Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

 Prevost suggests he believes the unrepentant apostate and gay activist Jorge Bergoglio, an enemy of God and the Church, is in Heaven.

Canonizing Confusion - by Chris Jackson - Hireath In Exile

Prevost praises Bergoglio's heretical Abu Dhabi document

Cardinal Prevost is a formal manifest heretic, approves of ‘Fiducia supplicans’ & ‘Amoris Laetitia’ | From Rome

Nine Months Ago: Cardinal Prevost Defends Francis' Judas Heresy – Gloria.tv

Though it happened 1700 years ago, the Council of Nicaea exemplified a principle that is fundamental to certain Christian traditions (e.g., Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy) today: conciliarity.

The occurrence of “ecumenical councils” in the early Christian centuries is familiar to many yet often hard to conceptualize. But there’s good reason to take a moment to examine this phenomenon in our present moment.

A Divine Modus Operandi in History

Let’s begin with a wider historical and theological framework: both Jews and Christians believe that God acts within creation and history to bring about his purposes. As Frederick Bauerschmidt notes in Catholic Theology: An Introduction, “the Judeo-Christian God is the One who, while not bound by history, acts from within history, through specific people and events, for the sake of all humanity.”

This could be illustrated, for instance, by God’s covenant with Abraham, which God initiates and ratifies on his own terms. That covenant describes not only what God will do for Abraham and his descendants, but also that through Abraham “all the nations of the earth will be blessed (Gen. 12). Second, this collaborative principle continues in all the subsequent covenants that build on the first: God’s saving activity in history occurs in, with, and through human communities. That is, God’s action is humanly mediated. God chooses and enlists particular humans, within particular human communities, as cooperators, collaborators, and co-participants in that work. The Incarnation is, of course, the fullest realization of this principle of God’s self-revealing and saving activity in history in and through the human birth, life, teaching, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

This is all so familiar to us that we often fail to reflect on the fact that it could have been otherwise. God had lots of options! God could have chosen to accomplish his purposes alone, unilaterally, without any human contribution, collaboration, or mediation. God could have chosen to reveal himself to every living person, individually, without any external mediation, in the interiority of their very souls. The entire drama of salvation could have been accomplished privately and internally.

It’s crucial to note that the “Christ-event” (the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus) prompts his earliest followers to begin to reconsider many assumptions about God and his saving relationship to human beings. For example, that God’s power and wisdom could be most apparent in the weakness and absurdity of the crucifixion; or that the oneness of God could encompass the plurality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; or that God’s plan of salvation included not just Jews, but also Gentiles (i.e., non-Jews). In addition to these, another new conviction began to take hold among the earliest Christians, especially as it became apparent that Jesus was not returning immediately to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. It dawned on the early community that God’s saving activity in history had another phase, falling between the Christ-event and his Second Coming. That phase involved what Paul in the Letter to the Ephesians called “the mystery of the church,” a mystery that had been concealed to all earlier generations, being “hidden for ages in God,” but has “now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” At its core, this mystery is that “the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Eph. 3:3-6).

God’s wise and providential plan for universal human salvation is centered on the Church as the divinely chosen instrument and vehicle for this purpose: “so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known.” In the history of God’s covenantal relationship with Israel, Jesus is not the end of history, as they had supposed, but rather the center of it, and “salvation history” is going to continue. Not only that, but the focal point of divine agency in this new phase of salvation history is the Holy Spirit, bestowed upon the Church at Pentecost. Yet true to form, the Spirit intends to accomplish the divine purposes in history in and with human collaboration, and that collaborator is the community of believers, the Church.

The Council of Jerusalem

An initial illustration of how this collaborative effort will proceed is found in the middle of the Book of Acts, the first written history of the Church.

Recall that the mystery of the Church, the reason it exists, is to unite Gentiles with Jews into the one Body of Christ to accomplish God’s universal plan of salvation. So, it would seem that God ought to be very keen about the details of that merger. We might imagine that God would have a clear plan for the Church to follow in bringing all that about. But by the middle of the first century the Church was confronting a fundamental question and major conflict precisely over the issue of how Gentiles were to be incorporated into God’s new plan for Israel: did they need to submit to the Law of Moses? 

This was not a minor or trivial matter. It went to the heart of Jewish and Christian identity and pinpointed the essential meaning of the Gospel. Yet apparently, before Jesus left the scene, he had not informed anyone what God’s will or plan was on this most crucial issue. And, there were, as yet, no Christian Scriptures to consult. So, what to do?

All the leaders of the community, “the apostles and elders,” gathered in Jerusalem to decide what should be required of Gentile converts to the new “way.” That is to say: they held a council. Scholars refer to this as the “Council of Jerusalem” and it seems to have occurred around the year 50. 

Apparently, it was an intense meeting, marked by strong opinions and heated exchanges. But in the end, they reached a momentous agreement that Gentiles were not obligated to submit to the Mosaic Law.

Something crucial happened next: the gathered leaders put their decision into writing so that it could be disseminated and promulgated among all the communities of believers. They expected their decision to be authoritative and binding. And at the end of the letter, they wrote these words: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials” (Acts 15:28).

What emerges here is a crucial principle, a fundamental pattern, a modus operandi, that can be called “conciliarity.” As the Church endeavors to accomplish its divine commission in history, to remain faithful to what it has received (the “deposit of faith”) from the Lord, and to be “led into all truth” by the Spirit, it attempts to discern the truth and to work out the details through special gatherings of its acknowledged leaders, whose decisions, communicated in writing, are recognized as authoritative for the believing community.

Early Catholicity: Formation of a Christian Community

As the Church moved into the second century, a living and organic, but also structured, ecclesial institution began to emerge. Its recognized leaders are the bishops, who have succeeded to the place, i.e., the function and authority, of the apostles. Already by the end of the first century, Ignatius of Antioch began calling this the “Catholic Church.”

Importantly, the role of the bishops was to be the visible sign and also the instrument of Christian unity. So, the catholicity of the Church is deeply bound up with its episcopal nature. Patterned on the “threefold office of Christ” (Prophet, Priest, and King), the bishops had a triplex ministry, which was doctrinal, sacramental, and jurisdictional, namely, to teach, sanctify, and govern.

It also continued the practice of convening councils or, in Greek, “synods,” as the mechanism and instrument by which to resolve debates, settle conflicts, render judgments, and arrive at consensus at the supra-local level. These councils were episcopal, i.e., principally of bishops, who, because they were acting in Christ’s name, had the authority to make decisions binding on the Church. Thus, by the second century, councils had become one of early Christianity’s most characteristic institutions. 

The Council of Nicaea 

In the words of John O’Malley in the book When Bishops Meet, all these early developments 

culminated and received paradigmatic form with the first church-wide council, the Council of Nicaea, 325. The role of Emperor Constantine at it strengthened the analogy between councils and the Roman Senate. The emperor had moved the imperial capital from Rome to Constantinople (present-day Istanbul), and he convoked the council to meet under his watchful eye in his palace in nearby Nicaea.

