Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Next month, three full years will have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. In that time, there has been no shortage of drama. Protests have taken place outside the homes of justices of the court. An attempted assassination was turned away at one justice’s home, and the perpetrator has pled guilty. In 2024, 10 states voted on ballot questions regarding abortion, seven of which resulted in state constitutional protection for a more or less unlimited right to abortion up to birth.

The Republican Party has largely muted its opposition to legal abortion, diluting its multi-decade national pro-life platform planks. An effort launched by the national Democratic Party to make abortion legal to term everywhere and a centerpiece of its 2024 campaign for the White House went down in flames with Kamala Harris. Now in office, President Trump has proceeded to restore a number of policies barring abortion funding, but further actions — like defunding Planned Parenthood, securing safeguards or other limits on abortion pill distribution, and protecting pain-capable unborn children federally — remain up in the air.

Thematically, the Trump administration continues to insist that abortion is a matter for state policy determination. The political aim may be in the process of realization, as discussions of abortion have become less frequent at the national level. Three years in, however, the status of abortion in the United States post-Dobbs is taking shape, if not yet an established trend. The truth appears to be that while Roe v. Wade has been reversed, the effects of Roe have scarcely been touched.

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

That is the main finding of a new and exhaustive study* of U.S. abortion numbers released by Mia Steupert, M.A., of the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI). Anyone who has studied abortion data knows that it can be an exercise in deep frustration. The federal system in America has many advantages, but national data collection and interpretation are not among them. For decades, the reports of the leading private abortion data collector, the Guttmacher Institute, showed totals 30% higher than the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) abortion surveillance reports, which trailed several years behind the coverage period. The Guttmacher reports were more detailed but nonetheless covered only what abortion businesses were willing or able to share. Comparisons year over year and reporting of abortion complications were topic areas not easily susceptible to tracking.

For various reasons, irrespective of Dobbs, these tasks have become even more difficult in the past several years, challenges the Steupert paper seeks to address. As before, national abortion reporting is voluntary. Existing state reports are not uniform. But in recent years, certain numbers have become more elusive. Several states have relaxed or rescinded their abortion reporting requirements. The Food and Drug Administration dropped its mandatory reporting of non-fatal abortion injuries after the use of the mifepristone-misoprostol regimen. An ever-growing percentage of abortions are taking place at home and/or utilizing abortion pills obtained via the mail or other delivery systems. Advance provision is taking place, both privately and in some cases via state governments, so that procurement of abortion drugs does not necessarily mean that they were consumed and an abortion occurred. A small, but nonetheless meaningful, number of abortions are chemically initiated but fail or are reversed medically. Policies change year after year so mifepristone, for example, may be prescribed later in pregnancy. As always, injuries occurring in the process of abortion, whether at a brick-and-mortar facility or in a bathroom, are treated in third-party facilities and may elude data capture.

A proper response to this situation would be for Congress and the new administration to overhaul the statutes and policies regarding data collection on this and other issues. The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the CDC is the prime collector and analyst of health statistics for the U.S. and is currently wrestling with the Office of Management and Budget over a variety of large datasets it says have been taken offline and are unavailable to the public. Restoring those datasets would be valuable, but more needs to be done, including improving the comprehensiveness and timeliness of data on health and social concerns.

The Steupert paper strives to utilize existing analyses by groups that favor legal abortion and have privileged access to the nation’s 777 (by CLI’s count) brick-and-mortar abortion facilities that offer drug-induced or surgical abortions. CLI also found that drugs to induce abortion are currently made available by some 142 U.S.-based groups or centers and via an additional eight websites or organizations it describes as “operating outside the formal U.S. health care system.”

The lead statistic for the report comes from the Society for Family Planning, a self-described advocacy group connected with academic institutions like the University of California-San Francisco and the University of Pittsburgh that makes research grants to a variety of academic institutions. The data show 1,121,450 abortions were carried out from July 2023 through June 2024 inside the formal health care system, with many thousands more self-managed abortions outside that system, including some carried out with imported abortion drugs.

The increase is disturbing, but it represents a trend, Steupert notes, that predates the Dobbs ruling. Abortions not only increased in the second full year since the decision but have risen 11% since 2020. Abortion totals in the United States dropped markedly, and steadily, between 1990 and 2018, when the current upturn began and continued through the second half of the first Trump administration and the Biden administration. Data shows that states that have protected the unborn by statute, like Texas and Florida, have seen sharp reductions in reported abortions, but overall counts have been driven upward by a variety of legal developments and industry practices. Steupert writes:

“The hypothesis that total abortions would inevitably decrease post-Dobbs did not account for the questionable legal strategies pro-abortion states were willing to implement which only exposed and exploited loopholes in pro-life laws. From taking advantage of the FDA’s pre-Dobbs decision to allow mail-order telehealth abortions with no in-person requirement, to shipping abortion drugs into pro-life states from pro-abortion states under shield laws, to deeming certain states ‘abortion havens,’ pro-abortion states have circumvented the inability of women in pro-life states to obtain brick-and-mortar abortions.” [citations omitted]

Steupert also notes, and other analysts agree, that the data does not suggest that the Dobbs ruling has not saved lives — abortion totals might be higher had the Supreme Court not decided as it did. The shift from in-clinic abortions to self-induced procedures, combined with relentless campaigns that assert that abortion pills are safer than Tylenol, may have been enough on their own over the past decade to make abortion seem like another form of Plan B. Blurring the two has long been a social policy objective of the industry. The direct response to that must come from women’s own and acknowledged adverse experiences with the pills, combined with new efforts to gather and assess clinical data on the aftermath of abortions conducted at home, including psychological sequelae.

One other implication exists. Advocates of abortion desire to go one step further than making abortion a state issue; they wish to make it an unobserved, non-issue. While three years out from the Dobbs ruling isn’t long, it is already becoming clear that the absence of federal action, including regarding abortion drugs and the range of needed family and maternal support, limits what individual states can do to check a shielded, and medically lawless, abortion industry. Making America healthy again without affirming the value of every mother and baby’s life will be very difficult indeed.

