Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Nearly 60% of those surveyed negatively assessed the billionaire’s role in US President Donald Trump’s administration

The majority of Americans disapprove of Elon Musk’s performance of his role within the US government, according to a new poll conducted by ABC News, the Washington Post, and Ipsos. Musk recently announced plans to scale back his involvement as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Of the respondents, 57% said they disapprove of Musk’s job performance in the administration led by Donald Trump, while 35% said they approve of what has been done so far, ABC News reported on Monday. The outlet noted that opposition to the administration’s efforts to shrink the federal government – spearheaded by DOGE – is a key driver of the negative ratings.

In recent months, the White House, through DOGE, has implemented widespread federal spending cuts. Under the department, which was established by Trump shortly after taking office in January, roughly 280,000 federal employees have reportedly been laid off in an effort to balance the US federal budget.

Earlier this month, thousands of Americans took to the streets across the country to protest what they described as an “illegal power grab” and “coup” by Trump and Musk, claiming that the economic and social policies enacted by the president and his ally have plunged the country into a full-blown crisis.

READ MORE: White House to evaluate officials’ loyalty to Trump – WSJ

Last week, Musk stated he would scale back his involvement as head of DOGE and refocus on his business interests, saying that the “major work” to establish the department had been completed. The world’s richest man clarified, however, that he has no plans to step away from government work entirely, and that he would still devote “a day or two per week to government matters.”

Musk’s role as a special government employee is expected to conclude by late May. After that, he is expected to return his focus to his private ventures, which include Tesla, the rocket company SpaceX, and the social media platform X, among others.

By the time I was nearing high school graduation in the 1970s, my friend Jimmy Patridge, a young Marine, had already returned from Vietnam—missing both of his legs. The sexual revolution of the 1960s was in full swing, abortion had been legalized, and the Church seemed as confused as I was. At the same time, I became aware of two opposing forces: a dark presence in the world, and the voice of my…

Source

The Zweig Breadth Thrust, a rare technical indicator, triggered a bullish signal on Friday. The signal indicates rapid and significant changes in momentum. The calculation is based on the 10-day moving average of the percentage of stocks that were positive on a daily basis. The Zweig Breadth Thrust signal occurs when the moving average rises from below 40% to above 61.5% within 10 days. It is trying to capture the final capitulation in a downward trend.

A Zweig bullish thrust signal is rare. But it's been a great predictor of positive forward returns when triggered, as shown below. Since 1950, the bullish indicator has only triggered 16 times, not including last Friday. The graph and table below show that in every instance the rare Zweig bullish thrust signal has occurred, it has consistently produced positive returns in the six-month and one-year periods. The shorter-term returns are positive in almost all cases. While this doesn't guarantee the downward trend is over, it does provide optimism that those willing to hold through more volatility and potentially lower lows will ultimately be rewarded.

Check out the Tweet of the Day below. It shares Jason Goepfert's analysis of triggering the even rarer Super Zweig. The Zweig Breadth Thrust and Jason's Super Zweig show average one-year returns, post trigger, in the mid-20s percentage range.

What To Watch Today

Earnings

Economy

Market Trading Update

Yesterday, we discussed the recent breakout above the 20-DMA and the downtrend from the February peak. Last week, saw a strong rally from the recent lows, which put markets back into a short-term overbought condition. As Goldman Sachs noted:

"On April 3, the S&P 500 opened at 5462 (when we got our first look at the now (in)famous tariff board after the close on April 2. Four days later, on April 7th, the S&P 500 made its one-year low of 4835. On Friday, after four consecutive positive trading sessions (S&P 500 gained 735bps during this stretch), we closed at 5525."

It should be unsurprising that after such a strong rally from the lows, and completely retracing the entire tariff decline, markets gave back a bit of the advance yesterday. What is crucial is that the recent breakout of the downtrend holds, without violating the rising trend line from the recent lows as shown. A violation of those levels would suggest a retest of recent lows. Such a decline would likely require either bad news on the tariff front or a collapse in economic data suggesting rising recession risks. Both are likely events at this juncture, and we must remain cautious.

This snippet from yesterday's blog encapsulates our current concerns.

"As the current correction continues, the market has violated the 40-week moving average. This has only happened a handful of times since 2008, namely during:"

• The Euro crisis in 2012
• Brexit in 2015
• The Fed Taper Tantrum in 2018
• COVID in 2020
• Russia/Ukraine War in 2022
• And currently.

"Each one of those corrections ended without a confirmed violation below the 200-week moving average, but each lasted a few months before the bull market returned. As the correction continues, the violation of the 40-week moving average puts us in the position of needing reduced equity risk in portfolios until we begin to see more bullish price action take shape."

Such is why we remain risk-averse for now and added to a short S&P 500 hedge last week.

Correction Continues- The Value Of Risk Management

Despite the recent rally, the correction continues. While wanting to “buy the dip” is tempting, there has been enough technical damage to warrant remaining cautious in the near term. As we have discussed, managing risk requires discipline and the emotional ability to navigate more volatile markets until a more straightforward path for risk-taking emerges. The problem with this statement is that it often immediately gets translated to mean “being entirely out of equities,” which is the act of “market timing.” 

That is not what we mean by risk management. Repeated studies have evidenced that the problem with market timing is that individuals cannot successfully replicate the profitable timing of the buys and sells. However, individuals can increase and reduce exposure to risk during periods of higher volatility. This is because the most significant drawdowns tend to occur during periods of increased price volatility. As this correction continues, volatility remains relatively subdued. However, if the economy slips into a recession or some other event disrupts forward earnings expectations, there is undoubtedly a risk of a further increase.

READ MORE...

Market Breadth Normalizes

As we led, the Zweig Breadth gauge indicates the potential for resuming the bullish trend. The SimpleVisor graphic below also provides optimism that the recent market decline and significant volatility are ending. Whether this period is a rest bit before further downside pressure, or signals a healing process that will lead to eventual upside, is unclear. As we highlight with the red square, all but three sectors have absolute and relative scores near zero. This entails that most sectors are trading similarly to the market. The absolute scores indicate most sectors are no longer oversold and have room to the upside (become overbought), but they also have room to become oversold again. The second graphic showing factor scores tells a similar story, with many scores near zero.

