As a result of a lawsuit brought by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys on behalf of Vermont pregnancy centers, the state of Vermont has amended a law to no longer openly discriminate against the centers over their life-affirming service to their communities.

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Aspire Now, and Branches Pregnancy Resource Center sued state officials in July 2023 for unconstitutionally restricting the centers’ speech and provision of services.

“Women who become unexpectedly pregnant should know they have life-affirming options available to them, from emotional support to practical resources, which is exactly what our clients offer,” said ADF Legal Counsel Julia Payne Koon. “We’re pleased that Vermont recognized it needed to amend its discriminatory law that unlawfully targeted faith-based pregnancy centers and restricted their ability to speak and act according to their conscience. Pregnancy centers must be free to serve and empower women and their families by offering the support they need without fear of unjust government punishment.”

LifeNews is on TruthSocial. Please follow us here.

“The state of Vermont has backed away from attacking the work of pro-life pregnancy centers,” said NIFLA Vice President of Legal Affairs Anne O’Connor. “Pregnancy centers are no longer under direct threat from the law and pro-abortion lobby in Vermont. For this, NIFLA celebrates; however, if in the future the state again decides to unconstitutionally pursue the work of pro-life pregnancy centers, NIFLA stands ready to take Vermont back to court and seek appropriate relief.”

Two years ago, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signed SB 37 into law, impeding the ability of pro-life pregnancy centers to continue providing help and support to the state’s women and families. The law censored the centers’ ability to advertise their services and to counsel women against abortion.

The law specifically targeted pro-life pregnancy centers as “limited services” providers because they do not refer for or perform abortions. Under the law, pregnancy centers could be fined up to $10,000 for advertising their services in a way that Vermont’s pro-abortion attorney general believes is misleading. The law applied only to pro-life pregnancy centers; an abortion facility that provides identical information would not be subject to the law. Now, the state has amended the language of the law to eliminate its targeting of pregnancy centers and restriction of their provision of medical services.

In light of the changed law, ADF attorneys filed a stipulated dismissal of the case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Clark, Thursday.

The post Vermont Stops Discriminating Against Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers After Lawsuit appeared first on LifeNews.com.

In a further blow to Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill, another MP who initially backed the Bill at Second Reading has indicated he has changed his mind, and will vote against it at next month’s Third Reading vote.

Explaining his reasoning, Liberal Democrat MP Brian Mathew expressed his concerns about terminally ill people feeling they “have become a burden upon their family”, saying “I share the concerns of many constituents that individuals facing terminal illness will take the decision based on concerns that they have become a burden upon their family”.

“This is a serious concern for me; I worry that in someone’s final days, this question will loom heavy when it does not need to”.

Mathew was critical of the Bill for “inviting interference of the judicial process into the delicate and pressing needs of the end of life where many, who will be unlikely to have considered assisted dying, may now face worries from it”. Stating that “the current state of end-of-life care cannot be described as optimal”, Mathew warned that, due to the “patchy” provision of hospices, “an assisted death might be seen as the preferred option”.

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

Mathew, who voted for the Bill at Second Reading last November to allow “time and opportunity to scrutinise and improve the Bill”, blasted the Report Stage debate for “inadequately” answering his concerns, saying “Coming to the third reading, I am minded to vote against the Bill, as I have several concerns I feel have been inadequately answered by the report stage”. The Report Stage debate was branded by critics as “chaotic” and “a disaster” after MPs debated only two of over 100 amendments put forward before running out of time.

MPs “now having doubts” about assisted suicide Bill

The Guardian described Mathew’s apparent change of mind as a “sign” that support for the Bill is “ebbing away”. Critics now believe there is a good chance of the Bill failing during the “knife-edge” Third Reading vote in June, with Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell citing “many colleagues who voted for the Bill at second reading but are now having doubts”.

Rosindell added “Momentum is against Leadbeater’s Bill and there is every reason to believe we can defeat it at third reading”.

Former Conservative MP Lord Jackson said “It does feel like things have changed in regards to the Leadbeater Bill”.

“There is now a steady stream of MPs flipping against the Bill and, if this continues, it looks like it will be a knife-edge vote next month”.

Risk of “suicide culture” if Leadbeater Bill becomes law

The Bill passed its Second Reading by 55 votes. If 28 MPs switch their stance, it will be defeated at Third Reading. Mathew’s announcement comes as an increasing number of MPs are changing their minds about the legislation, joining Reform’s Lee Anderson and his former colleague Rupert Lowe who publicly declared in February that they would be changing their vote.

During Report Stage, Jonathan Hinder MP announced that, while he had voted in favour of the assisted suicide Bill at Second Reading, his “concerns have only deepened” over the course of Commitee Stage and that he would now be voting against the Bill. Hinder is joined by former Conservative Minister George Freeman, who explained his change of stance, telling Times Radio that there is a risk of a “suicide culture” and a “Dignitas industry” being created if the Leadbeater Bill becomes law.

Explaining his reasons for changing his mind, Conservative MP Andrew Snowden complained that the Bill had “already been watered down from its original safeguards” and expressed concerns about the “process” of a Private Members’ Bill for the legislation. Snowden said “[H]ow can I vote to allow the state to sanction, determine and administrate assisted suicide, if I have this much doubt in my mind about the parliamentary process and as such the robustness and workability of the subsequent legislation?”