*As former president of Charlotte Lozier Institute, I was asked to review the draft paper and made several comments but did not otherwise contribute to its analysis or conclusions.

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 More Babies Dying With Easy Access to Abortion Bills appeared first on LifeNews.com.

I just completed a speaking tour in British Columbia where I had speaking engagements in Vernon, Kelowna, Salmon Arm and Vancouver – four speaking engagements in four days.

While in Vancouver I visited St Paul’s Hospital to see the (MAiD) euthanasia clinic that was imposed on it by the British Columbia (BC) provincial government – Ministry of Health.

The Euthanasia (MAiD) clinic was opened in January 2025 and is known as the Shoreline Space (green building). It looked like a euthanasia killing was happening while I was outside the door.

You may remember that on June 27, 2023 I reported that the euthanasia lobby was pressuring the BC government to force Catholic hospitals to provide euthanasia.

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

The euthanasia lobby used the story of Samantha O’Neill (34) who died by euthanasia (MAiD) on April 4, 2023. O’Neill requested euthanasia at St Paul’s hospital. Since St Paul’s did not provide euthanasia they transferred Samantha from St Paul’s to St. John’s hospice (run by Vancouver Coastal Health) to die by euthanasia.

On December 1, 2023 I reported that in response to the pressure from the euthanasia lobby the BC government expropriated property from Providence Health (St Paul’s) to build a euthanasia killing center next to St Paul’s in Vancouver in response to the complaint that palliative care patients did not have access to euthanasia at St Paul’s hospital.

In May 2024, I went to Germany to speak at a conference. While in Germany I visited three of the T-4 euthanasia memorials. I first visited the Grafeneck euthanasia memorial since it was the first of the T-4 euthanasia centres. 10,654 people (primarily people with disabilities) reportedly were gassed to death at Grafeneck.

A little bit of information about Grafeneck.

In 1928, Grafeneck castle came into the possession of the Samaritan Foundation (Samariterstiftung), a charitable arm of the German Lutheran Church. The foundation established a care facility for male patients with disabilities at Grafeneck in 1929.

In October 1939, the German government expropriated the Grafeneck castle property from the Lutheran Samaritan Foundation and transformed Grafeneck from a Lutheran care facility into the first centralized killing center within Aktion T4 (Nazi Euthanasia Program).

Grafeneck was the first functioning T4 killing center. Its operations commenced on January 18, 1940. Twenty-five male patients arrived from the Eglfing-Haar facility in Munich that day. Dr. Schumann personally escorted them to the old coach house where Schumann gassed them to death in the newly constructed gas chamber. From this date until December 1940, people were killed by gassing on an almost daily basis, excluding Sundays and holidays.

I am not suggesting that the BC government is planning to empty care homes by busing the residents to the Shoreline Space for killing.

I am stating that when the BC government expropriated property from Providence health and built a euthanasia killing center that is attached to St Paul’s hospital that they were repeating one of the ugliest parts of human history.

LifeNews.com Note: Alex Schadenberg is the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and you can read his blog here.

The post Canada Forces Catholic Hospital to House Euthanasia Center appeared first on LifeNews.com.

“For the children.” That is a go-to justification for politicians and bureaucrats seeking to infringe on individual rights. It was on display last week in the final minutes of the testimony of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary before a subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Makary was exaggerating the extent of vaping among high school students and saying that the addiction to vaping among “kids in America” is “something that we have to address” and a “top priority” for Donald Trump’s presidential administration.

Makary comments bring to mind the scare stirred up about marijuana decades back, including through the 1930s movie Reefer Madness now enjoyed by many for its over-the-top fearmongering in regard to the plant. And, yes, the movie’s focus too was on the children.

As marijuana legalization continues to progress in America, vaping has increasingly become a target for government-enforced restrictions on people both young and old. Makary and his cohort of nanny statists are determined to combat their hyped-up vaping threat that, as the Reefer Madness trailer put it for marijuana, is a “new and deadly menace .. with its roots in hell.”

Jacob Sullum, in a Monday Reason article you can read here, provided details regarding Makary’s comments and how they conflict with President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to “save vaping.”

Why has the US president decided to lift all sanctions on Damascus, and how will it shape the future of the region?

US President Donald Trump’s recent announcement that he intends to lift all sanctions on Syria stands as one of the most unexpected and controversial foreign policy moves Washington has made in the past decade.

Declared during Trump’s Middle East tour at the US-Saudi Investment Forum in Riyadh, the decision marks a dramatic shift in America’s approach to the region – one that could reshape the strategic landscape for both allies and adversaries.

The sanctions on Syria, first imposed in 1979, were progressively tightened over decades in response to accusations of sponsoring terrorism, human rights abuses, and close ties with Iran. Their full repeal is an unprecedented gesture, especially considering that Syria’s current president, Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, was until recently regarded by the US as a senior figure in Al-Qaeda – with a $10 million bounty once placed on his capture.

In return, Damascus has made a series of strategic commitments. According to Trump, al-Sharaa has pledged to prevent the resurgence of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), bring all jihadist detention camps under state control, and expel all foreign terrorist formations from Syrian soil. This latter promise is particularly significant, as these militant units – many of them composed of fighters from Central Asia – played a pivotal role in the collapse of Bashar Assad’s regime and the rise of the current leadership.

Many of these same groups are also responsible for large-scale ethnic purges, including the massacres of Alawites and other religious minorities earlier this year. Thus, Trump’s proposal does more than legitimize al-Sharaa’s regime – it places on it the mantle of a regional stabilizer, albeit one whose legitimacy remains heavily disputed.

