A growing body of research is challenging claims that pro-life laws harm women’s health, as new data from across the United States suggest abortion restrictions may reduce abortions without increasing maternal mortality. A recent study published on April 3, 2026, examined more than 22 million births and 12,000 pregnancy-related deaths between 2018 and 2023. Researchers found no significant rise in maternal mortality in states that enacted strong pro-life protections after the 2022 Dobbs decision overturned the federal right to abortion.

The study’s findings add to evidence that pro-life legislation can protect unborn children while maintaining quality healthcare for mothers. In Iowa, the state’s foetal heartbeat law — which bans abortion after a heartbeat is detected at around six weeks — reportedly reduced abortions by 40% since July 2024. Indiana saw an even more dramatic decline, with abortions falling by 98% following similar restrictions.

Texas also experienced notable demographic changes after implementing its heartbeat law in 2022. Data indicate the state’s fertility rate rose between 2% and 8%, suggesting more children are being carried to term rather than aborted. At the same time, maternal mortality rates in Texas reportedly declined by 2.4%, while states with comparable pro-life laws saw decreases averaging 3.3%.

Pro-life advocates say these findings undermine longstanding arguments that abortion is necessary to protect women’s health. While researchers caution that more long-term analysis is needed to establish direct causation, current evidence suggests that laws defending unborn life can coexist with positive public health outcomes for women and families alike.

References

• ZENIT — Do More Women Die Where Pro-Life Laws Are Passed? What a Study Shows

• ZENIT — Study shows a decline in maternal deaths in states with pro-life laws

• LifeNews — Study shows maternal mortality decline in states banning abortions

• National Right to Life — New study shows declining maternal mortality rates in states with strong pro-life laws

• National Right to Life — Maternal mortality rates have declined 17% since the Dobbs decision

• Live Action — Study: abortion bans not associated with increased maternal mortality

• Guttmacher Institute — Iowa had nearly 40% drop in clinician-provided abortions in first month with six-week ban

• LifeNews — Maternal mortality has fallen 19.7% since Dobbs and abortion bans

Found this valuable? Help us reach more Australians.

Share

Subscribe to Right to Life on Substack for weekly articles, analysis, and commentary:

Subscribe now

Support our work: Every donation helps us protect human life and change Australian culture.

Donate

Instagram - Facebook - X - YouTube

For decades, the dominant cultural message to women has been consistent: motherhood is a burden.

It stands in the way of career advancement. It threatens financial independence. It limits personal freedom. The responsible choice — the empowered choice — is to delay it, minimise it, or, if necessary, end a pregnancy to avoid it.

Writing in Fox News, pro-life advocate Claire Ath argues that this message represents not liberation but a lie — and that it has been accompanied by a second lie, equally damaging: that abortion resolves the deeper challenges women face.

Both claims deserve serious examination.

The First Lie: That Motherhood Prevents Fulfilment

The cultural framing of motherhood as obstacle is not new. But its dominance in public discourse has become near-total. Women are routinely told that children cost them career opportunities, earning potential, and autonomy. The implicit conclusion — that a life without children is more free, more successful, and more complete — has become so embedded in popular culture that it barely registers as a claim anymore. It presents itself as simple fact.

The lived experience of mothers tells a different story. Consistently, across surveys and studies, women who have raised children describe it as among the most meaningful experiences of their lives — not despite the sacrifices involved, but often inseparable from them. The difficulty and the meaning are not in opposition. They are connected.

This does not mean motherhood is without genuine hardship. The financial pressures on young families are real. The structural inadequacies in workplace flexibility, childcare access, and parental support are real. These are legitimate policy concerns. But the response to those pressures — telling women that the problem is the child rather than the inadequate support surrounding the mother — has done serious harm.

As Ath argues, women have been encouraged to resolve systemic failures by eliminating the person those failures affect. That is not empowerment. It is abandonment dressed as choice.