Tweet of the Day

“Want to achieve better long-term success in managing your portfolio? Here are our 15-trading rules for managing market risks.”

Please subscribe to the daily commentary to receive these updates every morning before the opening bell.

If you found this blog useful, please send it to someone else, share it on social media, or contact us to set up a meeting.

The post A Rare Zweig Breadth Thrust Provides Optimism appeared first on RIA.

While I alternate between the use of the terms conservative and liberal for Church matters, I do think it is better to best to use orthodox and heterodox to describe the polarization in the Church that has existed since Vatican II and on steroids today because of the pontificate of the late Pope Francis, RIP.

Orthodoxy and heterodox give religious and theological significance to these two groups. 

For example, a papal candidate who embraces the social teachings of the Church that go back to the 1800’s is orthodox but in political terms would be seen as liberal or progressive. Orthodox Catholics must be careful about criticizing any Catholic who takes seriously the Church’s social teachings which are in fact, in political terms, progressive or liberal. These are orthodox.

Heterodox papal candidates who want to ordain women, active gays and so-called transgendered people and start processes of blessing LGBTQ couples, triads or polygamists, which will lead to accepting these as “sacramental marriages” are progressive and liberal in the political sense but clearly heterodox if not heretical. 

A papal candidate that forgoes the tradition of papal trappings can be very orthodox but appear as a liberal or progressive when if fact they aren’t.

Thus so-called traditional Catholics should be very careful about seeing papal candidates through a political lens. One can be very pastoral and have an outreach to those most in need of salvation but be very orthodox. 

The heterodox don’t care about the salvation of souls, only embracing the sinner and the sin.

 The heterodox don’t love sinners and can’t differentiate between the sin and the sinner. They might be traditional and conservative but they are still heterodox.  

The contentious campaign was dominated by the trade war with the US and Donald Trump’s “51st state” claims

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals are projected to form their fourth consecutive government following victory in the country’s federal election, according to CBC Decision Desk and CTV News.

Carney centered his campaign on attacking US President Donald Trump over tariffs and the foreign leader’s suggestion that Canada could become America’s “51st state.”

According to CTV, preliminary results from the snap election show the Liberals winning 89 seats in the House of Commons, while the Conservatives are projected to win 77. A total of 172 seats is required to form a majority government.

The elections were called after Justin Trudeau, the Liberal prime minister for nearly a decade, announced his resignation in January. Trudeau stepped down amid an internal crisis in his party, as his once-high approval ratings sank to historic lows.

Carney, a former financier who served as governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, used tough language to rebuke Trump’s “unjustified” tariffs on Canadian goods. “His strategy is to break us so America can own us,” Carney said at a campaign event in the weeks leading up to the election.

In his victory speech, Carney said he will deal with Trump in “full knowledge that we have many, many other options to build prosperity for all Canadians,” and pledged to maintain national independence.

In early March, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on most Canadian goods, citing concerns over trade imbalances and drug trafficking. Ottawa responded by introducing its own duties on US-made products.

Trump also argued that Canada would be better off as “the 51st state” of the US, provoking ire across the political spectrum in the run-up to elections.

Carney stated that during their phone call, he made it clear to Trump that Canada would, under no circumstances, become part of the US. “Absolutely not. Never. Move on,” he said.

Multiple media outlets argued that Trump’s tariffs and aggressive rhetoric had helped boost the Liberals’ popularity. “We were dead and buried in December. Now, we’re on track to form a government,” David Lametti, former Liberal Justice Minister, told CTV on Monday. “We’ve turned this around thanks to Mark,” he added.

On February 18, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes heard arguments surrounding the Trump administration’s executive order “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” following a lawsuit from several current and would-be servicemembers who identify as transgender.

Section 2 of that executive order maintains that two factors stand at odds with the military’s “high standards for readiness, lethality, unit cohesion,” and other qualities. Those factors are, first, “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria,” and second, “the use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.”   

Much of the early news coverage centered on pronouns and, in particular, on Judge Reyes’s skepticism that they affect military readiness. Addressing the administration’s lawyers, she said: “You and I both agree that the greatest fighting force that world history has ever seen is not going to be impacted in any way by less than one percent of the soldiers using a different pronoun than others might want to call them.” In Judge Reyes’s view, a “military [that] is negatively impacted” because of transgender pronouns would be “incompetent.” She called the suggestion “frankly ridiculous” and said that “any common sense, rational person would understand that [pronoun use] doesn’t” affect military readiness.

The judge even issued the following challenge: “If you can get me an officer of the United States military to get on the stand and say that because of pronoun usage, we are less prepared, I will be the first to buy you a box of cigars.”

As an Air Force officer with a Ph.D. in philosophy who has personally struggled with the issue of transgender pronouns in the military, I am writing to meet this challenge. Importantly, I do so not out of “animus”—a common accusation surrounding this case—but with a sincere belief in the intrinsic worth of people who identify as transgender, with whom I have worked both personally and professionally, and whom I wish well. Nevertheless, the challenges that transgender pronoun use raise for our pluralistic military are real, and citizens need to understand them. 

The use of transgender pronouns creates a dilemma for military readiness. So long as the military permits such pronouns, it has two basic choices: require their use or leave that use optional. Yet either choice brings real costs.

Choice 1: Require Use

Suppose the military required the use of transgender pronouns. To see the consequences, consider the following facts.

First, there are many people among us who cannot in good conscience use transgender pronouns. These include people who, for religious or philosophical reasons, believe that calling a biological male “she/her,” a biological female “he/him,” or calling someone any of the various other preferred pronouns such as “zi,” “zem,” or “fae,” amounts to a falsehood. The conscientious abstainers believe that their use of such language actually harms all parties involved: the speaker, who must violate his commitment to truth or his duties to God; the person who identifies as transgender, who will be encouraged in what the speaker believes to be a falsehood; and any other listeners, who may feel added social pressure to join, or continue, in that supposed falsehood. 

Now, it is true that many people do not agree that transgender pronouns amount to a falsehood. This latter group sees the use of such pronouns as a mark of authenticity, even courage. But here I am focused on the former group, the conscientious abstainers. Their position gets little serious attention in most media coverage surrounding this issue, yet they need understanding too. 