The decision to lift sanctions cannot be divorced from Washington’s broader economic and strategic interests. That the announcement came in Saudi Arabia is no coincidence – it signals a broader understanding with Riyadh, which is eager to deepen its footprint in post-conflict Syria. From the US perspective, the Syria deal is a building block in a new Middle Eastern architecture – one dominated by pro-Western governments and designed to neutralize Iranian influence.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have long viewed Syria’s reconstruction as an opportunity to entrench themselves politically and economically. US sanctions had previously prevented them from acting overtly, and the lifting of restrictions may now be part of a grander bargain: Riyadh receives a green light to invest in Syria, while Washington secures massive financial commitments. On May 14 – the day of Trump’s announcement – Saudi Arabia signed a $142 billion arms deal with the US and pledged an additional $600 billion in American investments.

At first glance, Trump’s move might appear as a betrayal of Israeli interests – an accusation made in several media commentaries. Yet in practice, Israel gains a neighbor that, while unpredictable, is now positioned to suppress Islamist radicals within its borders. This allows it to refocus on countering Iran and Hezbollah without the added distraction of threats emanating from Syria.

The lifting of sanctions also aligns with Türkiye’s strategic goals. President Erdogan, just prior to the Trump-al-Sharaa meeting, personally urged the US president to dismantle the sanctions. Türkiye is a key partner of Syria’s new leadership but has been constrained by its own economic crisis. Moreover, the sanctions hindered Ankara’s allies – particularly Qatar – from taking part in Syria’s postwar reconstruction.

In sum, Trump’s Syrian deal represents more than just a diplomatic maneuver; it is a bold attempt to reengineer the regional balance of power. Whether it brings long-term stability or fuels new fault lines remains to be seen – but its impact on the Middle East is already unmistakable.

What lies behind this move?

The developments unfolding in Syria following the rise to power of Ahmed al-Sharaa increasingly evoke the atmosphere of 2011 – the era of the Arab Spring, when the Middle East fractured into two ideological and geopolitical camps. At the time, Türkiye and Qatar actively championed the cause of ‘political Islam’, seeking to expand their influence through the emergence of Islamist-oriented governments. In contrast, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates perceived Islamist forces as a direct threat to regional stability and the survival of their monarchical order.

Today, under al-Sharaa’s leadership, Syria once again reflects that same fault line. A sense of déjà vu looms: The region’s main players find themselves navigating renewed tensions, caught between the desire to preserve influence and the necessity of adapting to a rapidly evolving reality.

Ankara and Doha, both instrumental in al-Sharaa’s ascent, view his leadership as an opportunity to reclaim their diminished standing in the Levant. Despite its internal economic turmoil, Türkiye continues to position itself as a regional arbiter, relying on a network of loyal political and military actors within Syria. Qatar, for its part, is providing financial and diplomatic support, effectively replicating the strategy it previously deployed in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia.

Yet the current landscape differs markedly from that of 2011. Al-Sharaa, though buoyed by Turkish support, has signaled a desire for greater autonomy from the outset. His first official foreign visit was not to Ankara, but to Riyadh – a symbolic gesture toward Saudi Arabia and the UAE, whose economic power is now essential for Syria’s reconstruction. It was also a clear signal that Damascus is open to dialogue, even with those who once backed the opposing side in the civil war.

For Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the resurgence of politically motivated Islamist forces is a source of deep concern, though their response has remained deliberately muted. Rather than overt confrontation, these Gulf monarchies have opted for economic engagement, believing that financial leverage will grant them influence while curbing radicalization.

They also see the new Syrian leadership as a potential partner in shaping a new Middle Eastern order – provided that Damascus does not become an instrument of Turkish expansionism. This explains al-Sharaa’s active display of ‘independent maneuvering’, as he skillfully balances between centers of power – from the Gulf to Ankara, from Washington to Moscow.

Amid this geopolitical mosaic, the US has crafted a new strategic vision. Under Trump’s leadership, US policy increasingly focuses on economic leverage and security cooperation while moving away from direct military engagement in the Middle East. Trump proposes a new model: ‘Regional self-sufficiency’ under an American umbrella.

The essence of this model is to arm and equip regional actors, enabling them to maintain stability independently, with the US acting as a supplier of advanced technology and a guarantor of balance. In return, Washington demands loyalty, political restraint, and – crucially – substantial financial contributions. This underpins the strategic alignment with Gulf monarchies, who possess the means and motivation to counterbalance Iran.

At the same time, Trump is attempting to bridge the divide between Türkiye and Israel, laying the groundwork for an economic partnership despite ideological differences. The goal is to prevent friction among US allies and to forge a unified front against Iran and other hostile forces.

Syria, in this context, becomes a testing ground for America’s new security architecture – a controlled regional equilibrium maintained without the Pentagon’s direct footprint. If successful, this model could be replicated in other crisis zones.

A potential next step is the normalization of relations between Syria and Israel – a previously unimaginable prospect, now discussed as part of a broader settlement. In parallel, Trump plans to introduce a new Middle East peace framework that includes recognition of Palestine in exchange for diplomatic and economic incentives from Arab states. This scenario may also presage political change in Israel: If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resists the plan, centrist alternatives like Yair Lapid or Benny Gantz – more amenable to compromise – could come to the fore.

All of this unfolds against the backdrop of a fundamental reordering of US global priorities. Washington is increasingly pivoting toward the containment of China, its primary strategic rival in the 21st century. The Middle East is no longer seen as a vital sphere; the new approach favors balance over expansion, mediation over presence, partnership over intervention.

Thus, US regional strategy is evolving from rigid control to a more adaptive configuration – one in which local actors are granted greater autonomy, though still within an overarching framework engineered in Washington. Syria may well serve as the first case study of this new era – an era in which the return to the logic of 2011 unexpectedly becomes the launchpad for a very different Middle East.

Will things get better in Syria?

The US decision to lift sanctions on Syria following the rise of al-Sharaa to power marks a pivotal moment for a country that has endured over a decade of devastating war, international isolation, and socioeconomic collapse.

This move not only removes one of the most significant external constraints on the Syrian leadership, but also opens a window of opportunity to construct a new model of governance – one grounded in pragmatism, economic rationality, and cautious multilateralism.

Al-Sharaa now faces a critical choice: To use this opportunity to consolidate centralized authority and restore effective governance – or, through missteps or weakness, to allow Syria to fragment further into a collection of ethno-regional entities devoid of a unifying national project.