The primary impetus for the Council was a theological dispute threatening to tear the Christian community apart, something neither the bishops nor the emperor wanted—though for very different reasons. The primary focus was the teaching about the second Person of the Trinity, the Son, coming from a presbyter in the great church of Alexandria, Egypt, whose name was Arius. The assembled bishops rendered a judgment regarding Arius and his doctrine, which they expressed in the form of a new literary genre, a “creed:” a written profession of right faith or doctrine.

But the bishops also used the occasion for legislative purposes: they made laws regarding certain behaviors, with penalties attached for non-observance. For instance, they levied penalties against clerics who castrated themselves, they forbade admitting to the clergy converts from paganism until they had undergone a period of testing, and they strictly forbade clergy to bring a woman to live in their household unless she were their mother or sister. In later centuries, such decrees were sometimes called “reform decrees.” The juridical genre the council used to formulate its decrees was the canon, a generally short ordinance proscribing or prescribing certain behaviors, with penalties attached for non-observance. 

Discerning What Is True and Good

Divine activity in salvation history is primarily God’s work: “I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail” and the “Spirit will lead you into all truth”; And “lo, I will be with you always, even to the end of the age.” But apparently, by divine decision, that work is also, secondarily and derivatively, yet no less truly, one in which the (very) human community, or “people of God,” participates and cooperates.

God’s providential plan is worked out in salvation history, not by sailing above all the messiness, or by showing up, here and there, in a blaze of glory, but rather within, and through, even beneath sinful human beings and their flawed human institutions. This includes the Church, which in its human dimension is always in need of reform.

Viewed from within, accordingly, Church history is complex, ambiguous, perplexing—in a word, messy. Most of the time, there are no bright clear lines, no simple binary between “good guys and bad guys,” heroes and villains—no “history without tears”—without tragedy, without shortcoming, without failure. As Pascal said, specifically in relation to the Church and its failings: “Jesus must be in agony until the end of the world.”

Yet, despite all that, the Christian community is emboldened to press forward with confidence in discerning what is true and good, through the guidance of the Spirit. This conviction underlies and undergirds the conciliar nature of Christian traditions like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. 

The Council of Nicaea, whose 1700th anniversary is celebrated this year, was the first of seven so-called “ecumenical” or “church-wide” councils of the early (undivided) Church. Today, those early councils and their doctrinal decrees are considered authoritative, to one degree or another, by many (though not all) of the various expressions of Christianity. For Roman Catholics, there have been more than a dozen subsequent councils that are also authoritative, including the two most recent, Vatican I and Vatican II. In these ways, the crucial principle of conciliarity manifests itself. 

Image licensed for editorial use via Adobe Stock.

Pregnancy can bring about many emotions; sometimes excitement and fear can be conflated when a woman is left without ample support to contend with these feelings, and result in a heartbreaking decision.

Brittany found herself in this situation, and feeling she had no other choice she took the first abortion pill. Later she became convinced that God interceded on behalf of her baby.

Brittany wrote about what drew her to the decision to take the abortion pill:

“I’ve faced so many challenges in my life, and there are moments when I wonder if I’ll ever catch a break. When I found out I was pregnant, I was sooo excited, but also overwhelming fear. As my hormones shifted, I spiraled into a deep depression. I began experiencing panic attacks multiple times a day, sometimes 4 or 5 in a row.”

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

This anxiety left Brittany sleepless, and she would fall to her knees feeling she didn’t want to continue living. This helpless state drove her to decide to have an abortion.

“Feeling like I had no control over anything. I couldn’t take it anymore and I made the decision to terminate my pregnancy,” she said.

Brittany’s fiancé did not want her to end her pregnancy, but he also feared for Brittany’s health and safety due to her state of mind.

“However, I believe in a powerful God, and He intervened,” Brittany said. “After taking the first pill, I went to take a nap before taking the second later that evening.”

She said that it was during that nap that she heard a voice clearly say to her, “Wake up and fix this.”

“I cannot even describe how insane this was,” Brittany said. “I woke up in a panic and immediately called Planned Parenthood, asking if there was any way to reverse what I had done. They told me no, that I would need to take the second pill, but I didn’t give up.”

Brittany searched for answers and found the Abortion Pill Rescue® Network (APRN).

Within a few hours, two nurses were sent to her home, and she received an ultrasound through their mobile unit.

“They couldn’t believe how my baby was floating around, completely unaffected, like nothing had happened at all!” Brittany exclaimed.

Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) is an updated application of a decades-old treatment used to combat miscarriage. It offers a woman a second chance at life for her unborn baby when, like Brittany, she has changed her mind regarding abortion after taking the first abortion pill.

Statistics show that to date more than 6,000 lives and counting have been saved through the APRN.

The process has been shown to be safe for mom and the results continue to impact lives around the world.

With each follow-up doctor’s appointment Brittany was overjoyed as the doctor continued to be amazed that everything looked so perfect.

Brittany gave birth to a precious little girl named London Noelle.

She reflected on her second chance for life for her baby.

“My God is mighty,” Brittany said. “I still struggle with guilt, thinking about how my daughter almost wasn’t here, but every day I beyond grateful to be her mama.”

“I could be in a different place right now, without my baby,” she said, “but she’s here, and I’m beyond blessed. So, I’ll take the sleepless nights and all the struggles that come with it.!”

“I’m really enjoying this journey and embracing the challenges,” Brittany noted. “I’m soaking up every moment, being gentle with myself, and learning the importance of patience.”

Brittany was happy to share her story, in the hopes that it could inspire other women who think they have no other choice but abortion.

“If it helps another mama who’s been through what I went through, I would love to share,” she said. “I want her to know that everything will be okay and that reaching out to APR was definitely the right choice.”

To the APRN team, Brittany sent words of love and gratitude, acknowledging the vital role played by staff and nurses as their efforts to rescue and help save her daughter were essential.

“They made me feel heard, supported, and truly cared for,” she said. “I am forever grateful, glory to God!”

LifeNews Note: Kim Hayes is a writer for Pregnancy Help News. She has been a teacher, author, speaker and facilitator for marriage and family issues and married for over 35 years to Jeff, with four grown children. Kim’s counseling experience included 21 years as a volunteer consultant and trainer at Pregnancy Decision Health Centers. She was the Athletic Director of Columbus Crusaders Youth Sports ministry for 15 years. Kim has written several books, including the latest release, Prodigal Rewind: The Grateful Son. This originally appeared at Pregnancy Help News.

The post This Baby Was Saved When Her Mom Changed Her Mind During the Abortion appeared first on LifeNews.com.

In a shocking turn of events in December 2022, the Vatican dismissed pro-life leader Father Frank Pavone from the Catholic priesthood.

That controversial decision upset many pro-life Catholics who respect Pavone and appreciate his decades of service to the pro-life movement via Priests for Life. And it came on the heels of Pope Francis facing criticism for putting an abortion advocate on the Pontifical Academy for Life, claiming that giving an abortion support a Catholic Church platform helps “dialog.”

Now, with the election of a new Pope to lead the Catholic Church, Pavone tells LifeNews that he is pursuing restoration to the priesthood.