The Second Lie: That Abortion Solves the Problem

The Guttmacher Institute — a research organisation that is explicitly supportive of abortion access — has published data on the circumstances of women seeking abortions in the United States. The findings are instructive precisely because they come from a source with no interest in minimising abortion rates.

The data consistently shows that the primary drivers of abortion decisions are financial pressure, relationship instability, and the sense that this is not the right time. These are not reasons that abortion addresses. They are conditions that persist after an abortion, often compounded by the emotional and psychological weight of the decision itself.

Further Guttmacher research on the characteristics of abortion patients across different US states reinforces the picture: the women most likely to seek abortions are those facing economic hardship and lacking stable support structures. Abortion does not resolve those conditions. It removes a pregnancy from a life in which the underlying difficulties remain entirely intact.

As Fox Business has reported, pro-life advocates working directly with women in crisis pregnancies make this point consistently: the pressure toward abortion most often comes not from the woman herself but from the circumstances surrounding her — financial stress, an unsupportive partner, family pressure, and a culture that has made abortion the path of least resistance while doing very little to remove the conditions that make pregnancy feel impossible.

That is not a free choice. It is a constrained one, made in a context that has been shaped — deliberately or otherwise — to produce a particular outcome.

The Question the Debate Avoids

The political conversation about abortion focuses almost entirely on the woman. Her body, her choice, her circumstances, her future. This framing is not accidental. It is the dominant lens through which abortion is discussed, legislated, and defended.

But there is a question it systematically avoids: where is the father?

The data on abortion consistently points to relationship instability as a primary factor. Women who feel unsupported by a partner, women in relationships that are fragile or already ending, women who are effectively alone in facing an unplanned pregnancy — these are the women most likely to choose abortion. Not because they want to, in many cases, but because they cannot see any other way through.

This is, at its root, a crisis of fatherhood. And it is a crisis the pro-life movement must be willing to name directly.

Every structural reform, every policy improvement, every pregnancy support service does important work. But none of it reaches the fundamental problem if we do not address the rejection of fatherhood that leaves so many women navigating pregnancy alone. Children need fathers. Mothers need partners. Families need men who are present, committed, and willing to bear the weight of the lives they help create.

Real empowerment — for women, for children, for families — means insisting on this. Not as a political position. As a cultural one.

What Genuine Support Looks Like

At Right to Life, we believe the conversation must move beyond legislation and toward the restoration of a culture that values men, women, and children together.

That means being honest about the lies that have been told to women — that motherhood diminishes them, and that abortion liberates them. Neither is true. Both have caused harm that is now visible in the lives of individuals and in the fabric of the culture.

And it means being honest about what the data shows: that the conditions producing abortion decisions are conditions of abandonment — financial, relational, and cultural. Meeting those conditions with genuine, practical, sustained support is the work. Telling women the truth about what they are being offered, and standing beside them in circumstances that have been made unnecessarily hard, is the mission.

The lies have had decades to embed themselves. Replacing them with the truth — about the meaning of motherhood, the reality of what abortion does, and the indispensable role of fathers — is the cultural work that every other effort depends on.

References

• Fox News — American Women Have Been Lied to About Motherhood. It’s Time to Fix That

• Fox Business — Pro-Life CEO Says Women Misled on Pregnancy as Abortion Pill Fight Reaches Supreme Court

• Guttmacher Institute — National Study Provides Baseline Data on Experiences of People Seeking Abortion Care

• Guttmacher Institute — Characteristics of Abortion Patients in Protected and Restricted States Accessing Clinic Care

Found this valuable? Help us reach more Australians.

Share

Subscribe to Right to Life on Substack for weekly articles, analysis, and commentary:

Subscribe now

Support our work: Every donation helps us protect human life and change Australian culture.

Donate

Instagram - Facebook - X - YouTube

The United States Supreme Court has issued a ruling with significant implications for abortion access across America.