The World Bank has cleared over $15 million of Syrian debt, once again making the country eligible for participation in international financing programs. This development was made possible through targeted financial contributions from the Gulf states – particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar – signaling their intention to take the lead in Syria’s reconstruction. Following this, the IMF expressed its readiness to provide technical assistance, while the Syrian authorities issued a series of statements inviting investment in agriculture, energy, transportation infrastructure, and tourism.

These actions indicate the new regime’s ambition to craft an economic model that not only addresses the war’s legacy but also generates employment, stabilizes the currency, boosts public revenues, and – most importantly – restores public trust in the institution of the state.

However, economic recovery is only feasible if accompanied by the genuine restoration of governance.

Syria remains deeply fragmented. Kurdish regions in the northeast are governed by a de facto autonomous administration with its own armed forces and international channels. In the south, the Druze community in Suwayda exhibits growing political and organizational independence, alongside protest movements and local defense initiatives. Along the coastal regions – home to significant Alawite and Christian minorities – distrust toward centralized power continues to grow, especially amid persistent ethno-sectarian tensions. These communities, should the center weaken, may gravitate toward political separatism or at least self-organization into autonomous administrative structures.

If the al-Sharaa government fails to propose a coherent model of political integration – one that includes power-sharing, resource distribution, and the participation of regional elites in governance – Syria could enter a new phase of ‘soft disintegration’: A de facto federalization where unity is maintained in name only.

In this context, foreign policy becomes critically important. Fully aware of the dangers of unilateral alignment, Ahmed al-Sharaa is pursuing a balanced external strategy. Unlike the previous era, which was defined by dependence on a narrow circle of allies, Syria’s new president is embracing a diversified diplomatic approach. He seeks to build relations with the West and the US – especially in the context of economic recovery and Syria’s international rehabilitation – without abandoning existing strategic ties. It is within this framework that Russia remains a key partner to Syria across several strategic domains.

Russia continues to play a central role in Syria’s security architecture and diplomatic positioning, including defending Syrian interests at the UN Security Council and engaging in technical, military, and energy cooperation.

Its presence in Tartus and Khmeimim, involvement in humanitarian initiatives, and potential contributions to infrastructure reconstruction ensure its continued relevance in any long-term settlement scenario.

At the same time, Damascus under al-Sharaa is also looking to build stronger ties with other non-Western power centers – including China, India, and Brazil – while deepening economic engagement with the Arab world. This will help Syria avoid overdependence on any single actor and enhance its strategic flexibility amid global uncertainty.

This approach reflects a clear-eyed understanding of Syria’s geopolitical reality: The country can no longer afford to be part of rigid geopolitical axes. Its survival now depends on its ability to navigate between competing powers – leveraging their rivalry for national benefit without becoming anyone’s pawn. Maintaining cooperative relations with Russia and expanding dialogue with non-Western powers is not just a matter of foreign policy – it is a means of preserving autonomy in a context of limited sovereignty.

The lifting of sanctions and al-Sharaa’s ascent have opened a potential path toward stabilization. But the durability of this trajectory depends on the regime’s ability not only to harness economic resources but also to execute a complex, multi-layered political and diplomatic agenda. Domestically, this means launching mechanisms of integration and decentralization; externally, it requires deft maneuvering between Western and non-Western actors. In this evolving environment, Russia remains an important partner for Syria – not as an exclusive ally, but as a key component in the multifaceted diplomacy that al-Sharaa will seek to construct in order to reinforce not just his own authority, but the very foundations of the Syrian state.

An EU official has reportedly claimed that Trump wants a reset with Russia more than peace in Ukraine

EU officials are reportedly concerned that US President Donald Trump is reluctant to pressure his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, over the Ukraine conflict, according to Politico.

Earlier this week, Trump said Putin is “playing with fire” after Russia launched large-scale strikes on Ukrainian military-related facilities. The attacks came in response to a sharp increase in Kiev’s drone raids targeting civilian areas in Russia. Despite his tough rhetoric, Trump has so far held back from approving what Senator Lindsey Graham called “bone-crushing” sanctions against Moscow.

In an article on Thursday, the outlet cited an unnamed EU official who said it is “very clear there is something holding him [Trump] back from actually putting more pressure on Putin.”

“He may want the reset with Russia most of all, more than peace. If he just wants to get the war ended so he can do these deals [with Putin], then he may be weighing the cost of poisoning their potential relationship,” the source suggested.

Asked on Thursday if he still believes that Putin is interested in finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict, Trump said: “I will let you know in about two weeks. We are going to find out whether or not he is tapping us along or not. And if he is, we will respond a little bit differently.”

According to White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt, Trump is waiting for the outcome of potential talks between delegations from Moscow and Kiev in Istanbul on Monday.

On Thursday, Moscow’s envoy to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, reiterated Russia’s readiness to continue “serious direct negotiations” with Kiev in order to find a solution to the Ukraine conflict that addresses the root causes.

READ MORE: Russia has ‘fair concern’ about NATO expansion – Trump envoy

He warned, however, that if Ukraine “tries to prolong the war… neither new anti-Russian sanctions, nor arms supplies to Ukraine, nor other hostile steps vis-a-vis Russia will be able to prevent the inevitable military defeat of the [Vladimir] Zelensky regime.”

Editor’s note: this analysis comes from a Canadian traditionalist and forms part of our Ukraine Crisis series. Our Conversion of Russia series is aimed at the traditional stance of the Holy See toward Russian Christendom in light of Fatima. In both cases we publish Catholics views from all sides, with an emphasis on solidarity for our Ukrainian and Russian Catholic brethren, under the patronage of…

Source

As many people know, I have spent most of my waking hours reading – books, newspapers, magazines – for work and pleasure since probably my early teens.

Two of my favorite nationally syndicated columnists are now deceased: Charley Reese died in 2013 and Georgie Anne Geyer in 2019. Both became columnists after long careers as newspaper reporters.