The New Statesman also reported that Naz Shah MP has had conversations with “quite a few” fellow Labour MPs who “have changed their minds from being in favour to against” the Bill. Shah explained “Somebody very bluntly said, ‘Oh no, I’m definitely not voting for this. I ain’t having my old man being coerced and feeling that he’s a burden and he has to go. I ain’t having that’”.

Concerns about a lack of safeguards and palliative care

Liberal Democrat MP Steve Darling is now “marginally against” the assisted suicide Billl, due to concerns about a lack of safeguards and the broken health and care system. While still undecided about how he will vote, Darling said he now had “more concerns than I did then” (in November at the Second Reading vote).

Some MPs who abstained from voting at Second Reading have now moved to opposing the Bill, including Labour MP for Crawley, Peter Lamb, who said “I do not believe that the case has been made for a change in the law, and I therefore believe I am obligated to oppose the passage of the Bill through the remaining stages of the process”. Lamb also cited the need to invest in palliative care as his most significant concern as well as the lack of parliamentary time available for consideration of the Bill.

Concerns about palliative care were also shared by Emma Hardy MP who has moved from abstaining to intending to vote against. Hardy expressed her fears that, because “palliative care access is worse in deprived areas, I fear that without concrete measures assisted dying could become [the] de facto option for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients who cannot afford the high quality palliative care we all deserve”.

Momentum shifting against assisted suicide Bill

Labour MP Debbie Abrahams and Conservative MP Charlie Dewhirst, who did not vote at Second Reading, both told The Telegraph they now intended to vote against. Dewhirst said he “can’t support it in all good conscience” because “[t]here seems to be a lack of protections, for example, for people with autism. And it really feels to me that it’s far wider than we were assured it was going to be to start with”.

Labour MP Karl Turner has also changed his position from voting for the Bill to abstaining. Turner said he would now vote against if he were “forced” to vote and if abstaining were not an option, also explaining that he was “worried” about “the safeguards in terms of judicial scrutiny”. Liberal Democrat MP Bobby Dean and former minister, Sir David Davis MP, who both previously voted for the Bill, are now reported to be undecided.

Momentum appears to be shifting against the Bill, with key figures and organisations speaking out strongly against supporting the legislation. In a move described by journalist Dan Hitchens as “an absolute bombshell statement”, the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) announced it “cannot support” the Bill, citing “many, many factors” that need addressing. The RCPsych said “With too many unanswered questions about the safeguarding of people with mental illness, the College has concluded that it cannot support the Bill in its current form”.

Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has expressed her concerns about the “inadequacies” of a Private Members’ Bill as a suitable “vehicle for such wide societal change” and was critical of the “curtailed” and “short” nature of the Report Stage debate earlier this month. She said “There are huge implications here and the debate that we’re having is curtailed, it is short. We saw that last Friday. I don’t think it’s the right thing to do”.

The Justice Secretary’s comments are another setback for Leadbeater because the Ministry of Justice would be partly responsible for the implementation of the assisted suicide Bill if it were to become law.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “There is now no doubt the tide has turned on this dangerous Bill as many MPs who voted for the Bill at Second Reading change their minds”.

“There is still a lot of work to do between now and Third Reading. It is vital to keep contacting MPs to highlight the flaws and unworkability of the assisted suicide Bill. However, we are now firmly on track and we can win this”.

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

The post Another British MP Will Vote Against the Dangerous Assisted Suicide Bill appeared first on LifeNews.com.

A new peer-reviewed study by the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) found no evidence to substantiate the popular claim that abortion medications are safer than Tylenol.

Abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood have long claimed that mifepristone, a pill used for medical abortions, is as safe as commonly-used medicines like Tylenol. The CLI study, published in the journal BioTech on Tuesday, found that no scientifically valid comparison between mifepristone and Tylenol exists.

“For years now, the abortion lobby’s claim that abortion drugs are ‘safer than Tylenol’ has dominated public discussion, propelled by the illusion of scientific consensus. However, no such support exists,” said Cameron Louttit, director of life sciences at CLI and author of the study. “This baseless claim, repeated by medical societies, politicians, media pundits and researchers, has profoundly influenced public opinion and policy. But as this paper details, those spreading it lack the evidence they routinely claim.”

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

Titled “The Origins and Proliferation of Unfounded Comparisons Regarding the Safety of Mifepristone,” the study emphasizes that evaluating drug safety solely based on death rates is misleading, as it overlooks serious adverse events such as heavy bleeding and severe abdominal pain, which are critical to a holistic safety assessment.

“In collapsing complex safety considerations into simplistic comparisons that leverage wholly incomparable metrics, these assertions systematically violate the norms and regulations that inform evidence-based biomedical communication,” the study states. “Not only have the comparisons between mifepristone and other drugs failed in their duty to adequately assess this impossibility, but they have also demonstrated a complete disregard for the need to communicate comprehensive and truthful safety information to patients, policymakers, jurists, and the public.”

The CLI study also found that the claim that mifepristone is as safe as common drugs like Tylenol originated in a 2003 Chicago Tribune article in which a doctor compared mifepristone’s death rate to an uncited penicillin death rate.

Planned Parenthood, one of the top abortion providers in the U.S., maintains that the abortion pill is “safer than many other medicines like penicillin, Tylenol, and Viagra,” according to its website.