According to recent survey data, this group is not small. A 2022 Pew Forum study found that “[t]he vast majority of Republicans and those who lean toward the GOP say gender is determined by sex assigned at birth (86 percent),” along with “38 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners”—a massive number in a country of 340 million people, with a relatively even split between the parties. If you believe that biological sex determines one’s gender, then calling a biological male who identifies as a woman “she/her” (for example) will be for you direct participation in a lie. 

That may help to explain why, according to a PRRI study from 2023, 43 percent of Americans reported that they were “somewhat” or “very uncomfortable” using “pronouns like ‘he’ or ‘she’ that do not match your perception of their appearance.” That figure includes 68 percent of Republicans, 40 percent of Independents, and 33 percent of Democrats—again, a massive number. 

Nor, for many of these people, will the supposed falsehood appear innocent. A study by Gallup in May 2024 found that a “steady 51 percent of Americans think changing one’s gender is morally wrong,” and many of those cited religious reasons, meaning their opposition is not surface-level but goes very deep, even into First Amendment territory. Although that study focuses on more extreme means of transition (puberty blockers and hormone treatments, for example), such treatments exist along a spectrum, and changing one’s pronouns surely falls along that spectrum.

Thus, were the military to require the use of transgender pronouns, it would alienate a substantial portion of eligible citizens, who may conclude that it is no longer safe to serve, since doing so exposes them to a not-insignificant chance of being forced to violate their conscience. This chance greatly increases when viewed over the course of a twenty-year career, with the myriad colleagues that will come into their path. Instituting such an obstacle to military service for so many citizens poses a clear readiness problem.

Choice 2: Leave Use Optional

Suppose instead that the military leaves it optional whether or not to use transgender pronouns. This too creates a readiness problem, in two distinct ways.

First, although many Americans cannot use transgender pronouns, others view that refusal as an existential threat, a “denial” of the transgender person’s “very existence.” Claims about this erasure of existence are numerous. (See, for example, here, here, and here.) As such people see it, to deny the requested pronoun (and the beliefs on which it is based) is to deny that the requesters are who they claim themselves to be; it is to deny the real them. The coexistence of these two groups—the pronoun abstainers and the pronoun requesters—provides a recipe for immense tension in a military unit, as one group demands what the other group cannot, in good conscience, give. It does so, at the very least, so long as such pronouns are optional, for then members can be found culpable for not using them.

That tension intensifies when we consider that many of today’s prominent voices portray all who refuse to use transgender pronouns—or to support other aspects of a transition program—as bigoted or hateful, even when abstainers state their reasons clearly and in gracious terms. (See, for example, the 2018 controversy surrounding Isabella Chow, a former UC Berkeley student senator—a case I explored in detail in my doctoral dissertation.)

Now because our military is pluralistic, it contains representatives of both groups: those who cannot use transgender pronouns, and those who either demand their use or who regard abstainers as bigoted or hateful. Thus, a portion of servicemembers declining to use transgender pronouns could easily undermine trust and cohesion in the unit, while alienating servicemembers who identify as transgender. This is hardly a recipe for success.

Those who wish to understand these two groups better, and therefore to engage in more productive dialogue about pronouns and related issues, might start by reading the entries on “gender identity” and “transgender” in the Red Blue Translator, a resource from the public benefit corporation AllSides. Such awareness can humanize opponents, while clarifying conflicts that seem inexplicable when one does not know the basic assumptions of the other side. 

There is a second way in which the optional use of transgender pronouns can damage military readiness. Certain aspects of military culture create immense pressure on servicemembers to use transgender pronouns, regardless of whether such pronouns are theoretically optional or whether they align with such servicemembers’ beliefs. Consider the following scenarios.  

A commander of an Air Force squadron has been asked to officiate the promotion ceremony of one of her airmen, a person who identifies as transgender. It is customary in the Air Force that the officiant make remarks on behalf of the promotee. These remarks are often personal, summarizing major milestones in the promotee’s life and career—they often last for ten minutes or more. The promotee’s family is usually present, along with his teammates. 

What, then, is our commander to do? All eyes (and ears) now rest upon her, with the expectation that she will help make the occasion special. And though she wishes to make it special, she belongs to that large group of people who object to using transgender pronouns.

Have you ever tried to omit pronouns when speaking about someone who identifies as transgender? Planned every sentence in advance? Heard the awkwardness as you repeat the person’s name again and again, rather than the graceful alternation between name and pronoun that our language affords? If so, then you can appreciate just how difficult our commander’s task is. Perhaps we can trust seasoned leaders with that challenge, but what about 18-year-old recruits or your average mid-level supervisor? Are they up to it? 

And if they fail, what then? Will they be subject to an Equal Opportunity (EO) complaint, or even a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on harassment grounds? This may sound far-fetched, but one military lawyer and professor at West Point has argued that EO law supplied such a basis as recently as last year. 

And what should that airman’s teammates in the audience infer from their commander’s abstention? That she is a bigot and full of hate, as many allege? So much for unit cohesion.

Next, take the case of a junior servicemember who serves under a civilian leader—a government service (GS) employee who identifies as transgender. How should our servicemember address the leader in question in all his interactions with that person?

This case is especially difficult for multiple reasons. Unlike in the previous scenario, where the commander could at least alternate between using the airman’s rank and his or her first name, the servicemember in our new scenario has no such option. There are no gender-neutral titles for civilian employees. You would not call someone “GS-15 Smith,” for example, whereas you can and do call someone “Colonel” or “Airman Smith.” In the civilian case, one uses “Mr.” or “Ms.,” “Sir” or “Ma’am,” a custom which leaves conscientious abstainers no way out. 

Unlike many civilian organizations, which are “flat” in nature, the military is strictly hierarchical, and it adheres to time-honored customs and courtesies. In our current system, many would consider it extraordinarily inappropriate for a junior servicemember to refer to civilian leaders by their first names, or to use titles like “boss.” This especially applies to major political appointees (service secretaries, for example). Were such people to request alternative pronouns, that could create a crisis of conscience for tens of thousands of their subordinates, who may either fear reprisal or the assumption of animus from many of their non-abstaining teammates.