Both would have loved President Trump’s recent speech in Riyadh in which he attacked neocons, nation builders and interventionists.

Both wrote words in the early 2000s about our policies in Israel, Palestine and Iraq that are just as applicable today as they were then.

Charley Reese was chosen as the most popular columnist in a vote by many thousands who responded to a poll by C-SPAN in 1999. He wrote in a very plain, down-to-earth way.

In 2002, a few months before we went to war in Iraq, but when it was already the main topic of debate, Reese wrote: “The truth is this: The terrorist attacks against the United States are a direct result of our one-sided support of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. That’s it, pure and simple.”

He added: “The big pushers for war with Iraq are the usual suspects – Americans with a long record of pretending to speak about America’s interests when in fact they are pushing an Israeli agenda.” Now, you can replace the word “Iraq” with the word “Iran.”

On Jan. 24, 2005, Reese wrote, “Propaganda aside, our actions have created the almost universal hostility toward the United States in the Arab world. Our actions have been to support Israel 100 percent while it kills and brutalizes the Palestinians and refuses to negotiate with them.”

Georgie Anne Geyer wrote a few months after the war started in 2003 that “critics of the war against Iraq have said since the beginning of the conflict that Americans, still strangely complacent about overseas wars being waged by a minority in their name, will inevitably come to a point where they will see they have to have a government that provides services at home, or one that seeks empire across the globe.”

These words are still true today. Only the names have been changed so that millions more innocents can be brutalized and the U.S. can go many trillions – yes, trillions – more into debt.

When George W. Bush ran for president in 2000, he went all over the country speaking out against nation building (of other nations) and saying that we needed a “more humble” foreign policy. But then he appointed neocons to run his administration and went in an exactly opposite direction.

Columnist George Will once wrote that neocons were “magnificently misnamed” and that they were “really the most radical people in this city” (meaning Washington).

President Trump made some neocon-type appointments during his first term that he later regretted. But I was ecstatic when I heard what he said in Riyadh on May 14: “But in the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.”

“No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called ‘nation builders,’ neocons or liberal non-profits, like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, and so many other cities.”

He added: “The birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves…” and “has not come from western interventionists … giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs.”

Long before this speech, on April 16, 2016, I was invited with five other members of Congress to meet Mr. Trump at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., and hear his first major speech on foreign policy.

He said that day that “our resources are totally overextended … we’re rebuilding other countries while weakening our own.” He said he had been “totally against” the war in Iraq and said that “No country has ever prospered that failed to put its own interests first.”

Tom Friedman, the longtime and very pro-Israel columnist for the New York Times, wrote on May 9th that “Netanyahu is not our friend,” and added: “On the Middle East, you have some good independent instincts, Mr. President. Follow them.”

With Netanyahu, neocons and Christian Zionists now pushing for war against Iran, I wish they would read the words of the late Republican leader, Sen. Robert Taft, who was featured in John F. Kennedy’s book “Profiles In Courage.”

“No foreign policy can be justified except a policy devoted without reservation or diversion to the protection of liberty of the American people, with war only as the last resort and only to preserve that liberty.”

Reprinted with author’s permission from the Knoxville Focus.

America’s eighth-largest school district handed taxpayer cash to Planned Parenthood to train teachers that biological sex is a “myth,” according to documents obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Philadelphia School District (PSD), which oversees almost 200,000 students, paid Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania (PPSP) nearly $40,000 in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) HIV grant funds to provide up to 70 trainings which decry biological sex as a “myth,” support medical child sex-changes and normalize men in women’s sports, according to documents obtained by the DCNF through a public records request. Planned Parenthood delivered Comprehensive Sexual Education to more than 1.3 million participants during the 2023-2024 fiscal year, according to its latest annual report, dubbing itself as America’s “largest” sex education provider.

“Too many people remain unaware that Planned Parenthood has become a primary player in the youth gender industry and uses schools as the vehicle into the minds of children,” Erika Sanzi, director of outreach for Defending Education, told the DCNF. “This is already unacceptable on its face but the fact that they’re using federal dollars to promote these ideologies and lie about the long-term consequences of medicalization is reprehensible.”

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

PPSP contracted with the PSD to provide 14 unique sexual education trainings for teachers and students in grades 4-12, on topics such as creating a “safe space” for LGBT youth at school, “debunking myths” about child sex-changes and teaching “self-advocacy” to LGBT youth, documents show. The DCNF obtained slideshows from the presentations, revealing Philadelphia teachers are being trained to reinforce the gender-confusion of students and push youth towards obtaining medical sex-changes.

The funds for PPSP were derived from a $2.6 million dollar multi-year CDC grant for a school-based HIV prevention program, awarded to PSD in 2018.

A PPSP teacher training titled “Debunking Myths about Gender-Affirming Care,” “debunks” what it claims to be “myths” about child sex-changes, such as “most people regret having gender-affirming surgery or medical interventions,” “kids are too young to know they’re trans or non binary” and “gender-affirming care is dangerous,” documents show.

The presentation incorrectly calls puberty blockers, which cause infertility, bone density loss and may impair brain development, “fully reversible,” and states child sex-change medical interventions are “life saving and life enabling.” A review published by the Trump administration in May 2025 found the child sex-change medical industry is built on junk science that lacks ethical justification.

Planned Parenthood is “wrong” to cast child-sex changes as safe and reversible, Dr. Kurt Miceli, medical director at the watchdog organization Do No Harm, told the DCNF.

“Planned Parenthood is wrong in its portrayal of so-called ‘gender-affirming care’ in minors. Multiple systematic reviews show that the quality of evidence for these interventions is incredibly weak,” Miceli told the DCNF. “The harms, on the other hand, are very real and serious. The risks range from infertility to surgical complications and regret. These interventions negatively impact bone health and cause cardiovascular disease, too. The experimental and harmful effects on youth are no myth and can’t be ignored.”