“The claim that abortion drugs are safer than Tylenol is a reckless slogan that is not backed by science. Yet the claim is aggressively pushed by the legacy media and politicians focused on advancing a pro-abortion agenda and stripping away safeguards on drugs responsible for the majority of abortions in the United States,” Katie Daniel, director of legal affairs and policy counsel for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Not to mention, the Biden Administration’s decision to strip away in-person dispensing requirements fueled an unregulated online drug market, all in the name of ideological convenience. Americans deserve evidence-based policy, not political slogans that put women’s lives at risk.”

The CLI’s findings follow the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s (EPPC) recent study finding that nearly 11% of patients experience a “serious adverse event” after taking the abortion pill — including hemorrhaging, sepsis, fallopian tube rupture or infection — compared to the 0.5% rate presented on the drug label. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently described the EPPC’s data as “alarming,” and directed the Food and Drug Administration to review the safety of the abortion pill and update its labeling if necessary.

Medication abortions currently account for two-thirds of abortions performed each year.

Danco Laboratories, LLC, which manufactures mifepristone, and Planned Parenthood did not respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

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

The post New Study Completely Destroys the Lie That Abortion Pills are Safe for Women appeared first on LifeNews.com.

No matter what one says about Pope Francis, I do think he was a workhorse, what might be called a “workaholic”. I don’t think he ever took a real vacation in his 12 year long papacy. Personally, I don’t think that’s healthy for anyone and for the poor souls who had to have him throughout the summer disrupting the Italian lifestyle of daily and summer rest, especially during the month of August.

Pope Benedict XVI loved Castel Gandolfo and every pope before him in my memory. 

I find Pope Leo XIV to be a real gentleman. He may not be a Pope Benedict XVII or Pope John Paul III and he certainly won’t be a Pope Francis II, but he will make the best of not canceling Pope Francis like Pope Francis canceled Benedict and JP II. I think Pope Leo XIV simply won’t do that to Pope Francis. But any changes made by Pope Leo to Francis’ legacy will be a refinement not a cancelation. 

For rad-trads, that will be disappointing. But for the Universal Church, that is what needs to be done to secure peace in the Church and bring the majority of Catholics back to the center, respecting the Church, her Councils and her leaders but with openness to the needs and concerns of lower clergy, religious and laity. 

Vatican II and a pope’s post Vatican II vision for the Church cannot be implemented in the most authoritarian pre-Vatican II way. Pope Francis tried that and he cause polarization galore after two previous papacies that made progress in re-establishing unity and peace in the Church. 

Pope Leo XIV among the hills: brief visit to the traditional summer residence of popes, Castel Gandolfo…

Under the current administration, led by Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, Abortion Free New Mexico has obtained very limited data about taxpayer funded abortions through New Mexico Medicaid.

In an Inspection of Public Records (IPRA) request on February 6, 2025 made to the New Mexico Health Care Authority (HCA), Tara Shaver of Abortion Free New Mexico asked for a plethora of information regarding the numbers of abortions that were funded through New Mexico Medicaid. The response that the Health Care Authority provided was unprofessional, unclear and incomplete but Abortion Free New Mexico is publishing what has been revealed so far in this investigation.

The following information was requested:

1. How much money was paid for abortion procedures by New Mexico Medicaid in 2022, 2023 and 2024?
2. How many abortion procedures were paid for by New Mexico Medicaid in 2022, 2023 and 2024? (Please specify whether the procedure is chemical or surgical.)
3. Which providers in New Mexico were paid by New Mexico Medicaid for abortion procedures in 2022, 2023 and 2024?
4. What is the gestational ages of the fetus’ for which abortions were paid for by New Mexico Medicaid in 2022, 2023 and 2024?
5. How many abortion procedures were paid for by New Mexico Medicaid on undocumented immigrants in 2022, 2023 and 2024?

​​​On March 4, 2025 the New Mexico Health Care Authority public records custodian gave a one sentence reply to Shaver’s initial request which was quite concerning. It simply stated,

“The New Mexico Health Care Authority, $2,980,083.31 was paid in PregTerm through 2022- 2024. The New Mexico Health Care Authority does not have documents responsive to the remainder of this request.”

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

CLICK HERE TO VIEW

​In a back and forth to clarify, two different dollar amounts were ultimately given, with the final amount being over $3.7 million dollars (Total – $3,768,818.32) for 2022, 2023 and 2024. The letter below dated April 16, 2025 also included a breakdown by year, showing that 2024 had the highest amount paid out for abortions. ​The lack of transparency regarding this request, however, is a breach of the public trust.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW

In previous years under a different administration, public records requests were fulfilled completely with all requested data included. Not only did the HCA give a limited repsonse, they also stated that they did not have documents responsive to the rest of the request. Upon reading this, Shaver decided to ask where additional data could be obtained in the interest of public accountability.

Shaver then received the following response via email correspondence with the public records custodian,

“Dear Mrs. Shaver, no we do not know of an government agency that would have this because Medicaid, as we have indicated, does not pay for this. You could try private entities like planned parenthood. Thanks, HCA IPRA Team.”

Tara Shaver, spokeswoman for Abortion Free New Mexico issued the following statement,

“It is very frustrating when a state agency, like the New Mexico Health Care Authority, that is entrusted with public information withholds, denies and even changes the information when it is requested by the public. This is unfortunately the norm in Democrat run states like New Mexico. The New Mexico Health Care Authority denied that Medicaid even pays for abortions but gave two contradicting dollar amounts for PregTerm (short for Pregnancy Termination) which is regarded as medical or surgical abortions. For a state that is so proud to champion abortion, why are they so unwilling to release actual abortion numbers that state taxpayers have funded? Is this an indication that they know how evil abortion really is and are attempting to hide this information from the public?”