In short, so long as the military permits transgender pronouns, it faces a dilemma. To require their use means alienating a substantial percentage of eligible servicemembers who cannot use them in good conscience. To leave them optional threatens unit cohesion, and it risks the continued alienation of those who, given the nature of military culture, see no genuine room for abstention. 

Judge Reyes, and all those holding authority over our nation’s armed forces, should take the real dangers posed by a culture of pronoun usage—whether mandatory or “optional”—seriously.

The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the official guidance or position of the United States Government, the Department of Defense, the United States Air Force, or the United States Space Force.

Image by roibu and licensed via Adobe Stock.

It is “weird” to expect Russia to collapse, the US vice president has said

Ukraine is not poised to win the conflict with Russia, US Vice President J.D. Vance has said. He added that it would be naive to expect the larger country’s collapse if fighting continues for several more years.

Vance, a US Marine Corps veteran, has long contended that American support for the war in Ukraine diverts resources from domestic priorities and risks unnecessary conflict with Russia.

“If this doesn’t stop, the Ukrainians aren’t winning the war,” Vance said during an interview with Charlie Kirk during the conservative activist’s podcast on Monday.

“I think there’s this weird idea among the mainstream media that if this thing goes on for just another few years, the Russians will collapse, the Ukrainians will take their territory back, and everything will go back to the way that it was before the war. That is not the reality that we live in,” the vice president said.

“You could have millions of more people killed if this thing goes on for another few years, and it could risk escalating into a nuclear war. It has to stop,” Vance added.

American negotiators are “making progress,” despite the challenges of dealing with both sides, Vance claimed.

“Sometimes you’re incredibly frustrated with Ukrainians. Sometimes you’re incredibly frustrated with the Russians,” Vance said. “And sometimes you just want to throw your hands up, but that’s what President Trump doesn’t let us do.”

Vance’s remarks came as Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russian troops would observe a three-day ceasefire starting on May 8 to commemorate the Soviet Union’s victory over Germany in World War II. Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky responded by accusing Moscow of “manipulation” and called for an immediate 30-day ceasefire.

According to Russia, Ukraine violated both the 30-day ‘energy truce’ brokered by the US last month and the 30-hour Easter truce, despite having promised to respect both arrangements. Putin has argued that in order for a comprehensive ceasefire to succeed, Ukraine must halt its mobilization campaign and the West must stop delivering weapons to Kiev.

“A fetus isn’t a baby.” “A woman has a right to choose.” These are often the most common statements a pro-lifer hears when discussing abortion with pro-choice people. “It isn’t a baby until it’s born.” “Abortion isn’t killing.”

The rank-and-file of the pro-choice movement usually deny that an unborn baby is a human being with a right to life. Occasionally you will find someone who argues that the fetus is a baby, but the woman has a right to abort him or her anyway – but usually you’ll hear pro-choice people denying the humanity of the unborn.

One word that’s always avoided is pro-choice publications is “baby.” “Fetus” or “product of conception” or “tissue” is how the aborted baby is described. It isn’t a life, they say.

But the people who know the most about abortion are the clinic workers and doctors who perform them. And many of them have come out saying things that would make even the most hardcore pro-choicers cringe.

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

In one article in the American Medical News that was probably never meant for pro-life eyes, abortion providers from around the country discussed the emotional difficulties of performing abortions. One doctor said:

I have angry feelings at myself for feeling good about grasping the calvaria [head], for feeling good about doing a technically good procedure that destroys a fetus, kills a baby. (1)

Baby? Perhaps this doctor didn’t get the memo. Pro-choice activists know never to refer to the “fetus” as a baby. You won’t hear Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) or the National Organization for Women using the term “baby” to describe a child being aborted.

Another abortion doctor uses honest terms to describe his job:

A late termination is actually not very nice and there is no way of getting away from it, I don’t feel I am doing it for any other reason than for the best of both the mother and the baby. (2)

Again the word “baby.” Could it be that these abortionists are fully aware that the “fetuses” they are aborting are in fact living babies?

If there is any doubt that at least some abortion providers know that abortion is killing a baby, it is put to rest by British abortionist Judith Arcana:

It is morally and ethically wrong to do abortions without acknowledging what it means to do them. I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening. (3)

This straightforward admission must have caused some consternation to pro-choice activists who read Arcana’s article. Few are willing to admit to the reality of abortion.

One unnamed abortionist said the following in a book that profiled doctors from different fields:

Nobody wants to perform abortions after ten weeks because by then you see the features of the baby, hands, feet. It’s really barbaric. Abortions are very draining, exhausting, and heartrending. There are a lot of tears. … I do them because I take the attitude that women are going to terminate babies and deserve the same kind of treatment as women who carry babies … I’ve done a couple thousand, and it turned into a significant financial boon, but I also feel I’ve provided an important service. The only way I can do an abortion is to consider only the woman as my patient and block out the baby[.] (4)

In this short paragraph, the doctor mentions the word “baby” four times.

It is clear that many abortion providers know that they are ending life. They see the babies kicking and moving on the ultrasound screen and then see them later, in pieces, in the back room of the clinic.

Clinic counselor Tim Shuck, who worked at the Lovejoy abortion clinic until his death from AIDS, said the following to a writer who was chronicling the daily workings of the clinic:

I have never denied that human life begins at conception. If I have a complaint about our society, it’s that we don’t deal with death and dying. Do we believe human beings have a right to make decisions about death and dying? Yes we do, and those decisions are made every day in every hospital. (5)

The author who quoted Shuck never revealed whether or not Shuck told the women he counseled that life begins at conception.
Another clinic worker said the following:

I see more of murder the further along they get. Although inside me I know it’s murder from the beginning… (6)

In an article in the Dallas Morning News, abortion clinic administrator Charlotte Taft made the following statement:

We were hiding … some pieces of the truth about abortion that were threatening. [Abortion] is a kind of killing, and most women seeking abortion know that. (7)

This was a little too much honesty for Planned Parenthood – after the late Taft came out with this statement, they stopped referring patients to her clinic. Eventually, she resigned.