PPSP provides sex-change hormone therapy through in-person and remote telehealth appointments to patients over 18, directing minors seeking sex-change hormone therapy to contact the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Gender and Sexuality Development Program, according to its website. A training on medical child sex-changes lists the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who Do No Harm calls the “worst-offending” children’s hospitals in the country for “promoting sex change treatments for minors,” as a “local resource” for educators.

The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia did not respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

Planned Parenthood claims biological sex is a “myth” and explains the importance of providing students with “gender-neutral” locker rooms and bathrooms in a teacher training titled “How to Make Your Classroom a Safe Space for LGBTQIA+ Students.” Teachers are further instructed to fill their classrooms with LGBT imagery, interrupt “transphobic” behavior and advocate for school-wide “queer positive” sexual education.

PPSP addresses the hot button topic of male “transgender” athletes competing in girls sports in the same training, stating there is “no research” to support males having an advantage over females in sports. It states that research supports that a “lack of athletic opportunities in schools,” which transgender activists say occurs when males are denied access to girls sports, is an “actual” threat to students.

In a PPSP training titled “Teaching Digital Decision-Making, Media Literacy and Safety,” teachers were warned they might be exposed to “transphobia,” “misogyny” and “bullying,” when reviewing a series of tweets, including those authored by J.K. Rowling, that questioned the legitimacy of Imane Khelif, an allegedly male boxer, participating in female sports, documents show.

Khelif controversially won the 2024 Summer Olympics female gold medal in the boxing competition. In March 2023, Khelif was excluded from participating in the International Boxing Association (IBA) women’s events after a series of blood tests showed Khelif failed to meet its definition of a woman, according to the IBA website. The IBA wrote a letter to the International Olympic Committee in June 2023 and expressed concerns over the safety of female boxers if forced to compete with Khelif.

A PPSP student media literacy training asked youth to identify “red flags,” defined as content on social media that is exclusionary, prejudiced or providing false information. Students were asked to find the “red flag” when provided with a photo of a pregnant “man” and a statement that only biological women can get pregnant, documents show.

A PPSP training titled “Self Advocacy For LGBTQ+ Youth” encouraged students to embrace “coming out” and to be supportive of medically transitioning “transgender” friends.

In its 2023-2024 Annual Report, PPSP praised its partnership with PSD, saying it has trained 627 teachers and staff to “cultivate shame-free schools.”

LifeNews Note: Megan Brock 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 Planned Parenthood Used Tax Dollars to Train Teachers to Push Trans Agenda on Kids appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Above: Tintagel Castle, possible birthplace of King Arthur. King Arthur, since watching The Sword in the Stone as a very young child with my father back in 1963 (though to be fair, all I really remembered until seeing it again a decade later was the haunting opening song) has held a stronghold upon my imagination. Both the faux-mediaeval image of movies and the Prince Valiant comic…

Source

Martina Bednarova has been given a suspended jail term in the Czech Republic for calling Moscow’s military action “justified”

A Czech court has handed a former teacher a seven-month suspended sentence for expressing pro-Russian views during a school lesson, local media reported on Thursday.

Martina Bednarova was also banned from teaching for three years and ordered to complete a media literacy course, according to the Ceska Justice news portal. The court reportedly said Bednarova misused her role by presenting “misleading information” to students.

The incident occurred in April 2022, shortly after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, during a Czech language lesson at an elementary school in Prague. According to media reports, Bednarova described Russia’s military action of Ukraine as a “justified way of resolving the situation” and cast doubt on Czech television’s coverage.

She also said “Nazi Ukrainian groups” had been killing Russians since 2014, apparently referring to Ukrainian nationalist battalions such as Azov, which Moscow has accused of committing atrocities against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, and which the Kiev authorities dispute. Students recorded the class and alerted school officials, leading to Bednarova’s dismissal.

Judge Eliska Matyasova claimed Bednarova was not simply expressing personal views but delivering false information in a classroom where students could not question it. Bednarova said her remarks were part of a media literacy lesson and called the case politically driven. The verdict is not final, as she has the right to appeal.

The District Court initially acquitted Bednarova twice, with an appeals chamber backing the second ruling on free speech grounds. In January, however, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions and ordered a new review to assess whether her actions met the criteria for a criminal offense.

Prague has taken a strongly anti-Russian stance in recent years, especially in response to the Ukraine conflict, becoming one of Kiev’s staunchest supporters.

In its 2023 human rights report, the Russian Foreign Ministry labeled the Czech government’s actions as “Russophobic” and expressed concern over freedom of speech in the country.

It also raised concerns over the functioning of media in the Czech Republic and noted what it called a steady drift toward anti-Russian sentiment.

Russian will also be phased out as a second language by 2034 under new Czech education reforms, with students limited to German, French or Spanish. As of late 2023, over 40,000 Russian nationals lived in the country, making them the fourth-largest foreign community.

The Czech Republic, once part of communist Czechoslovakia and a Soviet-aligned Eastern Bloc member, became independent in 1993 after the 1989 Velvet Revolution and the Soviet Union’s collapse. Since then, the country has removed or altered hundreds of Soviet-era monuments, with another wave of removals following the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev and the escalation of the Ukraine conflict.

A victory for pregnancy centers in Pennsylvania has produced hope for pregnancy care workers in the Keystone State.

The commonwealth’s former attorney general Michelle Henry had created a page titled, “Report Reproductive Health Deceptive Activity,” in 2023 on the AG website for clients of pregnancy centers to report complaints.

Local pregnancy help advocates recently discovered that the website has been removed.

The Pennsylvania Pregnancy Wellness Collaborative (PPWC) sent two of its members to the new attorney general’s office April 15 with a mission. David Sunday, openly pro-life, was elected in November as the new AG.

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

PPWC, as defined in its 2024 opening press conference by the organization’s President Sarah Bowen is an, “initiative unifying pregnancy medical clinics and resource centers that provide compassionate and essential care for women and families in Pennsylvania.”

In 2023, Democrat Henry publicly and falsely stated the website was necessary because most pregnancy centers were not licensed and therefore not providing adequate medical care.