​Abortion Free New Mexico has reached out to an open government organization for assistance and has submitted another IPRA request to the New Mexico HCA to try and gain the original requested  information based on the medical codes used for abortions.

New Mexico is 1 of 19 states that uses state tax dollars through Medicaid to fully fund elective abortions.  This use of state tax dollars being utilized to fund abortions through New Mexico Medicaid despite the Hyde Amendment, is based on a New Mexico Supreme Court order.

According to the ruling issued in 1999,

“The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that the State must cover all medically necessary abortions in its Medicaid program using State-only funds. The Court based its decision to expand coverage of abortion services on the State Constitution’s Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Specifically, the Court found that the Medicaid agency’s rule prohibiting State funding for certain medically necessary abortions denies Medicaid-eligible women equal rights. The agency’s rule results in a program that does not apply the same standard of medical necessity to both men and women, and there is no compelling justification for treating men and women differently with respect to their medical needs.”

The cost of a first trimester abortion is typically around $600, whereas a 32 week abortion costs $17,500.

“There is a definite trend in New Mexico to promote abortion but keep citizens in the dark about their shameful deeds. During the most recent 2024 legislative session, radical abortion legislators introduced multiple bills to suppress abortion related data. Unfortunately, one bill did pass, SB57 which prevents the public from knowing the names of abortion providers, employed by a public body. It begs the question, why do you want to hide your identity if you are so proud to take the lives of little babies by performing grisly abortions, some up to 32 weeks of pregnancy? The citizens of New Mexico deserve transparency from their government and every innocent life should be protected under the law, born and preborn,” stated Tara Shaver.

The post New Mexico Gov Grisham Forced Residents to Spend $3.7 Million Funding Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Bishop Michael Martin's recently leaked draft document "Go in Peace Glorifying the Lord by Your Life" is probably the pettiest, nastiest, most malicious episcopal letter I have ever read. The level of micromanaging displayed in this 7,700 word screed beggars belief. The letter—which runs twenty printed pages—sets a new bar for pedantry with its obsessive attempts to regulate every minute aspect of the liturgy in the Diocese of Charlotte, right down to what prayers a priest says privately while vesting alone in the sacristy. It is a stunning display of small-mindedness by a prelate of exceptional hubris, who announces that he is going to "set his own preferences aside" before he ruthlessly imposes them on his clergy, who lauds "the rich tradition that has been handed down to us" before systematically destroying it with the zeal of a Jacobin, who claims to "encourage unity in worship" while proposing liturgical norms guaranteed to plunge his diocese into chaos. It's dissonance reaches Orwellian levels of double speak.

Ultimately, it seems Bishop Michael Martin has mistaken the sacred liturgy for his personal Pinterest board, curating a sterile, minimalist aesthetic that would make even the most ardent Puritan blush. With the zeal of a bureaucrat armed with a ruler and a vendetta, he’s sculpted a 7,700-word monument to his own hubris, where tradition is praised in one breath and guillotined in the next. This Orwellian document reads less like a pastoral letter and more like a dystopian style guide, where missal stands are contraband, altar rails are relics of a forbidden past, and private prayers are subject to episcopal veto. One wonders if the good bishop will next decree the acceptable length of a priest’s shoelaces or the precise angle of a bowed head! In his quest for “full, conscious, and active participation,” Martin has crafted a liturgy so obsessively controlled it risks paralyzing the very souls it claims to uplift. If this is unity, it’s the unity of a spreadsheet—cold, calculated, and utterly devoid of the warmth of the Church’s living tradition. Perhaps the faithful of Charlotte can take solace in one thing: when the altar is stripped bare and the St. Michael Prayer is silenced, they’ll have an unobstructed view of the chaos that follows.

A new peer-reviewed study published by the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) uncovered widespread miscoding of emergency room (ER) visits following drug-induced abortions, raising serious concerns about patient safety.

Using anonymized Medicaid claims data, researchers reviewed nearly 29,000 ER visits within 30 days of a surgical or drug-induced abortion. They then determined whether each visit was related to the abortion and whether it was accurately coded as abortion-related or misclassified as a miscarriage. Each case was also evaluated for acuity—which is a measure of the severity and complexity of each patient’s condition.

Key findings:

• ER visits after abortion drug use were 79% more likely to be miscoded as miscarriages compared to surgical abortions.
• From 2016–2021, nearly 84% of drug-induced abortion-related ER visits were miscoded.
• Miscoded ER visits were significantly more likely to be severe: Among drug-induced abortion cases, miscoded visits were 50% more likely to be labeled high acuity over correctly coded visits.

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

“When abortion-related emergencies are disguised as miscarriages, it impairs a doctor’s ability to make informed, evidence-based decisions. That isn’t just a documentation error—it’s a public health crisis,” said Dr. James Studnicki, vice president and director of data analytics at the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

The findings are especially troubling considering pro-abortion advocacy groups actively encourage women to withhold their abortion history in emergency room settings. Currently, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advises clinicians not to ask or document abortion drug use, citing concerns over legal risk—a claim not supported by state laws, which uniformly exempt women from any prosecution.