Reporter Leonard Stern spoke to Joan Wright, the owner of a clinic in Ottawa. She explained how she and her fellow workers were fighting to force pro-lifers to take down a banner that announced, “Abortion Stops a Beating Heart” and gave a phone number for women considering abortion to call for help. Stern confronted her with pro-lifers’ allegations that her clinic gave deceptive counseling to women. From the article:

She said. “Good grief! They accuse us of pretending we’re not doing what we’re doing? I’m in the business of death!” (8)

This is probably the most honest and frank admission by an abortion provider that you are likely to hear.

In his essay “Why I Am an Abortion Provider,” Dr. William F. Harrison says the following: “No one, neither the patient receiving the abortion, nor the person doing the abortion, is ever, at any time, unaware that they are ending a life.”

In reality, the fact that abortion ends a life is often hidden from women. The baby is described as “products of conception” or “tissue.” The abortion “empties out the uterus.” The facts of fetal development are glossed over or outright distorted. The woman is facing a life-changing, irrevocable decision at a vulnerable time in her life, and she is susceptible to being deceived.

Look at the way one abortion clinic (Summit Medical Center) describes an abortion on its website.

You will first lay [sic] on an exam table like you would’ve for regular gynecological exam. Most patients will then receive IV sedation/twilight anesthesia… Patients opting for twilight anesthesia are mildly awake, but should feel no more than slight (if any) discomfort, and usually have little or no memory of the procedure afterwards.… Just as with a Pap smear, the doctor will use a speculum to hold the vaginal walls open, and then begin the procedure of using a series of dilation instruments to open the cervix. The contents of the uterus are then removed with a gentle vacuum aspirator.

Here are more examples of abortionists and clinic workers who acknowledge that abortion is killing:

The owner of one abortion clinic, identified only as “Michelle” in a book by James D. Slack, said the following:

I’ve thought through this issue, to do it as long as I have, and I have to sleep well at night… Is it life? Clearly it’s life. Does it deserve protection? My answer is “no.” The bottom line, you have two competing interests: the mother and the baby (or the embryo or the fertilized egg). And sometime during that nine month gestation, a woman’s rights are going to digress. At that point, I guess, rights can be ascribed to the fetus. (9)

This clinic owner has no problem calling an embryo a baby. She merely considers the baby’s life unimportant. There is no doubt that she knows exactly what is happening at her clinic.

Abortionist Don Sloan, explaining the morality of abortion to his teenage niece in an essay that appeared in an anthology on abortion, said the following:

Is abortion murder? All killing isn’t murder. A cop shoots a teenager who appeared to be going for a gun, and we call it justifiable homicide – a tragedy for all concerned, but not murder. And then there’s war… (10)

In this case, the abortionist (Sloan had been practicing for over thirty years and has done over 20,000 abortions) admits that abortion is killing but claims that it is not murder. He equates abortion with self-defense and war. But is the unborn baby sleeping in her mother’s womb really an aggressor?

Except in very rare cases, a woman’s life is not endangered by a pregnancy. And unless the pregnancy is a result of rape (which is a factor in only 1% of all abortions) the woman’s own actions (along with those of the baby’s father) resulted in the baby developing where he or she is. The baby may be unwanted, but she is not truly an intruder if the woman’s own actions are responsible for her presence in the womb. An unborn baby is not a teenager with a gun or an enemy soldier on a battlefield; she is an innocent and helpless member of the human race.

Abortionist Dr. Neville Sender said the following in a newspaper article:

We know that it is killing, but the states permit killing under certain circumstances. (11)

The clinic where Sender worked later came under scrutiny for throwing the bodies of aborted babies in the trash.

Abortionist Dr. Curtis Boyd, who performs abortions up to 24 weeks: “Am I killing? Yes, I am. I know that.” You can see a video of him saying it here.

Another abortionist, who remained anonymous, said:

It [the fetus] is a form of life[.] … This has to be killing[.] … The question then becomes, ‘Is this kind of killing justifiable?’ In my own mind, it is justifiable, but only with the informed consent of the mother. (12)

Another abortionist admits that abortion is killing but also tries to justify it by saying the babies he kills would have difficult lives if they were allowed to be born:

I have the utmost respect for life; I appreciate that life starts early in the womb, but also believe that I’m ending it for good reasons.

Often I’m saving the woman or I’m improving the lives of other children in the family. I also believe that women have a life they have to consider. If a woman is working full-time, has one child already and is barely getting by, having another child that would financially push her to go on public assistance, yes that is going to lessen the quality of her life. And it’s also an issue for the child, if it would not have had a good life. Life is hard enough when you’re wanted and everything’s prepared. So yes, I end life, but even when it’s hard, it’s for a good reason. (13)

Are these good reasons to kill a child?

Another abortionist puts it more plainly:

Abortion is killing the fetus. … Human life, in and of itself, is not sacred. Human life, per se, is not inviolate. (14)

This doctor has foregone excuses and accepted the belief that human life is not sacred or worthy of protection. He has no need for justifications. He knows he is killing – and he doesn’t care.

After talking extensively to one abortionist, author Nancy Dey writes:

Dr. Ed Jones (pseudonym) says it’s always in the back of his mind that he is terminating a life. (15)

Another abortionist, Dr. Harrison, simply said, “I am destroying a life” (16). This doctor has performed over 20,000 abortions.

Dr. William Rashbaum performed thousands of abortions before his death in 2005. He revealed to an interviewer that he was haunted by a recurring nightmare of an unborn baby hanging on to the uterine wall with its tiny fingernails, fighting to stay inside. When asked how he dealt with this dream, he said, “Learned to live with it. Like people in concentration camps.”

The interviewer then asked if he really meant that metaphor:

I think it’s apt – destruction of life. Look! I’m a person, I’m entitled to my feelings. And my feelings are who gave me or anybody the right to terminate a pregnancy? I’m entitled to that feeling, but I also have no right communicating to the patient who desperately wants that abortion. I don’t get paid for my feelings. I get paid for my skills… I’ll be frank. I began to do abortions in large numbers at the time of my divorce when I needed money. But I also believe in the woman’s right to control their biological destiny. I spent a lot of years learning to deliver babies. Sure, it sometimes hurts to end life instead of bringing it into the world. (17)

Rashbaum knew that abortion takes a life, but he never mentioned this to the women who were coming in for abortions. One can only wonder about the psychological strain of equating oneself with a Nazi, with knowing that you end babies’ lives for a living.