“Now that we have a new Pope, so many people around the world and across the Body of Christ have told me that they are praying that I be reinstated to the priesthood,” Pavone told LifeNews in an email today.

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

“First of all, yes, it is possible. What Pope Francis did, Pope Leo XIV can undo,” he explained. “It can certainly happen that I can fully exercise my priestly functions and carry out my pro-life work fulltime, just as I have done since 1993.”

Pavone explained that he is indeed requesting reinstation as a Catholic priest in good standing.

“I have never had one moment’s doubt that I am called to be a priest. After all this happened, I have not joined a different Church; I have not sought marriage. And except for the sacramental duties that only a priest can perform, I have been doing the same fulltime pro-life work as I’ve done for 32 years,” he said.

“Now I am going to ask again for what I asked 32 years ago: the Church’s blessing to do it as a priest,” Pavone continued.

The pro-life leader has already taken a meeting with “one of the highest ranking Cardinals in the Vatican.”

Pavone indicates he has done his best to comply with the limits Pope Francis imposed on him.

“The pope can restrict whether it is exercised publicly, and I have been obedient to all the restrictions he imposed,” he said. “ I’ve been able to continue saving the unborn, electing pro-life candidates, lobbying lawmakers, healing people wounded by abortion, leading marches and prayer vigils, bringing leaders together for strategy meetings, and proclaiming the pro-life message via talks, broadcasts, and writings.”

The post Frank Pavone Seeks Reinstatement to Priesthood Under Pope Leo XIV appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Hundreds of pro-life advocates from across Oregon gathered outside the state Capitol building in Salem on Saturday, May 17 to participate in the annual Oregon March for Life. The theme of this year’s event was Support Her. Protect Them. to emphasize the pro-life movement’s care for both mothers and their babies.

The 2025 March for Life featured speeches by Portland Archbishop Alexander Sample, Oregon Right to Life President Melody Durrett, Road 2 Hope Maternity Home program manager Alayna Garcia and Office and Marketing Coordinator Amber Sipe, Abortion Survivor and Occupational Therapist Amy Miles, Western Seminary Theology Professor and Grace Community Church elder Dr. Gerry Breshears, as well as ORTL Community Outreach Director Makyra Williamson and ORTL Executive Director Lois Anderson.

Oregon Republican Representative Vikki Breese-Iverson emceed the event.

“The March for Life is a powerful coming-together that always renews my sense of optimism for ending abortion and building a culture of life in our state,” Oregon Right to Life executive director Lois Anderson said in a press statement. “It is deeply inspiring and encouraging to gather with so many people committed to compassionately advocating for mothers and their babies and calling on Oregon lawmakers to protect unborn lives.”

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

This year, as before every March, Oregon Right to Life displayed an animated counter on a jumbotron that depicted the heart-breaking number of innocent lives lost to abortion since Roe v. Wade: Today, approximately 63 million. As the numbers added up on the screen and the crowd paused in silence, the bell tolled once for every million lives lost.

“It never ceases to have a deep impact on me when we see, visually, the real impact that the tragedy of abortion has had in our country,” Archbishop Sample said in his opening speech.

The Catholic archbishop went on to highlight the fact that even pro-abortion politicians historically used to recognize that abortion was a “sadness” and “not something to be celebrated.” He contrasted that older perspective with the modern radical pro-abortion position, exemplified by Oregon Governor Tina Kotek’s proclamation this year declaring March 10 “Abortion Provider Appreciation Day.”

Archbishop Sample has decried the proclamation in a pastoral letter calling out the “spiritual blindness” of such a declaration, while affirming that “life – every life – is a gift” and extending the invitation of the gospel to all, “even for those who have celebrated abortion.”

Following Archbishop Sample’s address and prayer, Oregon Right to Life Board of Directors President Melody Durrett expressed gratitude for the many ways that pro-life advocates take action to protect the unborn and support mothers in their communities.

“You are doing the real work of changing our culture so that abortion is not only illegal, but the reality of it unthinkable as a solution to any problem,” Durrett said. She underscored the fact that abortion is not simply one issue among many, or an individual choice, but a traumatic act that ultimately “sends a subconscious message to every person that human life is expendable.”

In contrast, Durrett said, “the message that we share is bold. It stands in stark contrast to the messages that most people hear often about the meaninglessness of life. We may be the first person to tell someone: ‘Your life matters. You have value.’ More than that, we believe that every human life has value… But the pro-life movement doesn’t just share this powerful message with our culture: we put action behind it.”

One pro-life advocate who has taken meaningful action based on her pro-life convictions is Alayna Garcia, program manager at Road 2 Hope Maternity Homes based in Beaverton. Garcia spoke to marchers about her organization’s work to provide safe housing, along with a robust network of care, support, and direction, for moms in need.

“If we’re truly pro-life, we need maternity homes,” Garcia said. “We need spaces where women can heal, where they can rest, where they can feel safe, and where they can dream again… Because when we choose to stand with them, we stand for more than just a cause. We stand for the promise of new beginnings, for the beauty of motherhood, and the belief that every life is worth fighting for.”

Joining Garcia was Amber Sipe, the organization’s Office and Marketing Coordinator. Prior to taking on her role with Road 2 Hope, Amber had come to the maternity home as a pregnant young woman suffering from abuse, trauma, addiction, homelessness, a past abortion, and the removal of her son into foster care.

“Road 2 Hope didn’t just offer me a bed, or a place to hide while I was pregnant. They fought for me. They believed in me when I had no reason to believe in myself,” Sipe said. “They walked with me through the long, painful road of healing, advocating for me to get my son back, to keep my daughter, and equipping me to be the mother I had always wanted to be but never thought that I could become.”

Oregon occupational therapist Amy Miles also shared her personal story with March attendees, describing learning that her mother had attempted to abort her but the abortion attempt failed. Born alive, Miles was given a loving home by her adoptive family. Now a wife and mother herself, Miles has since become a member of the international Abortion Survivors Network and has extended forgiveness to her birth mother.

“I love how God has redeemed my story,” she said. Miles suffers from cerebral palsy, but her condition doesn’t stop her from her work as an occupational therapist in which she helps children, including those with conditions like her own.

“If I had not been whisked away, as my birth mother reports, to be given life-sustaining care so that I could breathe, I wouldn’t be here today,” she said. “My two children would not be here today.”

“I have the opportunity now to share my story with moms, like my birth mother, and support babies like me,” Miles said.” I’m honored to speak up for our most vulnerable citizens. The ones that cannot speak up for themselves.”

During the speaker program, Makyra Williamson, Oregon Right to Life Community Outreach Director, also shared the results of this year’s March for Life Diaper Drive, which included a partnership with a pro-life diaper company. Nearly 200 boxes of EveryLife diapers, purchased through contributions from supporters, were displayed near the stage.

“We set an initial goal of gathering 10,000 diapers: one diaper to represent each life that was lost to legal abortion in Oregon in 2023,” Williamson said. “And then we partnered with EveryLife, the only pro-life diaper company, to order diapers to give to Oregon pregnancy resource centers and maternity homes. And your response has been incredible.”