This guidance defies standard medical practice. In no other area of health care are patients told to lie or omit their critical medical history, especially in emergency scenarios where lives and outcomes rely on accurate information.

“The abortion industry’s push for concealment is unethical and dangerous,” said Dr. Studnicki. “Women deserve honest guidance and proper medical care, not advice that jeopardizes their health.”

This study’s findings challenge the often-repeated false claim from the abortion lobby that emergency care for abortion complications does not require disclosure. The data shows otherwise—and underscores the urgent need for accurate reporting and transparency.

This study also builds on a growing body of evidence challenging the abortion lobby’s misleading narratives about abortion drug safety, highlighting the need for evidence-based medical information to prioritize women’s health and safety.

CLI’s full analysis can be found HERE.

The post Botched Abortions Put Thousands of Women in ERs, Wrongly Coded as Miscarriages appeared first on LifeNews.com.

(Originally posted in the midst of our captivity, May 21, 2020)

Happy feast!

“He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.”

Forty days after Easter, Our Lord ascended into Heaven, straight up into a cloud. The Ascension is mysterious for several reasons. For one thing, you would think such a startling sight would be described in great detail in the Gospels, but this isn’t the case. Matthew and John don’t even mention it. Luke speaks of it briefly at the end of his Gospel, and in more detail in Acts. Mark’s account is the Gospel reading at Mass today (1962), “He upbraided them…” It appears in the second half of the 16th and final chapter of Mark’s gospel, which is itself a mystery: Many ancient manuscripts are missing these last seven verses.

Another mystery are the events leading up to the Ascension. Namely, the events of the 40 days Our Lord remained, appearing several times in various ways, even eating and drinking with the apostles. The most complete rendering is in John; the Synoptic Gospels are all but silent. It strikes me akin to the very few words attributed directly to our Blessed Mother, and the total silence of her most chase spouse. Deepening this mystery is that John ends his Gospel by telling us there were countless other things that Jesus did that are not written down, and if they were, the whole world could not contain the books that would be written. Have you ever meditated on that?

Another mystery is the need for the upbraiding. These men saw more miracles than could fill books that could fill the world, yet they were still a wretched bunch of unbelievers, who needed one last ass-kicking before Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father? On the surface, not a very encouraging commentary on the state of man. This seems to tempt us to despair.

On the contrary!

In the Mysteries of the Rosary, the Ascension is the Second Glorious. The Fruit of the Mystery is HOPE, which is also the second Theological Virtue. Have you meditated on Hope? It’s not some sweet soothing Kathy, just wish all your troubles away, hush hush don’t cry, things will get better, sweetie. No.

Hope is rooted in the knowledge that God is not a jerk, that God keeps his promises, and that we can and should trust in Him. It is standing firm in your faith, grounded by right reason, knowing that God is in control. Hope goes beyond simply desiring some future good; hope is the desire for a future good accompanied by the expectation of attaining it. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07465b.htm

We are living through an unprecedented time in history. Don’t let your normalcy bias cloud current events. An antipope has usurped the Petrine See, and seemingly the whole Church doesn’t mind. We’ve seen the anti-church emerge and strut like a peacock… we are talking about open idol worship inside St. Peter’s, lead by the antipope… and it is allowed to pass. And now the entire world has been turned upside down in a matter of weeks. Entire empires are intentionally self-destructing over a mild virus, cheered on by their own citizenry, to the delight of the all the worst actor agitators, undergirded with communism and satanism.

All of this is converging with you in the middle of it. God chose you to be born into this age. What an absolute honor that is. We are called to action, through both spiritual warfare and concrete action in the natural realm. Act, and God will act. Act, grounded in faith, spurred by hope, intentioned with charity. We know how this ends: God wins, and He wants you on the winning team. Assume the bearing that victory is yours, and expect to attain it.

Blessed feast to all.

Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty God, that we who firmly believe that Thine only-begotten Son, our Redeemer, to have ascended this day into heaven, may also ourselves dwell in mind on heavenly things. – Collect, Feast of the Ascension

How would people react if, on the third time their broken-down car was towed to the same repair shop for the same problem, the swaggering mechanic told them: “Sure — the engine doesn’t work today but — follow me on this — next year, you will drive from coast to coast, and get 90 miles to the gallon!”

Yet if a politician promises to fix the world, people applaud and follow him regardless of previous crashes.

Woodrow Wilson revolutionized the political exploitation of idealism. In his 1917 speech to Congress calling for war against Germany, Wilson proclaimed that “the world must be made safe for democracy.” He described the U.S. government as “one of the champions of the rights of mankind” and stated the goal of the war was to “bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.”

Wilson endlessly invoked the ideal of liberty as he seized nearly absolute power over Americans, including the power to conscript millions of Americans to fight wherever he chose (including Siberia) and to commandeer entire industries.

While Wilson is today hailed as a visionary, in his own time, he became loathed as a demagogue. The more people embraced the ideals he proclaimed, the easier it became to defraud them. Americans’ idealism was fanned by ruthless censorship of any criticism of the government’s war effort.

The 1919 Paris peace talks shredded Wilson’s pretensions and made a mockery of the cause for which he sent more than a hundred thousand Americans to their death. One of Wilson’s top aides, Henry White, later commented: “We had such high hopes of this adventure; we believed God called us and now we are doing hell’s dirtiest work.” Historian Thomas Fleming, the author of The Illusion of Victory, noted, “The British and French exploited the war to forcibly expand their empires and place millions more people under their thumbs.” Fleming concluded that one lesson of World War I is that “idealism is not synonymous with sainthood or virtue. It only sounds that way.”