Justice Samuel Alito signed an administrative stay temporarily blocking a lower court ruling that would have imposed stricter limits on access to mifepristone — the drug most commonly used in medication abortions in the United States. The order allows the continued distribution of the drug through telehealth appointments, mail delivery, and retail pharmacies, without requiring an in-person consultation with a doctor.

The stay remains in effect while the broader legal challenge continues through the courts.

What the Ruling Does and Does Not Decide

An administrative stay of this kind is not a final ruling on the merits. The Supreme Court has not determined whether the existing regulatory framework governing mifepristone is lawful. It has temporarily preserved the status quo while the case proceeds — a procedural step, not a resolution.

The legal challenge originated in Louisiana, where state officials argue that widespread mail-order access to abortion drugs directly undermines state laws enacted to protect unborn life following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. The case raises questions about the extent to which federal drug approval and distribution frameworks can override state-level protections for unborn life.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer praised the order, while acknowledging that the legal contest is not yet settled. The Guardian’s reporting on the ruling confirms the stay’s narrow procedural scope and notes the significance of the ongoing case for abortion access nationally.

The Medical and Ethical Concerns

Mifepristone, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, is typically used in combination with misoprostol. Medication abortions — the term used for drug-induced abortions — now account for the majority of all abortions performed in the United States. The expansion of access through telehealth and postal delivery means that in many cases, there is no in-person clinical assessment, no physical examination, and no verified confirmation of gestational age or the absence of contraindications.

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, criticised the Court’s move directly, warning that the ruling enables the unchecked distribution of powerful drugs without sufficient medical oversight. Advocates for tighter regulation have also pointed to emerging studies raising concerns about health risks associated with the drug regimen, and have called for more rigorous review by the FDA.

The core concern is twofold. First, these drugs end the lives of unborn children — that is their purpose, and no clinical framing changes that reality. Second, the removal of in-person oversight reduces the safeguards that exist to protect the women taking them. Both concerns deserve to be held simultaneously, and neither should be subordinated to the other.

The Broader Stakes

A final ruling in this case could have sweeping consequences — not only for abortion access in the United States but for the broader question of how federal regulatory frameworks interact with state-level protections for human life.

The Dobbs decision returned the question of abortion law to individual states. The mifepristone case raises a different but related question: can a drug approved and distributed under federal authority effectively circumvent the legal protections that states have enacted in the post-Dobbs landscape? The answer the Supreme Court eventually gives will shape the practical meaning of state pro-life legislation for years to come.

For those watching from Australia, the pattern is worth understanding. Medication abortion is increasingly the dominant method of termination in countries where it is widely available. The regulatory and legal battles being fought in the United States over oversight, distribution, and state authority are not abstractions. They are the leading edge of questions that will, in various forms, arrive here.

To every pro-life advocate in the United States navigating this moment: the work matters, the legal contest matters, and you have the support of the pro-life movement around the world.

References

• The Guardian — US Supreme Court temporarily restores access to mail-order abortion pills

• US Food and Drug Administration — Mifepristone information

• Students for Life of America — Organisation website

Found this valuable? Help us reach more Australians.

Share

Subscribe to Right to Life on Substack for weekly articles, analysis, and commentary:

Subscribe now

Support our work: Every donation helps us protect human life and change Australian culture.

Donate

Instagram - Facebook - X - YouTube

A formal government report has made allegations that, in any liberal democracy, should prompt serious public scrutiny.

The document — issued by the United States Department of Justice under the Trump administration — runs to more than 200 pages. Its central claim is that officials within the Biden-era DOJ collaborated directly with pro-abortion organisations to investigate, monitor, and prosecute Christian pro-life advocates for activities protected under the First Amendment.

The DOJ press release accompanying the report describes a systematic pattern of selective enforcement — one in which the faith convictions of those targeted were treated not as a constitutionally protected matter but as a factor in determining prosecutorial priority.

The Allegations in Detail

At the centre of the report is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act — a federal statute designed, on its face, to protect all sides equally. Churches, pregnancy resource centres, and abortion clinics all fall within its scope.