“We blew that 10,000 diaper goal out of the water, gathering over 30,000 diapers to benefit women and families,” she said to overwhelming applause from the crowd.

Before giving the closing prayer, Dr. Gerry Breshears shared a story with marchers about a woman in an abusive relationship who had become pregnant and was “abortion-minded.” Breshears, along with other pro-life individuals who wanted to come alongside the young woman, helped to match her with a couple who could provide a loving adoptive home for the baby.

“I’m proud to say that she chose life because a whole circle of people, like many of you, gathered around her to support her in an extremely troubled pregnancy,” he said.

Immediately following the speaker program, participants began the approximately one half mile march around the Capitol, holding signs promoting the dignity and value of every human life, including at the earliest stages of development in the womb.

The crowd was made up of Oregonians of all ages and backgrounds, including parents, grandparents, women who have experienced unsupported or challenging pregnancies, pro-life politicians and candidates, and high school students, all united in a common desire to build a culture of life in Oregon.

March participant Jessie McGriff shared that she’s always been pro-life and decided to come to the Oregon March for Life because “I believe that children in the womb are humans, and I just want to protect and defend them.”

For Avi Kilpatrick, the journey looked somewhat different.

“I never thought I would be at one of these things,” Kilpatrick shared. “I grew up very secular, liberal, so I always thought that ‘pro-life’ was a dirty word… I used to also think that pro-life people didn’t really care about women. But I think, when I accepted Jesus into my heart, I started realizing the dignity of every single person, [and] I realized that that starts at conception. And the pro-life movement doesn’t hate women, it loves them. It’s the only [side] of this conversation that really does radically love women, because it doesn’t lie to them.”

Salem residents Tim and Dinah Smith said this is the third year they’ve come to the Oregon March for Life.

“We came to show our support for the most helpless and those who don’t have a voice,” Tim said. “And if we don’t speak for them, we’ll have to answer for it. So we want to lend our voice to that effort.”

“And because we love God and we love children,” Dinah added.

“All those who are in the womb have rights,” Isaac, a youth participant, told Oregon Right to Life. “In all scenarios, in all circumstances, the right [to life] of the most vulnerable is to be recognized.”

This is the second year the event was held in May, the month that Oregon legalized abortion statewide in 1969. In previous years, the Oregon March for Life took place in January to mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (1973) prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 reversal of Roe.

Abortion is currently legal until the moment of birth in Oregon, with no protections for unborn human beings or explicit safeguards for newborns who survive abortion attempts. Taxpayer dollars currently pay for more than half of all abortions performed in the state. Oregon Right to Life is dedicated to promoting a culture of life in Oregon through grassroots action, political advocacy, and educational outreach.

LifeNews Note: Ashley Sadler is Communications Director for Oregon Right to Life. Oregon Right to Life Education Foundation is actively involved in connecting churches with pro-life pregnancy resource centers across the state, as well as creating and distributing localized resource guides to ensure that abortion-vulnerable moms and families throughout Oregon have access to life-affirming options.

The post Pro-Life Advocates March for Life in Liberal Oregon to Protest Abortion appeared first on LifeNews.com.

There’s no chance on Earth that the former US president’s late-stage cancer wasn’t noticed while he was in office

Former US President Joe Biden has revealed a devastating medical diagnosis: an aggressive, metastatic form of prostate cancer. While the diagnosis itself calls for sympathy, the timing of its demands scrutiny.

Too little, too late – or just too convenient?

We are told that Biden’s cancer, discovered following a recent medical exam, has already spread to his bones – a sign of a disease not just aggressive, but advanced. And yet this is the same man who, as we had been constantly reassured during his presidency, was under the most sophisticated and regular medical scrutiny in the world. For someone whose health is of profound national interest, especially given his age, this level of late-stage detection is implausible.

If Biden were an average citizen in a broken healthcare system, such a delay might be tragically understandable. But he is not. He is the former commander-in-chief of a global superpower. His check-ups were comprehensive, frequent, and confidential. Which begs the obvious, unsettling question: Did they already know – and simply not tell us?

The specter of Original Sin

The diagnosis announcement lands with eerie precision, just days ahead of the publication of Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, an upcoming book by journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson. The book promises an unflinching account of the inner workings of an administration allegedly defined by obfuscation and denial about the president’s mental and physical decline.

The timing is not a coincidence – it is a strategy. By announcing Biden’s cancer now, his PR team appears to be preemptively rewriting the narrative. When Original Sin raises serious concerns about the former president’s capacity to serve, the public will already be primed to respond not with alarm or anger, but with compassion for a 'sick old man' facing mortality with dignity. In other words: Damage control, not transparency.

A pattern of obfuscation

This is not the first time Biden’s health has been shrouded in mystery. For years, his evident frailty has sparked debates – not just among partisan pundits, but across dinner tables and newsroom panels. Conservative commentators have long floated the idea that what we’re witnessing is less “elder statesmanship” and more a form of elderly exploitation – propping up a figurehead while obscuring the reality behind the curtain.

The jokes about “elder abuse” began as punchlines but are now starting to look like blunt assessments of a harsh truth. The president's health isn’t just a personal matter; it’s a national security concern. And if Biden's cancer was indeed known or suspected months – or years – ago, when he was still in office, the cover-up is not only cynical but deeply irresponsible.

Controlling the narrative, betraying the public

This late-stage disclosure isn’t just about health; it’s about trust. The American people deserve honesty from their leaders, particularly when those leaders ask for our votes while hiding the most consequential truths. The calculated timing of this announcement – designed to dilute the blow of an upcoming exposé – is political cynicism at its worst.

Biden’s diagnosis may elicit sympathy, but it should not elicit forgiveness for deception. The truth appears to have been suppressed until it was strategically useful. And that should outrage every American, regardless of party.

The story here isn’t just about cancer. It’s about a presidency that may have allowed disease to metastasize not just in the body of its leader, but in the moral fabric of its governance.

 The first photo was prior to Pope Leo’s Initiation as the Supreme Pontiff and Vicar of Christ, Successor of Saint Peter. The second photo was as Pope Francis’ body was lying in state. In the second photo, please note the platform that is hiding a significant part of the Confessional of Saint Peter. The first photo, has that platform completely removed revealing the historic look of it. 

The problem with the Modern Papal Mass at this altar is that the Pope’s Chair is placed in front of it and room is needed for the pope and other ministers and those who might approach the pope during the various liturgies.

Prior to the Council, the Pope’s throne was place in the apse of the Basilica under the altar of the Chair of Saint Peter. This configuration remains at St. Paul outside the Walls as well as at the Basilicas of St. John Lateran and St. Mary Major.

There is really no good place for the pope to place his chair for the Modern Rites of Vatican II other than to hide the historic character of the altar and Confessional of Saint Peter. 

Apparently, a high volume abortion facility in Illinois has a big, dirty problem.

This same abortion business is well known for a high number of abortion-related medical emergencies that have sent at least four women to the hospital in March and April alone.