PPWC members Jill Hartman, executive director of A Woman’s Concern in Lancaster, and Jon Merwarth, executive director of Bright Hope Support Centers in Allentown, sat down with the attorney general’s council. Sunday was unable to attend the meeting.

“I believe they really wanted to hear what we had to say,” Hartman said.

Hartman and Merwarth came before the council with statistics refuting the data presented by the previous attorney general office.

Hartman said Henry’s move to depreciate Pennsylvania centers stemmed from the 2022 report by “progressive” collaborative The Alliance titled, “Designed to Deceive: A Study of Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Nine States.” Among those nine states placed under scrutiny was Pennsylvania, along with Alaska, California, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington.

“That report is what drove much of the false info,” Hartman said.

In the report, researchers incorrectly declared Pennsylvania clinics committed false advertising by using the terms “choice” and “options” in their websites.

The PPWC members addressed these claims with the AG office during the April 15 visit.

Hartman presented the PPWC study, “Optimizing Maternal Health in Pennsylvania” in the visit, highlighting the positive impact of pregnancy help centers.

She shared this document which she drafted in response to Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s efforts to start a state-funded pilot pregnancy center.

“There are 87 centers in 161 locations throughout the commonwealth,” Hartman noted in the document. “These centers represent 78 percent of the 67 counties in Pennsylvania with focus on areas with the greatest need.”

“We represent 85 percent of the counties in Pennsylvania,” she said in an interview with Pregnancy Help News.

The site on the attorney general’s page “was set up to convince people to be against us,” Hartman said, adding she is not aware of any complaints registered or investigated from the site’s inception.

She added that PPWC and pregnancy centers in Pennsylvania want what is best for clients as they look for support, saying, “We are wanting data to drive decisions rather than false narratives.”

Hartman said the collaborative is aware there will be folks in the Commonwealth who will choose not to see pregnancy centers as a resource.

“It’s fine if you do not agree with us,” she said. “What’s not fine is that you lie about us.”

Nearly four weeks after the visit with the new AG, a PPWC member went online to review the attorney general website and discovered instead the words, “Oops! That page cannot be found.”

“We are just so pleased,” Hartman said. “We were just coming off from the Day of Advocacy press conference at the capital that week and then we noticed this removal.”

Inquiries by Pregnancy Help News to obtain comment from the Pennsylvania Attorney General Office did not receive a response.

LifeNews Note: Tabitha Goodling has been writing for media outlets for more than 20 years in her home state of Pennsylvania. She has served as a client services director at her local pregnancy center since 2018. She and her husband are raising four teenage daughters, which include a set of triplets. This column originally appeared at Pregnancy Help News.

The post Pennsylvania Removes Web Site That Trashed Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Instead of high-quality education, these institutions are fostering a global neo-feudal system reminiscent of the British Raj

US President Donald Trump has banned international students from attending Harvard University, citing national security concerns.

The move has sparked widespread condemnation from academics and foreign governments, who warn it could damage America’s global influence and reputation for academic openness. At stake is not just Harvard’s global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US.

But exactly how ‘open’ is Harvard’s admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script.

China’s swift condemnation of Trump’s policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for “America’s international standing” amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government.

So, what was behind China’s latest gripe? The answer may lie in the unspoken rules of soft power: Ivy League campuses are battlegrounds for influence. The US deep state has long recruited foreign students to promote its interests abroad – subsidized by American taxpayers no less. China is apparently playing the same game, leveraging elite US universities to co-opt future leaders on its side of the geostrategic fence.

For the time being, a judge has granted Harvard’s request for a temporary restraining order against Trump’s proposed ban. Come what may, there is one commonsense solution that all parties to this saga would like to avoid: Forcing Ivy League institutions to open their admissions process to public scrutiny. The same institutions that champion open borders, open societies, and open everything will, however, not tolerate any suggestion of greater openness to its admissions process. That would open up a Pandora’s Box of global corruption that is systemically ruining nations today.

Speaking of corruption – how is this for irony? A star Harvard professor who built her career researching decision-making and dishonesty was just fired and stripped of tenure for fabricating her own data!

Concentration of wealth and alumni networks

The Ivy League has a vested interest in perpetuating rising wealth and educational inequalities. It is the only way they can remain atop the global rankings list at the expense of less-endowed peers.

Elite universities like Harvard, Stanford, and MIT dominate lists of institutions with the most ultra-wealthy alumni (net worth over $30mn). For example, Harvard alone has 18,000 ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) alumni, representing 4% of the global UHNW population.

These alumni networks provide major donations, corporate partnerships, and exclusive opportunities, reinforcing institutional wealth. If the alma mater’s admissions process was rigged in their favor, they have no choice but to cough it up, at least for the sake of their offspring who will perpetuate this exclusivist cycle.

The total endowment of Princeton University – $34.1 billion in 2024 – translated to $3.71 million per student, enabling generous financial aid and state-of-the-art facilities. Less prestigious institutions just cannot compete on this scale.

Rankings, graft, and ominous trends

Global university rankings (QS, THE, etc.) heavily favor institutions with large endowments, high spending per student, and wealthy student bodies. For example, 70% of the top 50 US News & World Report Best Colleges overlap with universities boasting the largest endowments and the highest percentage of students from the top 1% of wealthy families.

According to the Social Mobility Index (SMI), climbing rankings requires tens of millions in annual spending, driving tuition hikes and exacerbating inequality. Lower-ranked schools which prioritize affordability and access are often overshadowed in traditional rankings, which reward wealth over social impact. Besides, social mobility these days is predetermined at birth, as the global wealth divide becomes unbridgeable.

Worse, the global ranking system itself thrives on graft, with institutions gaming audits, inflating data, and even bribing reviewers. Take the case of a Southeast Asian diploma mill where some of its initial batch of female students had been arrested for prostitution. Despite its flagrant lack of academic integrity, it grew rapidly to secure an unusually high QS global ranking – ahead of venerable institutions like the University of Pavia, where Leonardo da Vinci studied, and which boasts three Nobel Laureates among its ranks.