The report alleges that under the Biden administration, FACE Act enforcement was applied in a manner that specifically and disproportionately targeted individuals motivated by Christian faith. Pro-life advocates were monitored and investigated not only for any unlawful conduct but for the public expression of religious conviction. Some were prosecuted and sentenced in cases where the underlying motivation — belief in the sanctity of human life — appears to have functioned as an aggravating consideration rather than an irrelevant one.

The most serious allegations involve the sharing of personal information. According to the report, advocacy organisations including Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation provided federal authorities with detailed dossiers on pro-life individuals. Those dossiers reportedly included home addresses, driver’s licence numbers, and photographs — including images of activists’ spouses and children.

The report further alleges that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland oversaw a task force that maintained close and ongoing communication with abortion advocacy groups throughout this period. The question of whether a prosecutorial body can operate with appropriate impartiality while in regular contact with ideological advocates who have a direct interest in the outcomes of those prosecutions is not a minor procedural concern. It goes to the integrity of the justice system itself.

What the First Amendment Requires

The United States Constitution’s First Amendment protections for free speech and religious expression are explicit. They exist precisely to prevent the government from using its coercive power against citizens on the basis of their beliefs.

The allegations in this report, if substantiated, describe a systematic violation of that principle. People of faith who engaged in peaceful, public advocacy for the unborn were, according to the report, treated as subjects of federal surveillance and investigation because of what they believed and how they expressed it.

Christian leaders and pro-life advocates in the United States have described the alleged conduct as unconscionable. Their concern is not only about past injustice. It is about what the existence of such a pattern communicates to every person of faith who might otherwise participate in public life: that doing so carries a risk, that expressing convictions in the public square may attract government attention, and that the prudent course is silence.

That is the chilling effect the First Amendment was designed to prevent. When government action produces it — deliberately or otherwise — something fundamental has been broken.

Why Australians Should Be Paying Attention

Australia is not the United States. Our constitutional arrangements are different. Our legal culture is different. The specific mechanisms of the American justice system do not translate directly.

But patterns do travel. And the pattern documented in this report — the use of institutional power to marginalise those who hold faith-based convictions about human life — is not uniquely American.

In Australia, pro-life advocates routinely operate within legal constraints that do not apply to those on the other side of the debate. Safe access zones around abortion clinics restrict protest and expression in ways that would, in other contexts, be considered significant limitations on civil liberties. Faith-based organisations that operate pregnancy support services navigate an increasingly hostile regulatory and cultural environment. The idea that expressing a pro-life conviction in a professional or institutional context is inherently problematic is gaining ground.

None of this is equivalent to what the DOJ report alleges occurred in the United States. But the direction is the same. And the United States is, in these matters, often ahead of where Australia is heading.

The Question the Report Forces

A just society must protect not only the unborn but the fundamental freedoms of those who advocate for them peacefully. These are not separate concerns. They are the same concern expressed in different registers.

The question this report puts before us is a grave one: can faith-based convictions about the value of human life still be freely expressed, in public, without fear of government reprisal?

In the United States in the recent past, the answer was apparently no — or at least, not without risk. That is a finding that should disturb anyone who values the open society, regardless of where they stand on abortion.

The conversation around life, liberty, and the integrity of democratic institutions is not peripheral to the pro-life mission. It is part of it. A culture that cannot protect the freedom to advocate for the vulnerable will not, in the end, protect the vulnerable themselves.

References

• United States Department of Justice — Justice Department Reveals the Biden Administration’s Weaponisation of Federal Law Against Pro-Life Americans

• United States Department of Justice — Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act

Found this valuable? Help us reach more Australians.

Share

Subscribe to Right to Life on Substack for weekly articles, analysis, and commentary:

Subscribe now

Support our work: Every donation helps us protect human life and change Australian culture.

Donate

Instagram - Facebook - X - YouTube

The most significant pro-life legislative victory in United States history has an expiry date.