But the Hope Clinic’s latest woes may be part of a nationwide pattern of grisly consequences when conducting the high-volume extermination of unborn children.

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

Pro-life activists reported interacting with a representative from Embrich Plumbing outside the Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, Illinois, on the morning of May 3, 2025. The plumber opened a nearby manhole for inspection as his shovel laid at the ready.

According to long-time pro-life activist Rose Wacher, a priest who had been praying outside the Hope Clinic approached the plumber and was told there was a blockage coming from the Hope Clinic and that it would be “very expensive” to unclog it.

While plumbing issues at abortion clinics are a seldom-mentioned “dirty little secret” within the abortion cartel, Operation Rescue has documented several such incidents.

The grisly cause? In most cases, it is aborted baby remains, which are flushed into the sewer system by abortion facilities.

One such example from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is remarkably similar to the incident in Granite City.

Abortionist Kermit Gosnell once ran the Women’s Medical Society in West Philadelphia. It became known as a “House of Horrors” after police discovered Gosnell was operating an appallingly filthy late-term abortion mill in which babies would often be born alive during incompetently performed abortions, only to be murdered by Gosnell as they struggled for life.

During Gosnell’s abortion murder trial in April 2013, his handyman, Jimmy Johnson, testified about the facility’s often clogged drains.

Johnson testified that toilets in the clinic would back up once or twice a week. This was because clinic workers would wash the contents of the suction machine bottles down the drain, even though Pennsylvania law prohibited it. On one occasion, the clogs were so bad that he was forced to open the cleanout drain on the outside of the building. To his dismay, out gushed material in which he observed tiny arms and other body parts.

Johnson told the court that he went inside to tell Gosnell what happened. Gosnell told him to clean it up, so Johnson took a shovel and scooped the human remains into a plastic bag and put them in the freezer. He had to conduct this unclogging process for the drain over and over.

Another example happened in Wichita, Kansas. In 2006, Operation Rescue purchased and closed the Central Women’s Services abortion facility, which was remodeled and continues to serve as Operation Rescue’s national headquarters.

On the initial walk-through on the first day of possession, Operation Rescue President Troy Newman discovered a small room with a sink where the suction machine bottles holding the remains of aborted babies were cleaned. To his horror, the sink still contained bloody residue and dried bits that appeared to be aborted baby remains. It was connected to a large industrial garbage disposal, which was clogged and no longer worked. It was the source of an overwhelming stench that filled the entire facility.

It is believed that the abortion facility was illegally dumping baby remains into the sink rather than paying for a medical waste disposal service.

Other abortion facilities that have documented similar cases of sewer clogs include Planned Parenthood’s Cincinnati Surgical Center in Ohio and the Fairview Heights Planned Parenthood in Illinois.

Meanwhile, in Illinois, the state government has passed laws that make abortion facilities essentially untouchable and unaccountable. Licensing and inspections are now optional, and complaints about patient injuries from botched abortions go largely unheeded.

Nevertheless, Operation Rescue continues to seek enforcement against abortion facilities like the Hope Clinic, which still maintains a facility license. A complaint has been filed by Sarah Neely, Operation Rescue’s Chief Operating Officer seeking an investigation into the recent spate of botched abortions at Hope Clinic, which conducts abortions up to 28 weeks of pregnancy.

“The misnamed Hope Clinic has richly earned the ‘House of Horror’ moniker with the latest string of botched abortions and apparent flushing of human baby remains into the sewer system,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

He adds, “This is what a state gets when it puts abortion facilities outside the law to commit whatever atrocities they please without accountability. Unfortunately, we expect to see more wounded women – and more sewer issues – at the Hope Clinic in the future. Pray that this untenable situation in Democrat-controlled Illinois changes. That state needs a miracle to persuade it to respect and protect pregnant women and their unborn babies.”

LifeNews Note: This article was originally published by Operation Rescue, a leading pro-life, Christian activist organization dedicated to exposing abortion abuses, demanding enforcement, saving innocent lives, and building an abortion-free America. The author, Cheryl Sullenger, is Operation Rescue Sr. Vice President Emeritus.

The post Did Abortion Clinic’s Sewer Line Clog Because of So Many Aborted Baby Parts? appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Donald Trump’s presidential administration has made it clear it is an opponent of free speech through its cracking down on individuals and colleges in an effort to silence negative comments about the Israel government. This animosity to free speech was widely reported in a new context last week when high level Trump administration officials lined up to express their horror that former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey, via a post at Instagram, purportedly threatened the life of President Trump.

The Secret Service interrogated Comey on Friday as part of an investigation it launched in response to the post. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard argued for taking things even further, claiming in a Fox News interview that Comey, through his Instagram post, was “issuing a hit on President Trump.” Comey, she further asserted in the interview, “should be held accountable and put behind bars” because of his post.

Comey’s Instagram post, which he has since removed saying he had no intention to suggest anything violent, was of sea shells arranged to read “86 47” plus this comment: “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” That’s putting out a hit on President Trump? Not at all, explains Billy Binion in detail, in a Friday Reason article that can help out people who have only been exposed to the histrionic interpretations from Trump administration officials.

It is all ridiculous bluster and bullying from the Trump administration. But, coming from the US government, such comments and actions carry real danger. Recall Craig Robertson being killed by FBI agents in an August 9, 2023 SWAT raid on his home justified by his posts on social media seen as threatening, including to then President Joe Biden. (This was a few years after Comey’s time as FBI director.) An Associated Press article that day included this description of Robertson:

Neighbors described Robertson as a frail, elderly man — his online profile put his age as 74 — who walked with the aid of a hand-carved stick. Though he regularly carried guns, they said he didn’t seem a threat.

Trump administration officials couldn’t resist labeling Comey’s Instagram post as a threat. However, the real threat is their demonstrated disregard for the First Amendment guaranteed right of free speech.

Includes critical look at Taylor Marshall…

Podcast: Dangerous Excitement over ‘Pope’ Leo XIV
(TRADCAST EXPRESS 209)

Our latest podcast episode, TRADCAST EXPRESS 209, has been published. It concerns the dangerous wave of excitement over ‘Pope Leo XIV’ (Robert F. Prevost) that has been seen in the last ten days among recognize-and-resist traditionalists.

In this podcast episode we take a look in particular at one of Leo’s greatest cheerleaders currently, professional YouTube influencer Dr. Taylor Marshall of Infiltration fame. Although lambasting Prevost on May 5 as the worst possible candidate the conclave could choose, by May 9 — one day after Prevost’s election — Marshall was touting him as the right man for the job. … READ MORE

Donald Trump’s Middle East tour conspicuously excluded the Jewish state, potentially signaling the start of a new foreign policy paradigm

Last week, US President Donald Trump embarked on his first official overseas tour since taking office, choosing to visit three key Gulf nations – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

This itinerary was both unexpected and, in many ways, unprecedented. Unlike his predecessors, who traditionally began their foreign policy engagements with visits to long-standing Western allies, Trump opted to prioritize America’s Arab partners, deliberately bypassing Israel – Washington’s principal strategic ally in the region. This marked the first time in decades that a sitting US president visiting the Middle East consciously excluded it from the agenda.