The 1920 presidential election was a referendum on Wilson-style idealism. As H. L. Mencken wrote on the eve of the vote, Americans were tired “of a steady diet of white protestations and black acts; they are weary of hearing highfalutin and meaningless words; they sicken of an idealism that is oblique, confusing, dishonest, and ferocious.” Mencken explained why a typical voter would support Warren Harding: “Tired to death of intellectual charlatanry, he turns despairingly to honesty imbecility.”

Herbert Hoover’s subjugation idealism

Herbert Hoover, who campaigned as the Mastermind of the Age when he was elected president in 1928, invoked idealism to perpetuate subjugating foreigners to U.S. rule. When Congress enacted a bill to provide for the independence of the Philippine Islands, Hoover vetoed it in early 1933 because “We have a responsibility to the world … to develop and perfect freedom for these people.” Hoover rejected Congress’s bill because “it does not fulfill the idealism with which this task in human liberation was undertaken.” As long as the United States had not given Filipinos “perfect freedom,” it was entitled
to keep them under its thumb. Hoover’s assertion that idealism spurred the U.S. policy is difficult to reconcile with the killings of scores of thousands of Filipinos who resisted the U.S. takeover of their islands in the early 1900s. Hoover’s veto ensured that the United States remained mired in the Philippines until the Bataan death march and beyond.

FDR’s practical idealism

President Franklin Roosevelt was hailed as an idealist because he urged people to have faith in government to solve the nation’s problems. FDR assured the Young Democratic Clubs of America in 1940 that “you need practical idealism to make the present machinery function better.” “Practical idealism” signified FDR’s boundless faith in his own economic manipulations, such as setting the price of gold on a whim, reversing policies at the flip of a coin, and whipsawing anyone who counted on his promises. During World War II, FDR idealized American allies, touting the Soviet Union as one of the “freedom-loving nations.” Roosevelt’s glorification of the Soviets helped beget the infamous Yalta agreement that effectively consigned 100 million plus Germans, Czechs, Poles, and Hungarians to serfdom under Stalin. By deluding Americans, FDR’s idealism set the stage for a backlash that propelled the Cold War.

JFK’s service idealism

John F. Kennedy exploited idealistic appeals to capture the presidency in 1960. JFK talked as if the U.S. government could practically solve all problems, from ending tyranny (intervening everywhere against Communism) to ending worldwide poverty (with Peace Corps volunteers magically lifting foreign nations simply by their mere presence). Kennedy’s glorification of public service was simply an updating of the 1920s cult of service. But since he appealed for people to join the government instead of the Kiwanis, he was considered a visionary.

LBJ’s Vietnam idealism

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “For 188 years, the strongest fiber of America has been that thread of idealism which weaves through all our effort and all our aspiration.” Three years later, amidst rising antiwar protests, LBJ warned, “Idealism without commitment is like a bright light burning in a vacuum. Commitment without idealism can easily become frenzied and destructive.” At a 1968 presidential prayer breakfast, Johnson combined God and idealism to try to redeem his biggest muddle: “Belief in a divine providence is … a compelling challenge to men to attain the ideals of liberty, justice, peace, and compassion. It is often — as it is today in Vietnam — a call for very great sacrifice.” Johnson’s comment came the day after the start of the Viet Cong’s Tet Offensive, which stunned Americans who had swallowed LBJ’s boasting about how the enemy was nearly vanquished.

Nixon’s corrupt idealism

The backlash from LBJ’s “credibility gap” helped elect Richard Nixon, a politician renowned for dirty pool since his first red-baiting congressional victory in 1946. After his defeat in the 1960 presidential race, Nixon rebuilt his political fortunes as a born-again idealist. Bromides permeated his first presidential term: “Idealism without pragmatism is impotent…. The key to effective leadership is pragmatic idealism.” Alternatively, “Idealism without realism is impotent. Realism without idealism is immoral.” Nixon declared in 1971 at the University of Nebraska: “I believe one of America’s most priceless assets is the idealism which motivates the young people of America.”

Nixon’s invocations on idealism did not dissuade him from lying and lawbreaking across the board. Nor did gushing over youthful idealism deter him from perpetuating the Vietnam War and sending 20,000 potential American idealists to their deaths.

Reagan’s hypocritical idealism

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan told the Conservative Political Action Committee: “There is, in America, a greatness and a tremendous heritage of idealism which is a reservoir of strength and goodness. It is ours if we will but tap it.”

Reagan was deified by conservatives for preaching that “government is the problem, not the solution.” The Reagan presidency illustrates how idealizing a politician allows him to do as he pleases. The trust and support Reagan garnered enabled him to dictate a national drinking age (18), rev up the drug war, create new handouts for business and farmers, and bankroll guerrilla conflicts and repression abroad. But because Reagan constantly praised liberty, his power grabs were asterisks instead of outrages.