In 2025, the US Congress passed a budget reconciliation bill that froze Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood and equivalent large abortion providers — the first time federal funding of this scale had been successfully blocked. It required only a simple majority to pass. It was a genuine, tangible win.

It expires on July 4th, 2026 — the 250th anniversary of American independence.

Unless Congress passes a second reconciliation bill before that date, the funding flows back.

What Is Actually Being Funded

The scale of the money involved is not abstract. Planned Parenthood’s own 2024–25 annual report confirms the organisation received $832 million in federal and government health services funding in a single year. As the Charlotte Lozier Institute’s analysis of that report details, those funds supported abortion services, gender transition procedures for minors, and political advocacy campaigns directed against pro-family legislation.

This is not a peripheral issue. For decades, American taxpayers have been the primary financial engine behind the country’s largest abortion provider — whether they chose to be or not.

The Risk of Losing the Win

LifeNews has reported that some Republican lawmakers may not include the defunding provision in the next reconciliation bill. Meanwhile, as Fox News has noted, failure to act before the deadline would represent a massive taxpayer windfall for Planned Parenthood — restoring the full funding stream without any further vote required.

The pressure from within the pro-life movement to hold the line is significant. Senator John Cornyn has publicly called for the defunding to be made permanent in the next bill rather than simply extended. And dozens of pro-life organisations have formally urged Congress to renew the provision without delay.

The legal picture is equally contested. KFF Health Policy has tracked the litigation challenging the Medicaid ban, with multiple court challenges seeking to restore the funding ahead of the legislative deadline.

The confusion surrounding the new bill is not incidental. Legislative complexity, competing priorities, and procedural noise are creating the conditions in which a hard-won gain can quietly disappear. That is not coincidence. It is how these things are lost.

The Same Pattern Is Playing Out in Australia

The mechanism is different here. The scale is different. But the pattern is familiar.

Laws expanding abortion access and euthanasia continue to pass in Australian state parliaments with limited public awareness until after the fact. SBS News reported on the passage of a NSW bill expanding abortion access in regional areas — legislation that moved through parliament while the broader public conversation was elsewhere.

The overload is not neutral. It consistently benefits those who want significant changes made quietly, and it leaves everyone else feeling powerless — even when they are not.

What You Can Do

Engagement is not futile. It is the only thing that works.

In New South Wales, a bill addressing sex-selective abortion has been introduced by NSW Legislative Council member John Ruddick. The bill draws on a peer-reviewed study published through Edith Cowan University, which documents the practice’s occurrence in Australia. The full text of the bill is available on the NSW Parliament website.

A rally is being held outside NSW Parliament on 2 June at 5pm. If you are in Sydney, be there.

Beyond that, contact your local MP. A short, direct email — three sentences expressing your position clearly — carries more weight than most people realise. Elected representatives count correspondence. They notice when it stops and when it increases. A community that is visibly engaged is harder to ignore than one that is not.

The loudest voices in this debate are often the most organised, not the most numerous. That is something the pro-life movement can change.

References

• KFF Health Policy — Litigation challenging the 2025 budget reconciliation law’s provision blocking federal Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood

• LifeNews — Republicans may not include defunding Planned Parenthood in next reconciliation bill

• Senator John Cornyn — Calls to permanently defund Planned Parenthood in next reconciliation bill

• LifeNews — Dozens of pro-life groups urge Congress to defund Planned Parenthood again

• Planned Parenthood — Annual Report 2024–25

• Charlotte Lozier Institute — Planned Parenthood 2024–25 Annual Report Fact Sheet

• Fox News — Planned Parenthood set for massive taxpayer windfall if Senate fails to act

• NSW Parliament — Ruddick sex-selective abortion bill

• Australian Christian Lobby — NSW sex-selective abortion: Edith Cowan University peer-reviewed study

• SBS News — NSW abortion access bill passage

Found this valuable? Help us reach more Australians.

Share

Subscribe to Right to Life on Substack for weekly articles, analysis, and commentary:

Subscribe now

Support our work: Every donation helps us protect human life and change Australian culture.

