempts, and conflicts.

Putin is so desirous of this agreement that he has risked the ever-widening of the Ukraine conflict to the point that drone attacks now close all Moscow airports and destroy energy infrastructure deep inside Russia.  When Putin says that peace negotiations must address the “root cause of the conflict,” he means the absence of a Great Power Agreement.  

Putin is not interested in a negotiated end to the conflict in Ukraine.  He is hopeful of using negotiation to achieve a New Yalta.  The problem that Putin faces is that Washington, wrapped up as it is in its assumed hegemony, has no comprehension of another country’s point of view. 

Washington’s approach to all negotiations is to use threats, to look for levers of pressure to force other governments to accept Washington’s “solution” to the “problem,” usually a Washington creation.  In other words, Washington doesn’t really negotiate.  It imposes its solutions.

Trump expects the Ukrainian negotiations to fail, and has ensured as much, in order to be able to withdraw money and focus from Ukraine and use the resources to bring into operation Trump’s goal of an American Middle East colonial empire which began with Trump’s claim of Gaza as an American possession. This claim is a claim to the undersea gas reserves that run from Gaza’s border with Egypt to northern Syria.  Trump’s visit in Saudi Arabia, the last remaining Arab state, was to enlist the rulers as junior partners in Trump’s American Middle East colonial empire. It seems that with Trump’s domestic agenda blocked by the judiciary, Trump will make us great again with the rise of America’s Middle East Empire.

Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org.

Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued the order in March 2020 that ultimately killed at least 15,000 nursing home residents. Many senior living centers were flooded with COVID patients thanks to Cuomo’s reckless order putting them in senior living facilities instead of other locations that could have protected elderly people.

Now, the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into Cuomo, probing whether he lied to Congress about his role in a state policy that led to the deaths of thousands of nursing home residents. The investigation, initiated last month, centers on a controversial March 2020 directive that required nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients, a policy critics argue caused a catastrophic loss of life among vulnerable seniors.

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

The probe follows a referral from House Oversight Chairman James Comer, who accused Cuomo of making false statements to a House subcommittee investigating his administration’s handling of the pandemic.

Comer’s referral alleges Cuomo was involved in drafting a 2020 New York State Health Department report that downplayed nursing home deaths, despite testifying he had no role in its creation.

Cuomo’s March 25, 2020, order mandated nursing homes to admit or re-admit patients regardless of their COVID status, a decision that pro-life groups and grieving families say endangered elderly residents. The policy, which was revoked on May 10, 2020, is blamed for contributing to the deaths of at least 15,000 nursing home residents, according to reports.

A 2021 investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James found that the state undercounted nursing home deaths by as much as 50%, excluding residents who died after being transferred to hospitals.

This investigation is long overdue for people like Daniel Arbeeny, co-founder of We Care Memorial Wall for COVID nursing home victims, whose father, Norman, died in a Brooklyn nursing home after contracting COVID. Arbeeny, who filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Cuomo in 2022, called the policy “reckless endangerment” that cost thousands of lives.

He has said Cuomo must be held accountable for forcing nursing homes to accept infected patients when safer alternatives, like hospital ships, were available.

Janice Dean, a Fox News meteorologist who lost both her in-laws to COVID-19 in New York nursing homes, has been a vocal critic as well and says there needs to be accountability for the 15,000 seniors who died alone because of Cuomo’s deadly directive.

Families of nursing home victims see the probe as a step toward justice.

Vivian Zayas, co-founder of Voices for Seniors, whose mother died in a Long Island nursing home, said, has demanded the truth for over 5 years.

The Justice Department and FBI declined to comment, citing a policy of not confirming ongoing investigations. Whether the probe will lead to charges remains unclear, but for pro-life advocates and affected families, it represents a chance to hold Cuomo accountable for policies they believe prioritized politics over human lives.

The post Justice Department Investigating Andrew Cuomo for Killing Thousands of Seniors appeared first on LifeNews.com.

There are plenty of areas in which to be disappointed (or justified, depending on your level of cynicism) by the current presidential administration. But one has to be grateful to God that Trump is president, if only to be freed from the globalist tyranny of the so-called World Health Organization. Withdrawing our country from the WHO and the oh-so-fraudulently-based Paris Climate Accords are two of the very best moves he has made.

Make no mistake, and you likely already know this, the globalist WHO and the climate scam are nothing more than means of globalist tyranny, the weakening of national sovereignty, and a gigantic tax on US citizens to fund their own destruction.

The global response to the 2020 cold virus “pandemic” was so good for the globalists that they want even more power. The WHO just adopted a “pandemic agreement” that requires member nations to do what it says. Thankfully, our withdrawal from this gang of corrupt and evil bureaucrats was already announced and will soon be over. I get the feeling also that should the gang declare a summer beach and playground pandemic before the literal ending date of US membership that our president would tell them where and how far up to stick their dictates.

Like I said at the time, it isn’t as though we deserve the blessings of the good Lord for anything we have done. But in His goodness He has given us a stay of execution, as it were. Further membership in the WHO might have been a literal death sentence. Good for President Trump.

Now do NATO.

Democrats Hate White People

Here is the white  Democrat Rep. Merkley raising a fuss with Secretary of Defense Rubio–why Rubio?–about white South Africans being allowed into the US. 

What more proof do insouciant Americans need that Democrats are anti-white?

https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1924862459623440604 

When you take a close look at the US Congress, the media, educators, the judiciary, you have to wonder how the United States can possibly survive.