This decision signaled a potential recalibration of Washington’s priorities in the region. Relations between the Trump administration and the Israeli leadership, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, were already strained in the early stages – largely due to Israel’s growing intransigence on the Palestinian question and the increasing influence of far-right factions within the Israeli government. Faced with mounting frustration over Israel’s hardline policies, the White House appeared to pivot toward a more pragmatic, less confrontational, and economically advantageous partnership with the Gulf monarchies.

However, the rationale behind this shift extended beyond political calculation. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have long played a pivotal role in sustaining American influence in the Middle East – not only because of their strategic geography but also due to their substantial investments in the US economy and multi-billion-dollar arms contracts. For a business-minded president eager to showcase the profitability of foreign policy through economic deals, these nations represented ideal counterparts.

The lavish receptions afforded to Trump during his Gulf tour might have been dismissed as mere pageantry were it not for their deeper symbolic resonance. The true significance of the visit lay in what it revealed about broader geopolitical currents: namely, the transformation of the Gulf monarchies from regional players into increasingly assertive global actors.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar are no longer content with being perceived as passive participants in American-led regional frameworks. Instead, they are positioning themselves as independent centers of power in an emerging multipolar world order. Their growing international stature stems from several interrelated factors.

First, these countries have embraced ambitious and forward-looking development strategies, investing heavily in infrastructure, clean energy transitions, technological innovation, and global finance. No longer simply hydrocarbon exporters, they are becoming hubs of digital transformation, international logistics, Islamic finance, and global policy discourse on issues ranging from security to sustainable development.

Second, the Gulf states have pioneered a distinctive model of governance that blends traditionalism with modernization. While maintaining deep-rooted commitments to Islamic and tribal values, they have achieved remarkable progress in building diversified and globally competitive economies. This synthesis has not only enabled them to thrive amid intensifying global competition but, in some respects, to outpace certain Western nations grappling with internal divisions and economic stagnation.

Equally noteworthy is the political resilience of these monarchies. Western narratives often portray them simplistically as 'absolute monarchies,' failing to appreciate the internal mechanisms of governance that underpin their stability. In reality, the political architecture of the Gulf is more accurately described as 'sheikhism' – a system rooted in consensus among tribal and familial elites, structured around a balance of obligations, reciprocal loyalties, and ongoing consultation. This model, which integrates Islamic principles such as shura (consultation) with practical statecraft, has proven remarkably adaptive and resilient.

In this context, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar can no longer be viewed merely as privileged US allies or energy suppliers. They are emerging as autonomous actors in global politics – capable of forging regional alliances, shaping international agendas across energy, media, and technology, and mediating in global conflicts. Their evolving role reflects not dependence on external security guarantees, but the outcome of deliberate, long-term strategies to consolidate sovereignty, enhance prestige, and assert influence in the 21st century.

Money above all: Trump’s deal-based diplomacy

President Donald Trump’s visit to the Gulf states was far more than his first foreign trip as head of state. It was a bold, highly symbolic debut of a new US foreign economic doctrine rooted in pragmatism, transactionalism, and strategic capitalism. Unlike previous administrations, which typically foregrounded diplomacy, security alliances, and value-based partnerships, Trump approached this tour as a high-stakes business deal. His mindset was that of a dealmaker, not a traditional statesman. The objective was clear: to restore America’s economic dominance by leveraging the vast wealth and strategic ambitions of the Middle East’s richest monarchies.

Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” found tangible expression in this tour. His mission was to bring back jobs, reindustrialize key sectors, boost the US high-tech ecosystem, and enhance national competitiveness – all fueled by a surge in foreign direct investment. In this pursuit, the oil-rich, capital-heavy Gulf monarchies – endowed with massive sovereign wealth funds and seeking greater global visibility – emerged as ideal partners.

In Saudi Arabia, Trump signed an unprecedented economic package worth over $600 billion, including the largest arms deal in US history – $142 billion covering missile defense systems, advanced aviation platforms, cybersecurity capabilities, and military-grade AI technologies. Equally significant was the launch of a new tech alliance: Saudi-based DataVolt committed $20 billion to build data centers and energy facilities in the US, while a consortium led by Nvidia, AMD, and Amazon Web Services will co-develop an AI innovation hub within the Kingdom. A $50 billion venture fund was also established to support US-based startups in renewable energy and cybersecurity.

In Qatar, the results were even more staggering: agreements totaling $1.2 trillion, the largest single-country deal package in US diplomatic history. Central to this was Qatar Airways’ order for 210 Boeing aircraft valued at $96 billion, making it the most lucrative deal ever for the American aerospace giant. Qatar also pledged tens of billions of dollars for joint ventures in quantum computing, smart energy networks, and STEM education programs for engineers and IT specialists in the US. In a provocative symbolic gesture, Qatar proposed gifting President Trump a custom-built Air Force One, sparking intense debate in the American media landscape.

In the United Arab Emirates, new agreements totaling $200 billion were signed – in addition to a previously negotiated $1.4 trillion package. Key components included the construction of an aluminum plant in Oklahoma, expansion of oil and gas infrastructure with US firms, and a landmark $100 billion commitment to American companies specializing in artificial intelligence over the next three years.

In total, Trump’s Gulf tour yielded over $2 trillion in contracts and investment pledges – an economic windfall of historic proportions. But beyond the numbers, the trip marked a fundamental redefinition of American foreign policy: from projecting power through military force and ideological alignment, to securing influence through economic penetration and transactional partnerships. Trump unveiled a new image of the US – not as a global policeman, but as a global entrepreneur. A nation that negotiates not with declarations, but with data, contracts, and employment metrics.

This new model resonated deeply with the Gulf monarchies themselves, which are undergoing profound transformations. Once reliant solely on oil exports, these states are rapidly evolving into tech-driven economies with ambitions to become global hubs of innovation, finance, and logistics. In Trump’s America, they found not just a security guarantor, but a strategic co-architect of a post-oil economic order – one where capital, innovation, and mutual profit outweigh traditional diplomatic protocol and ideological rhetoric.

Trump’s message was unambiguous: the era of foreign policy as charity is over. What now matters are mutual returns, strategic alignments, and economic gains. The Gulf states, driven by their own visions of modernization and diversification, eagerly embraced this shift. Together, they reimagined international relations not as a sphere of obligations, but as a marketplace of opportunities.

What about Israel?

One of the most significant – albeit unofficial – outcomes of Donald Trump’s Middle East tour could be discerned even before the journey began: the US President conspicuously bypassed Israel. This omission became all the more striking given that even Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who had initially planned a visit to Tel Aviv, abruptly cancelled his trip at the last moment. The message did not go unnoticed in either Washington or Jerusalem: nearly all observers interpreted the move as a clear sign of a cooling relationship between the US and Israel – more precisely, between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The rift between the two leaders appears less personal than strategic, rooted in diverging visions of the region’s future. Tensions had been mounting for months. The first major flashpoint came when Trump unilaterally announced the withdrawal of American forces from operations against Yemen’s Houthi rebels, citing the group’s supposed commitment to halt attacks on Red Sea shipping lanes. The decision, made without prior consultation with Israel – which continues to endure daily rocket fire from the Houthis – dealt a blow not only to diplomatic norms but also to the foundational trust between Israel and its closest ally.