Donate

Instagram - Facebook - X - YouTube

An 800-page document. Released by the United States Department of Justice. And it confirms something serious.

The DOJ’s weaponisation working group has published its findings following a review of more than 700,000 internal communications, case files, and prosecutorial decisions from the Biden era.

What it found was a systematic, two-tiered system of justice — one that targeted pro-life and religious organisations while shielding those who attacked them.

The Law That Was Supposed to Protect Everyone

There is a federal statute in the United States called the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. On paper, it protects all sides equally — abortion clinics, but also churches and pro-life pregnancy resource centres.

Under the Biden administration, that equal protection ceased to operate in practice.

What the Report Found

The DOJ’s full report documents a pattern that goes well beyond selective enforcement.

Pro-life facilities were vandalised, firebombed, and attacked across the country. The group Jane’s Revenge claimed responsibility for a wave of incidents targeting pregnancy centres. According to Fox News reporting on the attacks, there were zero arrests across sixteen confirmed Jane’s Revenge attacks on pro-life organisations. The Biden DOJ did not treat these as a federal priority.

One of the organisations directly affected was Heartbeat of Miami, a pregnancy centre providing support to women facing unplanned pregnancies. Their facility was vandalised multiple times. As Pregnancy Help News reported, the response from federal authorities was negligible.

But the report does not simply document inaction. It documents active coordination.

According to the DOJ press release accompanying the report, Biden’s DOJ worked with pro-abortion organisations to build surveillance files on pro-life individuals. Those files contained home addresses, photographs — including of spouses and children — the names of associates, travel plans, and driver’s licence details.

People engaged in peaceful, constitutionally protected activity were being tracked and filed on as though they were subjects of a criminal investigation.

The Response from the Current Administration

President Trump has since pardoned 23 pro-life Americans who were prosecuted under Biden-era applications of the FACE Act. The new DOJ has also dismissed civil lawsuits brought against non-violent pro-life demonstrators.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche addressed the findings directly: “This department will not tolerate a two-tiered system of justice.”

The First Liberty Institute, which has been tracking these cases, noted that the report represents one of the most significant formal acknowledgements of institutionalised bias against religious and pro-life organisations in recent American history.

Why This Matters Beyond the United States

Australia is not the United States. Our legal system is different. Our politics are different.

But the pattern documented in this report — the use of institutional power to marginalise pro-life voices while treating those who attack them as low-priority — is not uniquely American.

Wherever pro-life work is done, it is done against resistance. Sometimes that resistance is cultural. Sometimes it is legal. And sometimes, as this report confirms, it is deliberate and coordinated.

The significance of the DOJ report is not that it is surprising. It is that it is now documented, formally, in an 800-page government record that cannot be dismissed as speculation.

The pressure was real. It has now been named. And that matters for everyone working in this space — including here in Australia.

References

• United States Department of Justice — DOJ Press Release: Biden Administration’s Weaponisation of Federal Law Against Pro-Life Groups

• United States Department of Justice — Full Report (Primary Document)

• Congress.gov — Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act

• Pregnancy Help News — Florida Pregnancy Centre Attack

• Fox News — Pro-Life Protesters Pardoned by Trump

• Fox News — Zero Arrests Across Sixteen Jane’s Revenge Attacks

• Senator Tom Cotton — Statement on Violent Attacks Against Crisis Pregnancy Centres

• First Liberty Institute — DOJ Report: Biden Administration Weaponised the Law Against Religious and Pro-Life Groups

• The Daily Signal — How Trump Can Protect Pro-Life Pregnancy Centres Undermined by Biden DOJ

Found this valuable? Help us reach more Australians.

Share

Subscribe to Right to Life on Substack for weekly articles, analysis, and commentary:

Subscribe now

Support our work: Every donation helps us protect human life and change Australian culture.

Donate

Instagram - Facebook - X - YouTube

The promise was clear.