Does this grotesque inversion of merit make any sense?

Government policies increasingly favor elite institutions. Recent White House tax cuts and deregulation may further widen gaps by benefiting corporate-aligned universities while reducing public funding for others. This move was generally welcomed by the Ivy League until Trump took on Harvard.

With such ominous trends on the horizon, brace yourselves for an implosion of the global education sector by 2030 – a reckoning mirroring the 2008 financial crisis, but with far graver consequences. And touching on the 2008 crisis, didn’t someone remark that “behind every financial disaster, there’s a Harvard economist?”

Nobody seems to be learning from previous contretemps. In fact, I dare say that ‘learning’ is merely a coincidental output of the Ivy League brand

The credentialism trap

When Lehman Brothers and its lesser peers collapsed in 2008, many Singapore-based corporations eagerly scooped up their laid-off executives. The logic? Fail upward.

If these whizz kids were truly talented, why did they miss the glaring warning signs during the lead up to the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression? The answer lies in the cult of credentialism and an entrenched patronage system. Ivy League MBAs and Rolodexes of central banker contacts are all that matters. The consequences are simply disastrous: A runaway global talent shortage will hit $8.452 trillion in unrealized annual revenues by 2030, more than the projected GDP of India for the same year.

Ivy League MBAs often justify their relevance by overcomplicating simple objectives into tedious bureaucratic grinds – all in the name of efficiency, smart systems, and ever-evolving ‘best practices’. The result? Doctors now spend more time on paperwork than treating patients, while teachers are buried under layers of administrative work.

Ultimately, Ivy League technocrats often function as a vast bureaucratic parasite, siphoning public and private wealth into elite hands. What kind of universal socioeconomic model are these institutions bequeathing to the world? I can only think of one historical analogue as a future cue: Colonial India, aka the British Raj. This may be a stretch, but bear with me.

Lessons from the Raj

As Norman Davies pointed out, the Austro-Hungarians had more bureaucrats managing Prague than the British needed to run all of colonial India – a subcontinent that included modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, it took only 1,500-odd white Indian Civil Service (ICS) officials to govern colonial India until WWI.

That is quite staggering to comprehend, unless one grasps how the British and Indian societies are organized along rigid class (and caste) lines. When two corrupt feudal systems mate, their offspring becomes a blueprint for dystopia.

India never recovered from this neo-feudal arrangement. If the reader thinks I am exaggerating, let’s compare the conditions in the British Raj and China from 1850 to 1976 (when the Cultural Revolution officially ended). During this period, China endured numerous societal setbacks – including rebellions, famines, epidemics, lawlessness, and a world war – which collectively resulted in the deaths of nearly 150 million Chinese. The Taiping Rebellion alone – the most destructive civil war in history – resulted in 20 to 30 million dead, representing 5-10% of China’s population at the time.

A broad comparison with India during the same period reveals a death toll of 50-70 million, mainly from epidemics and famines. Furthermore, unlike colonial India, many parts of China also lacked central governance.

Indian nationalists are quick to blame a variety of bogeymen for their society’s lingering failings. Nevertheless, they should ask themselves why US Big Tech-owned news platforms, led by upper-caste Hindu CEOs, no less, showed a decidedly pro-Islamabad bias during the recent Indo-Pakistani military standoff. Maybe, these CEOs are supine apparatchiks, much like their predecessors during the British Raj? Have they been good stewards of the public domain (i.e. internet)? Have they promoted meritocracy in foreign lands? (You can read some stark examples here, here and here).

These Indian Big Tech bros, however, showed a lot of vigor and initiative during the Covid-19 pandemic, forcing their employees to take the vaccine or face the pink slip. They led the charge behind the Global Task Force on Pandemic Response, which included an “unprecedented corporate sector initiative to help India successfully fight COVID-19.” Just check out the credentials of the ‘experts’ involved here. Shouldn’t this task be left to accomplished Indian virologists and medical experts?

A tiny few, in the service of a hegemon, can control the fate of billions. India’s income inequality is now worse than it was under British rule.

A way out?

As global university inequalities widen further, it is perhaps time to rethink novel approaches to level the education field as many brick and mortar institutions may simply fold during the volatile 2025-30 period.

I am optimistic that the use of AI in education will be a great equalizer, but I also fear that Big Tech will force governments into using its proprietary EdTech solutions that are already showing signs of runaway AI hallucinations – simply because the bold new world is all about control and power, not empowerment. Much like the British Raj, I would say.

Businesses will no longer be forced to accommodate abortion in the workplace, thanks to a Trump-appointed judge. This is a huge step in protecting preborn babies and religious freedom across the country!

U.S. District Judge David Joseph ruled last Wednesday that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission overstepped its authority when it tried to include abortion as a condition covered under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act — a law passed in 2022 to support pregnant women in the workplace.

Judge Joseph stated that if Congress wanted to include abortion in the law, they would have made it clear, especially on such a divisive and important issue. “Congress would have spoken clearly” if it had intended for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to cover abortion, he wrote.

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

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had issued a sweeping rule interpreting the law to include “termination of pregnancy, including via miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion.” But Christian and conservative groups immediately challenged the regulation, warning it would violate conscience protections and force employers to participate in the abortion agenda.

Thanks to this ruling, American businesses will not be forced to give employees time off to end the lives of their preborn babies — a chilling policy that the Biden administration tried to slip through under the guise of “pregnancy accommodations.”

This decision is the latest reminder of how crucial it is to have leaders and judges who respect Life. Under President Donald Trump, federal support for abortion was rolled back, the Hyde Amendment was enforced, and the Mexico City Policy was reinstated, cutting off taxpayer funding for elective abortions both at home and abroad.

Last week’s court ruling is a resounding Pro-Life victory, showing that the fight to protect the most vulnerable is far from over.

LifeNews Note: Ashlynn Lemos is the communications intern for Texas Right to Life.

The post Judge Blocks Biden’s Abortion Mandate on Businesses appeared first on LifeNews.com.