Clinton’s bombing idealism

Bill Clinton captured the presidency in 1992 in part thanks to idealistic-sounding  appeals for reviving faith in government. In his first term, his idealism was personified by AmeriCorps — the paid “volunteer” program that provided cheering squads when Clinton arrived at airport tarmacs around the nation. Throughout his second term, Clinton continually assured audiences: “I’m more idealistic today than I was the day that I took the Oath of Office” — as if his idealism was proof of his virtue. Clinton portrayed the  U.S. bombing of Serbia in 1999 as American idealism at its best: “Because we believe every human being has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness … we are proud to stand with our Allies in defense of these ideals in Kosovo.” But the U.S. bombing merely reversed the roles, permitting the Kosovo Liberation Army to terrorize Serb civilians as the Serb Army had previously abused ethnic Albanians.

Bush’s military idealism

President George W. Bush portrayed his invasion of Iraq as American idealism at its best. In his May 1, 2003, “Mission Accomplished” speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, Bush hailed “the character of our military through history” for showing “the decency and idealism that turned enemies into allies.” Speaking three weeks later at a Republican fundraiser, he bragged, “The world has seen the strength and the idealism of the United States military.” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius declared in late 2003 that “this may be the most idealistic war fought in modern times.” Bush’s ideals did nothing to resurrect the American soldiers or Iraqi civilians killed after his perpetual brazen false claims paved the way to the U.S. attack on Iraq.

Obama’s assassination idealism

Barack Obama probably did more damage to idealism than any president since Woodrow Wilson. In his first inaugural address, Obama declared that America’s “ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience sake.” But one of Obama’s most shocking legacies was his claim of a prerogative to kill U.S. citizens labeled as terrorist suspects without trial, without notice, and without any chance for the marked individuals to legally object. Obama’s lawyers even refused to disclose the standards used for designating Americans for death. Drone strikes increased tenfold under Obama, and he personally chose who would be killed at weekly “Terror Tuesday” White House meetings that featured PowerPoint parades of potential targets.

In 2011, Obama draped his decision to bomb Libya by invoking “democratic values,” and the “ideals” that he asserted were, he said, “the true measure of American leadership.” Obama was so convinced of the righteousness of targeting dictator Muammar Qadaffi that his appointees signaled that federal law (such as the War Powers Act) could not constrain his salvation mission.  At that point, the terrorist groups fighting Qaddafi were already slaughtering civilians.  In the chaos that subsequently engulfed Libya, ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. When their corpses arrived back in the U.S., Obama hailed the victims for embodying “the courage, the hope, and yes, the idealism, that fundamental American belief that we can leave this world a little better than before.” Obama’s soothing rhetoric failed to deter the proliferation of slave markets where black migrants were openly sold in Libya.

Idealism and tyranny

Nowadays, idealism is often positive thinking about growing servitude. Idealism encourages citizens to view politics as a faith-based activity, transforming politicians from hucksters to saviors. The issue is not what government did in the past — the issue is how we must do better in the future. Politicians’ pious piffle is supposed to radically reduce the risk of subsequent perfidy.

Idealistic appeals permit politicians to stack the deck in listeners’ minds. To believe an idealistic speech is to “do good” — akin to displaying a “Support our Troops” decal on one’s automobile. Idealism is the most dangerous species of political lie. The idealistic draping confers an obligation to believe, or at least to defer. The moral bonus a politician receives for invoking ideals usually exceeds any demerits for lying. Thus, lying about ideals is a guaranteed win for politicians.

Self-government cannot survive people idealizing their rulers. Telling citizens to glorify contemporary politicians is like urging battered wives to idealize their husbands. Why should we expect political idealism to be more honest than politics? It is time to cease being idealistic about idealism.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

The Deep State is not going away. It’s just being replaced.

As we stand on the brink of a new technological order, the machinery of power is quietly shifting into the hands of algorithms.

Under Donald Trump’s watch, that shift is being locked in for at least a generation.

Trump’s latest legislative initiative—a 10-year ban on AI regulation buried within the “One Big Beautiful Bill”—strips state and local governments of the ability to impose any guardrails on artificial intelligence (AI) until 2035.

Despite bipartisan warnings from 40 state attorneys general, the bill passed the House and awaits Senate approval. It is nothing less than a federal green light for AI to operate without oversight in every sphere of life, from law enforcement and employment to healthcare, education, and digital surveillance.

This is not innovation.

This is institutionalized automation of tyranny.

This is how, within a state of algorithmic governance, code quickly replaces constitutional law as the mechanism for control.

We are rapidly moving from a society ruled by laws and due process to one ruled by software.

Algorithmic governance refers to the use of machine learning and automated decision-making systems to carry out functions once reserved for human beings: policing, welfare eligibility, immigration vetting, job recruitment, credit scoring, and judicial risk assessments.

In this regime, the law is no longer interpreted. It is executed. Automatically. Mechanically. Without room for appeal, discretion, or human mercy.

These AI systems rely on historical data—data riddled with systemic bias and human error—to make predictions and trigger decisions. Predictive policing algorithms tell officers where to patrol and whom to stop. Facial recognition technology flags “suspects” based on photos scraped from social media. Risk assessment software assigns threat scores to citizens with no explanation, no oversight, and no redress.

These algorithms operate in black boxes, shielded by trade secrets and protected by national security exemptions. The public cannot inspect them. Courts cannot challenge them. Citizens cannot escape them.

The result? A population sorted, scored, and surveilled by machinery.

This is the practical result of the Trump administration’s deregulation agenda: AI systems given carte blanche to surveil, categorize, and criminalize the public without transparency or recourse.

And these aren’t theoretical dangers—they’re already happening.