Pro-choice writer Miriam Claire interviewed several abortion providers for a book she wrote. One of them, Dr. Bertram Wainer, said the following:

My whole professional training was to prolong life, to nurture and protect it. Abortion is clearly at odds with that ethos … [yet] I have never refused to perform an abortion because of any personal conflict[.] (18)

There are other examples of abortionists and clinic workers who admitted that abortion ends lives. Magda Denes, a pro-choice author, interviewed a number of doctors and clinic workers in her book In Necessity and Sorrow: Life and Death Inside an Abortion Hospital. Every doctor she interviewed, and many of the clinic workers, admitted at some point during the interviews that they regarded abortion as murder. One doctor said:

It [abortion] goes against all things which are natural. It’s a termination of a life, however you look at it. (19)

There are similar quotes throughout the book.

There is no way to know for whether or not these doctors and clinic administrators are representative of all abortion providers. But it is clear that many, if not most, abortion providers know that they kill. It is also clear that the average pro-choice person, who argues in support of allowing these men and women to continue practicing, has no awareness of the truth that so many abortion providers know – that abortion kills babies.

1. Diane M. Gianelli, “Abortion Providers Share Inner Conflicts,” American Medical News, July 12, 1993

2. ABC.net: Religion and Ethics: 12-28-2005. Quoted by Life Dynamics

3. Judith Arcana “Feminist Politics and Abortion in the US” Pro-Choice
Forum (Psychology and Reproductive Choice) Sponsored by The Society for the Psychology of Women.
http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_al8.php

4. John Pekkanen. M.D.: Doctors Talk About Themselves (Delcorte Press: New York, 1988)  90-91

5. Peter Korn. Lovejoy: A Year in the Life of an Abortion Clinic (The Atlantic Monthly Press: New York, 1996) p 94

6. James Tunstead Burtechaell, C.S.C. Rachel Weeping: the Case against
Abortion (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row Publishers, 1982) 135 – 136

7. “Abortion rights activist resigns as clinic director; Taft cites differences with Routh Street owner” Dallas Morning News 2/2/1995

8. Leonard Stern “Abortion Wars” The Ottawa Citizen Sun 28 May 2000

9. James D Slack Abortion, Execution, and the Consequences of Taking Life (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2009) 49

10. Tamara L. Roleff. Abortion: Opposing Viewpoints (Greenhaven Press: San Diego 1997) 25

11. John Powell, S.J. Abortion: The Silent Holocaust (Argus Communications: Allen, Tx) 1981, p 66

12. Democrat & Chronicle 7/5/92

13. Cheryl Alkon “Confessions of an Abortion Doctor” Boston Magazine December 2004

14. Abortionist “Dr. Smith” (Pseudonym) . Leo Wang “The Abortionist”
Berkeley Medical Journal Spring 1995

15. Nancy Dey Abortion: Debating the Issue (Enslow Publishers: Springfield, IL 1995)  49

16. Nat Hentoff “An Abortionist’s World: How to Rationalize
Inhumanity” The Washington Times Febuary 6, 2006. Citing Stephanie Simon “Offering Abortion, Rebirth” Los Angeles Times November 29, 2005

17. Norma Rosen “Between Guilt and Gratification: Abortion Doctors
Reveal Their Feelings,” New York Times Magazine April 17, 1977 p 73, 74, 78

18. Miriam Claire The Abortion Dilemma: Personal Views on a Public Issue. (Insight Books: New York) 1995, p 30

19. Magda Denes, PhD. In Necessity and Sorrow: Life and Death Inside an Abortion Hospital (Basic Books, Inc.: New York 1976)147

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

The post Abortionist Admits That Abortion “Kills a Baby” appeared first on LifeNews.com.

He wants a clone of Pope Francis to continue the deconstruction of the Catholic Church to make it something different.  He wants no changes to the direction of the Church that Pope Francis has initiated.

Cardinal Reina must have been reacting to Cardinal Müller who is quoted in the New York Times as rebuking Pope Francis as divisive, like “all dictators,” “That is his style, to divide,” Cardinal Müller told the NYT. “All dictators are dividing.” 

There are many who would like to be flies on the wall of the Conclave. Pope Francis' pontificate has polarized even the cardinals and the entire Church. 

Someone will need to bring the inner healing that Pope Benedict desired and Pope Francis reversed. 

If Pope Francis could reverse Pope Benedict, another pope can certainly reverse Pope Francis. Pope Francis has initiated that process were previous popes can be canceled, including now Pope Francis. 

Those of Pope Francis' school of thought and leadership know this and they want to stop what Pope Francis started so that Pope Francis won't be canceled.

I think the next Pope, even if progressive, will try to be a healer. 

But the Cardinals in the Conclave better fasten their seat belt because this Conclave is going to be a bumpy ride for them and maybe a long conclave. Time will tell.

The US president has admitted he is enjoying his new term more than his first, when he had to deal with “crooked guys”

US President Donald Trump has claimed he is now running not only his country but the whole world, and is “having a lot of fun” with his second presidential term.

The president made the remarks in an interview with The Atlantic, marking his first 100 days in office. Trump shared his experience with the magazine, stating he has been faring far better than early in his first presidency.

”The first time, I had two things to do—run the country and survive; I had all these crooked guys,” he stated. “And the second time, I run the country and the world.”

Inquired further on the accounts of individuals close to the US administration, who told the magazine the president appears to be elated most of the time and has a “twinkle in his eye,” Trump confirmed that was the case and he greatly enjoys doing various “serious stuff.”

“I’m having a lot of fun, considering what I do,” he said. “You know, what I do is such serious stuff.”

The president was also asked about his repeated suggestions he could potentially run for office for the third time - despite not having the legal option to do so. The earlier remarks on the matter sparked fears Trump could ultimately opt to rewire the whole US electoral system to try and stay in power, while multiple high-profile Republicans dismissed such suggestions as joking on the president’s part. The concerns have been reinforced by the emergence of ‘Trump 2028’ merch on his official store.

Trump, however, insisted that he has had no actual plans to stay in office beyond his second term, admitting it was a rather complicated thing to do. “It’s not something that I’m looking to do. And I think it would be a very hard thing to do,” Trump stated.