During his 2024 campaign, Donald Trump positioned himself as, in his own words, “the most pro-life president in history.” For many supporters, that included a straightforward expectation: the federal dollars flowing to Planned Parenthood would stop.

One year on, they haven’t.

Title X: What It Is and Why It Matters

Title X is a federal family planning program with an annual budget of $286 million. A significant portion of that funding flows directly to Planned Parenthood — the largest abortion provider in the United States.

The Trump administration has continued those grants. The White House says its hands are tied: the Biden administration locked in multi-year funding agreements, the courts upheld those decisions, and unwinding them in the short term proved legally complicated.

That explanation has not satisfied everyone in the pro-life movement.

The Question That Demands an Answer

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and one of the most respected pro-life leaders in the United States, has asked a pointed question: why wasn’t the Protect Life Rule reinstated on day one?

The Protect Life Rule is not a new idea. It worked before. During Trump’s first term, that single regulatory change — which barred Title X recipients from referring patients for abortions — caused Planned Parenthood to voluntarily withdraw from the program entirely rather than comply. No legislative battle required. No court fight. Planned Parenthood simply walked away.

The rule existed. The precedent existed. The question of why it was not immediately restored is legitimate, and it deserves a clear answer from the administration.

The Good News — If the Pressure Holds

Here is where the picture changes.

New 2027 Title X funding guidelines would bar any clinic that performs or refers for abortions from receiving a single cent of federal family planning money. If those guidelines hold, Planned Parenthood would almost certainly walk away again — just as they did under the first term Protect Life Rule.

That is a real, tangible, achievable win. The pathway exists. The mechanism has worked before.

But it only happens if the pressure stays on.

What This Means for the Pro-Life Movement

This situation is a reminder of something the pro-life movement has always known, even when it is tempting to forget: no election result removes the need for vigilance.

A sympathetic administration is an asset. It is not a guarantee. Political goodwill can soften without sustained pressure. Bureaucratic inertia is real. Legal complexity is real. And Planned Parenthood has decades of experience navigating both.

The lesson here is not cynicism about the administration. It is clarity about the nature of the work. Cultural and legal change of this magnitude is not delivered by a single election. It is won incrementally, through sustained effort, by people who refuse to look away when the pressure needs to be maintained.

The 2027 funding cycle represents a concrete opportunity. Pro-life advocates in the United States are right to name it, pursue it, and hold the administration to account on it.

Those of us in Australia are watching — and learning.

References

• White House — President Trump Is the Most Pro-Life President in History

• Congressional Research Service — Title X Family Planning Program Overview

• Federal Grant Document — 2027 Title X Services NOFO

• KFF — The Impact of Medicaid and Title X on Planned Parenthood

• The Center Square — Federal Funding Coverage

• Washington Examiner — Trump Administration Restores Family Planning Funds

• NBC News — Title X Policy Shift Under Trump

• The Hill — Why Is the Trump Administration Continuing Biden’s Abortion Policies?

Found this valuable? Help us reach more Australians.

Share

Subscribe to Right to Life on Substack for weekly articles, analysis, and commentary:

Subscribe now

Support our work: Every donation helps us protect human life and change Australian culture.

Donate

Instagram - Facebook - X - YouTube

There is a version of the pro-life story that rarely gets told — not the legislative battles, not the street protests, not the philosophical arguments. It is the story of someone who believed in abortion access, worked to provide it, and then, over time, came to see it differently. Mayra Rodriguez is that story.

Rodriguez spent 17 years working at Planned Parenthood, rising to the level of clinic director in Arizona. She wasn’t there by accident or cynicism. She believed she was helping women — particularly women from migrant and Hispanic backgrounds who had few other options. She was someone who had bought the story she had been told, and she was trying to live it out faithfully.

A Whistleblower From Within

In her final year at Planned Parenthood, Rodriguez was placed in charge of an abortion centre. What she began to see there did not match the organisation’s public messaging. According to reporting by the Washington Free Beacon, she raised concerns about safety violations, incomplete procedures, falsified patient records, and high complication rates. She went through the proper channels. She documented her concerns and escalated them internally.