Yet the Trump administration’s approach to AI regulation reveals a deeper plan to deregulate democracy itself.

Rather than curbing abuses, the Trump administration is accelerating them.

An executive order titled “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” signed by President Trump in early 2025, revoked prior AI safeguards, eliminated bias audits, and instructed agencies to prioritize “innovation” over ethics. The order encourages every federal agency to adopt AI quickly, especially in areas like policing and surveillance.

Under the guise of “efficiency,” constitutional protections are being erased.

Trump’s 10-year moratorium on AI regulation is the logical next step. It dismantles the last line of defense—state-level resistance—and ensures a uniform national policy of algorithmic dominance.

The result is a system in which government no longer governs. It processes.

The federal government’s AI expansion is building a surveillance state that no human authority can restrain.

Welcome to Surveillance State 2.0, the Immortal Machine.

Over 1700 uses of AI have already been reported across federal agencies, with hundreds directly impacting safety and rights. Many agencies, including the Departments of Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, and Health and Human Services, are deploying AI for decision-making without public input or oversight.

This is what the technocrats call an “algocracy”—rule by algorithm.

In an algocracy, unelected developers and corporate contractors hold more power over your life than elected officials.

Your health, freedom, mobility, and privacy are subject to automated scoring systems you can’t see and can’t appeal.

And unlike even the most entrenched human dictators, these systems do not die. They do not forget. They are not swayed by mercy or reason. They do not stand for re-election.

They persist.

When AI governs by prediction, due process disappears in a haze of machine logic.

The most chilling effect of this digital regime is the death of due process.

What court can you appeal to when an algorithm has labeled you a danger? What lawyer can cross-examine a predictive model? What jury can weigh the reasoning of a neural net trained on flawed data?

You are guilty because the machine says so. And the machine is never wrong.

When due process dissolves into data processing, the burden of proof flips. The presumption of innocence evaporates. Citizens are forced to prove they are not threats, not risks, not enemies.

And most of the time, they don’t even know they’ve been flagged.

This erosion of due process is not just a legal failure—it is a philosophical one, reducing individuals to data points in systems that no longer recognize their humanity.

Writer and visionary Rod Serling warned of this very outcome more than half a century ago: a world where technology, masquerading as progress under the guise of order and logic, becomes the instrument of tyranny.

That future is no longer fiction. What Serling imagined is now reality.

The time to resist is now, before freedom becomes obsolete and we become Romney Wordsworth, the condemned man in Serling’s Twilight Zone episode “The Obsolete Man.”

“The Obsolete Man,” a story arc about the erasure of individual worth by a mechanized state, underscores the danger of rendering humans irrelevant in a system of cold automation and speaks to the dangers of a government that views people as expendable once they have outgrown their usefulness to the State. Yet—and here’s the kicker—this is where the government through its monstrous inhumanity also becomes obsolete.

As Serling noted in his original script for “The Obsolete Man,” “Any state, any entity, any ideology which fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man…that state is obsolete.”

We now face a fork in the road: resist the rise of the immortal dictator or submit to the reign of the machine.

This is not a battle against technology, but a battle against the unchecked, unregulated, and undemocratic use of technology to control people.

We must demand algorithmic transparency, data ownership rights, and legal recourse against automated decisions. Otherwise, AI becomes the ultimate enforcer of a surveillance state from which there is no escape.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the time to fight back is now—before the code becomes law, and freedom becomes a memory.

Reprinted with permission from The Rutherford Institute.

While the Presbyterian Church (USA) faced declines in membership, congregations, and funding in 2024 — according to statistics the Presbyterian Church (USA) released this week — the more conservative Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) experienced growth during the same period.

Juicy Ecumenism reported that the PC(USA) lost 48,885 members — roughly a 4.5% decline — last year, continuing the mostly consistent annual loss rate the church has seen for the past decade. If its decline continues, the PC(USA) is reportedly on track to dip for the first time below 1 million members in 2025.

CatholicVote previously reported that several other Protestant denominations have experienced declines in finances and membership, which an AP News report suggested is linked to progressive theology.

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

The PC(USA) reported it lost 140 churches and established only four. According to Juicy Ecumenism, the previous average for the establishment of new churches between 1995 and 2005 had been nearly 30 churches per year.

The congregations of the remaining 8,432 churches are becoming smaller and smaller, the data shows, as only 367 churches have more than 800 members. Almost 70% of the churches have fewer than 100 members, and nearly a quarter of the churches have no more than 25 members.

According to Juicy Ecumenism, however, the more conservative PCA reported 7,223 new members and 22 new churches in 2024, including a 16.56% increase in adult baptisms and a 2.4% increase in infant baptisms.

The outlet noted that while most members of the PC(USA) are above 50 years old, and over one-third are 71 or older, deaths in the church do not account for the decline in membership. The data report 20,420 members’ deaths, which is not even half of the total membership drop. The PC(USA) also reported that 181 members who identify as “nonbinary” or “genderqueer” joined in 2024.

The PC(USA) also has experienced funding issues due to its decline in members, according to the report. The Presbyterian Mission Agency was forced to drastically cut its annual giving to missionaries, and the agency was finally eliminated in early 2025, becoming part of a new entity. The funding shortage also resulted in layoffs of dozens of mission workers in February.

LifeNews Note: Hannah Hiester writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.

The post Presbyterian Church Losing Members and Churches After Years of Supporting Abortion appeared first on LifeNews.com.