An even more sensitive issue has been the quiet resumption of US contacts with Iran. With Oman acting as mediator, Washington has been exploring the outlines of a possible new nuclear agreement. Meanwhile, Israel remains steadfast in its conviction that no negotiations with Tehran should occur until decisive military action is taken against its nuclear and military facilities – a show of force intended to compel concessions. Netanyahu failed to persuade Trump of this hardline approach, and the US president has increasingly charted his own, more flexible course.

Tensions have also sharpened over the future of Syria. Israel refuses to recognize the country’s new leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa, branding him a former al-Qaeda affiliate and a dangerous actor. Israeli airstrikes on Syrian territory continue, the buffer zone in the Golan Heights remains under Israeli control, and the Druze population has formally been placed under Israeli protection. While Israel promotes the vision of a weak, decentralized Syria, Washington is embracing the opposite: al-Sharaa was invited to meet with Trump in Saudi Arabia, and following those talks, the US signaled its intent to lift sanctions on Damascus. Even more striking was the revelation that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE – previously restrained by US pressure – are now prepared to invest in Syria’s reconstruction, viewing it as both a stabilizing opportunity and a chance to expand their regional influence.

Israeli frustration has been further stoked by Washington’s evolving stance on the Palestinian issue. Despite Israel’s ongoing military operation in Gaza, Trump has increasingly expressed a desire – even a demand – for a resolution to the conflict. His Gaza reconstruction plan, unveiled in February, sent shockwaves through Washington: it proposed the complete depopulation of Palestinians from the enclave and the transformation of the territory into a luxury international resort zone under US control. Not only was this radical proposal never coordinated with Israel, but it also raised fundamental questions about the future of the US-Israel alliance.

To make matters more complex, credible reports have emerged that the US has been engaged in direct negotiations with Hamas, without informing Israel. The recent release of an American citizen, IDF soldier Idan Alexander, who was captured in October 2023, was reportedly achieved through these covert channels – of which the Israeli government only became aware through its own intelligence services.

Against this backdrop, speculation is growing that the White House is seriously considering formally recognizing an independent Palestinian state. Such a move would not be a mere diplomatic gesture – it would reshape the strategic architecture of the Middle East. Should Washington proceed down this path, Israel could find itself in strategic isolation, while the center of regional gravity shifts toward Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Türkiye – countries with which Trump is building pragmatic, mutually beneficial, and business-driven relations.

None of these states demand unconditional support from Washington, meddle in its internal politics, or leverage domestic crises for influence. More importantly, they offer Trump what he values most: investment, trade, strategic partnership based on reciprocal interest, and freedom from ideological constraints.

Thus, a new geopolitical reality is taking shape before our eyes. In this emerging landscape, Donald Trump appears less inclined to view Israel as an indispensable ally and more drawn to politically agile, economically potent, and regionally assertive actors across the Arab world – and Türkiye. If rumors of Palestinian state recognition prove true, it will mark the end of the long-standing era of “special relations” between the US and Israel and signal the dawn of a new chapter in American Middle East policy – one governed not by ideological loyalty, but by unambiguous political and economic rationality.

The president has said Russia is open to ceasefire talks and that peace efforts are “on the right track”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has hailed his phone call with his US counterpart Donald Trump as “very useful.” The two leaders spoke for over two hours on Monday, primarily about the Ukraine conflict.

Speaking to reporters shortly after the call, Putin thanked the US president for supporting the resumption of direct negotiations between Moscow and Kiev on a potential peace agreement. He said Trump had outlined his position on ending hostilities and the possibility of a ceasefire during the conversation.

“For our part, I also emphasized that Russia supports a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine conflict,” Putin said, adding “We must simply identify the most effective path toward peace.”

Moscow is ready to work with Kiev on a memorandum that envisions a future peace agreement between the two countries, Putin has said.

“We’ve agreed with the US president that Russia will propose and be ready to work with the Ukrainian side on a memorandum on a potential future peace agreement, defining such positions as the principles of the settlement and the timeframe for a potential conclusion of the peace agreement, including [the announcement of] a possible ceasefire for a certain period of time,” the president stated.

The recent resumption of direct talks with Kiev shows that the situation is generally steering “in the right direction,” Putin has said. “The issue is, of course, that both Moscow and Kiev should demonstrate maximum desire for peace and find compromises that would satisfy all parties,” he added.

Last week in Istanbul, Russian and Ukrainian representatives held their first direct talks since 2022, when Kiev backed out of a proposed peace deal that had been agreed in principle by both sides.

The latest round of negotiations has led to a proposal for the largest prisoner exchange between the two countries and a pledge to continue dialogue.

Putin reiterated that Russia’s position is to negotiate a long-term resolution of the conflict that addresses the “root causes.”

With a new study confirming the high hazard rate for women and girls taking the abortion pill regimen, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has reintroduced a bill that will direct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to restore safety measures on the mifepristone-misoprostol drug cocktail. The proposal comes in the midst of renewed controversy for a drug now responsible for two-thirds or more of U.S. abortions. It comes as well in the midst of mixed signals from the Trump administration, whose recent appointees have faced strict scrutiny from the Missouri Republican who has consistently led efforts in Congress to limit the harms of abortion.

Mifepristone is the key component of the abortion cocktail. Approved under emergency use policies in the waning days of the Clinton administration in 2000, it functions by blocking progesterone and glucocorticosteroid receptors key to nurturing a healthy pregnancy. The impact is to induce the death of the developing embryo, and the follow-up drug, misoprostol, then causes contractions to expel the child. The process has been shown to be associated with infections, multiple days of cramping, bleeding, and other complications that lead many women to the emergency room. Ever since its approval, abortion drug sellers have benefited from successively lax policies that were enacted under Democratic presidents and remained under their Republican counterparts.

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

Pro-life researcher Carole Novielli has summarized the policies adopted by the FDA to expand use of the drug:

2016 (Obama administration):

• The original requirement that mifepristone be taken in the presence of the medical provider is rescinded;
• The original requirement that the drug be administered solely by a certified prescriber who meets tests of capability to treat certain complications is rescinded;
• The requirement that non-fatal complications from use of the drug be reported to FDA is rescinded and now only deaths must be reported;
• The requirement that the drug be used before seven weeks of pregnancy is rescinded and a new, 10-week gestational limit is installed.

2019 (Trump administration):

• GenBioPro’s application to manufacture a generic version of the drug is approved, supplementing the original manufacturer, Danco Laboratories, specially created by the Population Council, an activist group that obtained the U.S. manufacturing rights from the French company, Roussel-Calf, that invented the drug.