In mid-April, the notorious late-late-late term abortionist Warren Hern announced that his Boulder Abortion Clinic was closing.

His retirement, on January 22, 2025, was not supposed to slow down the killing machine. His clinic would continue to make available “the safest, most compassionate and highest quality outpatient abortion services available anywhere.”

But after almost 55 years and a death toll rising to an estimated 42,000 babies, the 86-year-old Hern told Colorado Public Radio [www.cpr.org/2025/04/24/boulder-abortion-clinic-closes-after-50-years] “All of us who do this work have had increasing difficulty in being able to offer the services,” adding, “We can’t continue, and it breaks my heart. But this is the way it is.”

What happened in just three months?

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

As Cassy Cooke explained,

despite attempting to remain open, the facility struggled without Hern. Abortionist Benedict Mills was believed to have stepped in as Hern’s replacement.

The Boulder Abortion Clinic website now automatically redirects to another site, www.drhern.com, which states that the facility is permanently closed. In a letter posted to the site, Hern referred to the killing of viable preborn human beings as his “life’s work” which gave him “great satisfaction and meaning.”

The recipient of a slavishly adoring press—Haylee May’s story for Colorado Public Radio was typical—Hern’s decision to close one of the only three clinics that “perform the procedure after 30 weeks” was because

Terminations later in pregnancy are an extremely costly procedure, and not always covered by insurance.

“In my practice, I’ve basically had an abortion intensive care unit, which requires very, very highly skilled professional medical people, nurses, counselors, physicians. That’s an expensive process, and the patients – most of them – cannot pay the fees that are required to cover the cost of this,” Hern said. “The funding agencies have been very generous in many cases, but the funds are sort of drying up.” 

Not only are funds running low, but so are the number of physicians who are able to perform the procedure. He was unable to reliably bring on a new practitioner.

But Colorado shoulders on, ever protective of the Abortion Industry. Colorado, thoroughly controlled by pro-abortion Democrats, now rivals Illinois and New York in its maniacal zeal to multiply the number of publicly-funded dead preborn babies.

The Denver Post’s Meg Wingerter assures us that

Most states have a limit on how far into pregnancy doctors can perform an abortion. Colorado is one of nine states without a limit, according to the Guttmacher Institute. A ballot initiative to add a 22-week limit in Colorado failed in 2020, with 59% of voters rejecting it.

Indeed, according to May, last week Gov. Jared Polis (a Democrat, of course) signed a bill that (1) “ensures protections for doctors providing prescriptions for medical abortions, even for patients across state lines”; and (2) another that “updates state laws to match new rules created by Amendment 79 which was approved by voters in the November election. The bill essentially removes a prohibition in the state constitution on using public money to pay for abortions and adds protections to the right to have an abortion in Colorado.”

Hern is not the hero of the downtrodden, performing abortions almost entirely on babies with fatal fetal anomalies, as the accounts of the likes of May and Wingerter would suggest. On January 9, 2025, the Charlotte Lozier Institute reported

Late-term abortion specialist Dr. Warren Hern has published research indicating that abortions on babies with abnormalities made up just 30% of the 1,251 abortions his center performed between 2007 and 2012, although he did not share the percentage of specifically late-term abortions that were performed on healthy babies. However, another paper by Hern reviewed 1,040 late-term abortions performed at 18 to 38 weeks of gestation between 1999 and 2004. Of these late-term abortions, just over a fifth were performed because of a prenatal diagnosis. Dr. Hern’s research also shows that of second- and third-trimester abortions performed for a prenatal diagnosis, abortions because the baby had Down Syndrome composed the largest group.

By the way, Hern “charges between $8,500 and $25,000” for “late abortions” (not defined in a story in the Los Angeles Times) — “compared with $1,500 for first-trimester abortions, which are far simpler.”

Hern was/is, shall we say, prickly. He did not suffer fools gladly, and that included almost everyone. But that didn’t stop the Los Angeles Times’s Molly Hennessy-Fiske from filing a 2022 profile of Hern that was equal measures flattering, unctuous, and sycophantic.

You could tell where this was going early in the story: Hern was inspired in his formative years by reading a biography of Albert Schweitzer no less!

Hennessy-Fiske writes that Hern was a trailblazer. “Dr. Warren Hern pioneered new approaches to make late-term abortions safer. ‘It’s difficult work, and not everyone can do it,’ he says.”

“At the time [the early 70s], most doctors believed abortions couldn’t be done after the first trimester without risking women’s lives,” Hennessy-Fisk writes. “Hern proved them wrong, pioneering new approaches to make later abortions safer, including dilating cervixes with Japanese seaweed tubes called laminaria.”

He described the grisly D&E (dilation and evacuation) abortion at the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians meeting in San Diego on October 26, 1978, as a procedure in which “the sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.”

Aborting a second-trimester and beyond baby takes a certain kind of personality, as we gather Hern clearly has in abundance. Hennessy-Fisk writes

Hern starts by giving patients the abortion medication mifepristone. Next he injects digoxin into the fetus, which stops the heart. Then he begins dilating the cervix.

Then they wait. 

On day three or four, Hern releases the amniotic fluid and then uses two drugs — misoprostol and oxytocin — to make the uterus contract.

Then he can remove the fetus. 

Hern gave no evidence that what he does has exacted a toll, emotional or psychological. Referring to abortions performed after the 18th week, Hennessey-Fiske tells us that

It’s precisely because they are so controversial that Hern considers them foundational to democracy. On this he sees no room for compromise. A fetus is never a baby, a pregnant woman is not a mother, abortion at any stage should never be illegal — and anybody who disagrees is simply wrong. [Emphasis added.]

Not so for his staff. “The work has caused some of his employees ‘serious emotional reactions that produced physiological symptoms, sleep disturbances, effects on interpersonal relationships and moral anguish, Hern reported in a medical journal. Some said they dreamed that they vomited fetuses.”

I’ll give Live Action’s Cassy Cooke the last word.

Whatever reservations Hern may have initially had, he overcame them, later saying that he loved committing abortions. Hern is known to have collected as much as $25,000 for an abortion, living in a lavish, expensive home while allowing his abortion facility to fall into disrepair around him.

I’m guessing Hern is not wanting for money.

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. He frequently writes Today’s News and Views — an online opinion column on pro-life issues.

The post This Abortionist Killed About 42,000 Babies appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The declaration allows for deploying the military to maintain public order

Spain declared a state of emergency on Monday after a massive power outage plunged the entire Iberian Peninsula into darkness. Authorities are still investigating the cause.

The blackout, which struck Spain and Portugal around midday and briefly affected parts of France, left millions without electricity, paralyzed public transport, and delayed flights.

In a televised address, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said the Ministry of the Interior would assume control over the situation in Madrid, Andalusia and Extremadura, ensuring public order and other functions at the request of regional leaders.

The measure would be extended “to the regions that want it,” Sanchez added, adding “We are aware of the impact this [power outage] is having.”

The Level 3 National Emergency Plan allows for the army to be deployed to preserve order and security wherever it is declared in effect. Sanchez stressed there was “no security problem,” saying State Security Forces had stepped up their presence on the streets and highways.

The Interior Ministry said about 30,000 police officers had been deployed nationwide as the blackout stretched into the evening.

The announcement came as grid operator Red Electrica (REE) said electricity had been restored in parts of Catalonia, Aragon, the Basque Country and Andalusia, and it was working to identify the cause of the outage.

Earlier, Portugal’s grid operator Redes Energeticas Nacionais (REN) said a “rare atmospheric phenomenon” over Spain, triggered by “extreme temperature variations,” may have caused the blackout.

Portuguese Prime Minister Luis Montenegro later said authorities still did not know what caused the outage, but that it “did not originate in Portugal” and “everything indicates” the problem started in Spain.

Spanish officials have yet to confirm the cause. Addressing the uncertainty, Sanchez said there was no conclusive information and urged the public to avoid speculation.

REN said it had restored power to about 750,000 of its 6.5 million consumers by Monday evening.

During the final days of Alfie Evans’ all-too-brief life, I didn’t sleep well. I went to bed praying for him and woke up, way too early, wondering if he was still alive.

As one member of “Alfie’s Army,” I knew that people around the world were also watching the drama unfold, hoping against hope.

Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, where Alfie was being held, wanted to disconnect the 23-month old toddler from his ventilator so he could “die with dignity.” Tom Evans and Kate James, Alfie’s parents, refused to give up on their son and, with the help of Pope Francis, received an offer of help from Gesu Bambino hospital in Rome.

The hospital and multiple courts said, “It is in Alfie’s best interests to stay here and die,” even though the Italian government granted Alfie citizenship and sent a plane to England to pick up their newest citizen.

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

But the hospital and UK courts prevailed. After five long days, Alfie died. The battle to save one precious little boy became an international controversy. Why?

What was it about Alfie that grabbed the world’s attention? Was it because he was just sooo adorable? The last photo I saw was Alfie being carried by his mom, after the ventilator had been removed. How could anyone think that cuddly little darling would be better off dead?

Did Alfie grab the world’s attention because his young parents were fighting so hard for him? It was not difficult for parents to identify with Tom, 21, and Kate, 20. Parents around the world could easily imagine how they would react if any hospital told them their son or daughter was no longer worth the effort; that no other hospital would be allowed to see what they could do for him; or even that their child would not even be allowed to go home to die.

I ask again, why did this one life move people? Many were shocked and angered that Alder Hey and the British government were adamant that they alone knew what was best for Alfie. It was not as though Alfie’s dad did not fully understood how bleak the prognosis was. In a moving letter to Malcolm Patrick McMahon, Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Liverpool, Tom wrote: “I am aware that my son’s death is a real possibility and maybe is not a long way off. I know that heaven is waiting for him as I cannot imagine which kind of sin that innocent soul, nailed to his bed as to a cross, may have committed.

“But I’m also aware that his life is precious before God’s eyes and that Alfie himself has a mission to accomplish. Perhaps his mission is to show the entire world the cruelty behind the judge’s words. For this judge stated that Alfie’s life is ‘futile’, thus supporting the same opinion of the hospital which wants him to die by suffocation.

“…We don’t want to force ourselves upon him and we don’t want therapeutic obstinacy but we would at least like his disease to be diagnosed and we would like him to receive the best possible treatment.”

Unfortunately, and in my opinion inexcusably, Archbishop McMahon sided with the hospital, saying they had done all that was humanly possible. Maybe the medical staff at Alder Hey had done all that was possible there, but the Archbishop doesn’t explain why other doctors were not allowed to try something else that may have been possible for them.

Alder Hey and the UK courts—the trial judge, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court–wanted Alfie dead perhaps rather than risk the fallout from what the world might learn from a second opinion. Removing Alfie to Italy would have relieved Alder Hey of any financial burden for caring for Alfie.

But because Alder Hey couldn’t diagnose his mysterious brain disease, they claimed that continuing care compromised his “future dignity.”

How smart must these cold clinicians be, to know better than Alfie’s loving parents what was a burden on Alfie? The battle to save Alfie brought together people from around the world with one loud unified voice to speak on his behalf.

As I read through my Twitter feed with #AlfieEvans or #AlfiesArmy, I could see encouragement and solidarity expressed in many different languages.

This one precious soul, following so closely after last year’s similar situation with Charlie Gard, woke up a world to the injustice happening under our very eyes. Why?

Because a critical number of people finally became aware that cases like this have happened before and, unless things change, will happen more often.

They could happen to you or your loved ones.

Parents in this country have lost children because medical care and treatment were denied because of a genetic anomaly.

Senior citizens and people with disabilities or illness are encouraged, in letters from an insurance company or a state government insurance, to “take advantage” of physician-assisted suicide, rather than seek expensive medical treatment.

And we remember that every baby, including those not yet born, deserves this same outpouring of affection. This battle to save Alfie Evans reminds us that every human being is precious– born or unborn, young or old, healthy or not-so-healthy.

To all those working to save the Alfies of the world, born and unborn, thank you! If you aren’t already fighting for these lives, please join us today.

LifeNews Note: Carol Tobias is the president of the National Right to Life Committee.

The post Remembering Alfie Evans, The Boy Who Died When a Hospital Yanked His Life Support appeared first on LifeNews.com.