2020 (Trump administration):

• The abortion industry champions a new “no-test” protocol designed to facilitate pharmacy and mail order distribution of the drug, eliminating standard tests for women and girls to rule out ectopic pregnancy, Rh sensitivity, and other potential contraindications to the drug.

2021 (Biden administration):

• Citing the COVID epidemic, the Biden administration approves limited mail-order distribution of the drug;
• Later in the year, Biden eliminates any in-person dispensing requirement and permanently enables shipping the drug by mail (irrespective of the existence of existing federal law, which criminalizes the mailing of abortion pills in the United States).

2023 (Biden administration):

• Biden makes it clear that retail pharmacies can offer the drug whenever prescribed, minimizing further any medical supervision or contact with the women or whoever is purchasing the drug.

The net result of these policy changes has been to make the drug commonly available for do-it-yourself abortion. Online sales of the drug have proliferated, including from domestic and international sources. At the time of the 2023 changes, the FDA revealed that, as of June 2022, mifepristone had been associated with 28 reports of deaths. In the waning days of the Biden administration, the FDA released an update on abortion drug use that mentioned 36 total deaths from various causes as of December 31, 2024, remarking that the deaths “cannot with certainty be causally attributed” to mifepristone because of potentially confounding conditions and gaps in information.

What about injuries short of death? Here is where the trail turns away from the FDA’s broken process, and where Hawley has led efforts to restore strong policy and accountability at the agency. In short, to a significant degree, the gaps in information and the lack of certainty about the drug’s dangers are a direct result of the policy choices mentioned above and the ending of required reporting of the non-lethal events that have been identified in overseas and U.S. literature over the course of several decades. The Trump administration’s original efforts regarding the pill regimen have not been encouraging in this regard, but it is possible the tide may now be turning in the wake of the newest study, a review of a massive amount of claims data published by scholars at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) detailed here.

Last August, in response to a media question, then-candidate Trump replied about the burgeoning use of abortion pills by inferring that, if elected, he would look into the question of drug safety. “You can do things that will supplement [state policy]. Absolutely …[things] that were pretty open and humane.” A week later, his running mate, J.D. Vance, who had previously espoused opposition to the pill, seemed to suggest no action on the drug was likely, but he left the door slightly ajar. “What the president has said very clear[ly] is that abortion policy should be made by the states, right? You, of course, want to make sure that any medicine is safe and it’s prescribed in the right way, and so forth.” Vance noted that Trump had “consistently” said the party needs “to get out of the culture war side of the abortion issue.” The election won, Trump affirmed the Vance stance, telling Time magazine in his “Person of the Year” interview in early December that he was “100% unlikely” to limit access to mifepristone. “That would be my commitment,” he concluded.

So far in 2024, in his choice of health care leadership, Trump has appeared to hew to that commitment, from his nomination of the pro-choice Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the decision of the Trump Justice Department in early May to argue for the dismissal of the lawsuit by three states challenging the approval of mifepristone for distribution in their states, which have acted to protect the unborn. On April 24, new FDA Commissioner Dr. Martin Makary told an audience at the Semafor World Economic Forum that the FDA had no plans to limit access to the drug, but Makary went on to crack the same door, “There is an ongoing set of data coming into the FDA on mifepristone. So if the data suggests something or tells us there’s a real signal, we can’t promise we’re not going to act on that data.”

If Dr. Makary is referring to the data FDA now obtains from pill providers, users, and emergency rooms, where the vast majority of complications are treated, the problem is precisely that the data is not coming into the FDA by its own decree. On Wednesday of last week, Hawley pointed out this problem again and cited the findings of the EPPC study that document for a large group of women serious adverse events may range as high as 11% of cases. Facing the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Kennedy responded to a question about the study from Hawley, saying, “It’s alarming. Clearly, it indicates that, at very least, the label should be changed.”

Despite the rather weak endorsement of a potential label change on a drug that has no medicinal purpose in its primary use to abort the unborn, the liberal media are up in arms about the EPPC study and the FDA review. The Guardian, for example, ran a news story asserting that the EPPC study described ectopic pregnancy as a complication of mifepristone. The assertion is spurious, as the question rather is the danger of ectopic pregnancy when it goes undiagnosed as a result of the FDA-approved “no-test” protocol, a life-endangering scenario that has indeed already been associated with two deaths after mifepristone use. The lack of balanced and curious media reporting is itself a danger to women.

The same concern pertains to the impact of the no-test protocol on the dating of the gestational age of the pregnancy. In addition to failing to identify and locate an ectopic pregnancy, the omission of an ultrasound will endanger women by misidentifying the stage of the pregnancy. The risks of abortion drugs increase with increasing length of pregnancy. If a woman doesn’t know how far along she is, there is no way she can know what her risks are for taking the drug. At seven weeks of pregnancy, the drug is known to fail in at least one in 20 women. But at 11 weeks of pregnancy, the drug is known to fail one in three women with massive hemorrhaging. Women have a right to know this information before deciding to take the drug. Every human being has a right to informed consent before taking any drug.

The FDA has, in summary, not collected adverse events data on mifepristone since 2016. Women are acknowledged to experience severe cramping and bleeding for nine to 16 days after taking the two-drug regimen. Retained parts of the baby and pregnancy tissue are a problem that can necessitate a second, surgical abortion or cause infection. Obtaining the drugs through the mail, at a retail pharmacy, or from a physician or other source who is thousands of miles away, not available for consult, or otherwise engaged is a formula for injuries to be treated by urgent care or emergency room providers who may be unaware, or misled, about the occurrence of a medication-induced abortion. For these reasons, even if studies based on such related materials as claims data do not permit ideal comprehensive analysis, they are far superior to (and now more numerous than) any other source for data on what mifepristone is inflicting on women in the extremely lax environment now prevailing around use of the drug.

The FDA can and should take every step possible to address this chronic and aggravated data dearth immediately. The mandatory reporting of all adverse events should be reinstated now, and the requirement to do so should be applied not just to the pill manufacturers and providers but to any health care personnel who are called upon to treat one of the many different conditions mifepristone is known to cause. The FDA likewise should reassert its policy advising women to accurately communicate use of mifepristone when they seek health care follow-up, and it should make access to its adverse event reporting system easy to navigate in this advanced world of online communication.

Finally, the scrutiny of mifepristone should not be limited to any pre-defined outcome. The Supreme Court ruling in the Dobbs case did not limit either federal or state policymaking to the safety issues, as vital as they are. Mifepristone and misoprostol are potentially the future of abortion worldwide, and state efforts to protect their citizens from the depredations of drug vendors will be extremely challenging, if not impossible, if the FDA sides with Danco, GenBioPro, and drug manufacturers around the world. Hawley has, as noted, introduced legislation that would codify elements of the safety protections for women and correct the kind of inbred policymaking that has prevailed at the FDA on drugs and devices from oxycontin to Essure to Mifeprex. Hawley deserves strong praise from all Americans for his “show me” efforts to champion life and the well-being of American women.

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 Josh Hawley is Leading the Battle to Stop the Abortion Pill appeared first on LifeNews.com.