The organisation fired her.

Rodriguez took Planned Parenthood to court. A jury awarded her $3 million in damages — a finding that the woman who had tried to protect patients had been wrongfully dismissed for doing so. The organisation that built its reputation on the language of women’s health had fired the woman who was trying to hold it to that standard.

What Changed Her Mind

The legal victory was not the end of the story. According to Aleteia’s profile of Rodriguez, it was followed by a period of reflection, therapy, and what she describes as a process of personal healing and moral reckoning. She didn’t simply switch sides in a debate. She worked through what she had seen, what she had been part of, and what she believed about women and life.

That process led her to where she is now: travelling internationally, speaking publicly, and doing the painstaking work of telling people what she witnessed. She now works alongside organisations that support women in crisis pregnancies, including collaborations with ADF Legal, and has shared her account extensively with medical and pro-life professional communities, including AAPLOG.

The Line That Stays With You

Rodriguez has said something that deserves to be heard clearly: “The only way we’re going to win this battle is by changing hearts and minds — just like mine was changed.”

It is easy, in this debate, to assume that the people on the other side are fixed. That they know exactly what they believe, that they will never move, and that there is nothing to be done except to build political pressure and wait. Rodriguez is a living argument against that assumption.

She grew up in Mexico City. She came to the United States as a teenager. She took a job at Planned Parenthood in 2000 because she wanted to serve her community. She spent 17 years doing what she believed was good. And then — through experience, through evidence, through a willingness to confront what she had seen — she changed.

If a 17-year Planned Parenthood executive can arrive at a place where she stands publicly for life, speaks honestly about what goes on inside the industry, and dedicates her platform to informing other women — then the category of “people who will never come around” needs to be revisited.

What This Means for the Work

The pro-life cause in Australia is often framed in terms of law and policy. Those battles matter. But the deeper work is cultural. It is the work of reaching individuals — not winning arguments at them, but allowing them to encounter something true about what human life is and what it means.

Rodriguez is proof that this work is possible, and that it works. People change when they are confronted with reality. When they are respected enough to be told the truth. When someone takes the time to have the conversation rather than simply score the point.

She did not arrive at her current position because she was argued into it. She arrived there because she saw, up close, what the industry she worked for actually did — and she was honest enough to reckon with it.

That is what we are asking of the broader culture. Not capitulation. Not admission of defeat. Just honesty. Just a willingness to look clearly.

Keep going. Keep talking. Keep believing that people can change — because, as Mayra Rodriguez shows, they genuinely can.

Sources

• Mayra Rodriguez — Official Website

• Planned Parenthood Whistleblower Wins $3 Million — Washington Free Beacon

• Planned Parenthood Arizona Whistleblower Awarded $3 Million — ABC15 Arizona

• From Planned Parenthood to Pro-Life Leader: Why She Changed — Aleteia

• Deceiving Women Is What Their Business Is All About — ADF Legal

• Inside the Abortion Industry: Former Planned Parenthood Clinic Director Mayra Rodriguez — AAPLOG

Found this valuable? Help us reach more Australians.

Share

Subscribe to Right to Life on Substack for weekly articles, analysis, and commentary:

Subscribe now

Support our work: Every donation helps us protect human life and change Australian culture.

Donate today

Instagram - Facebook - X - YouTube

A new annual report from Planned Parenthood tells a story the organisation would probably prefer you didn’t read too carefully. The numbers, taken together, reveal an organisation whose priorities have shifted decisively — and whose funding from American taxpayers has never been higher.

Record Abortions. Fewer Screenings.

According to Planned Parenthood’s 2024–2025 Annual Report, the organisation performed over 434,000 abortions in the most recent reporting period. That is a record high — an increase of more than 32,000 from the previous year.

At the same time, cancer screenings fell from over 426,000 to around 389,000. The organisation that has long presented itself as a comprehensive women’s health provider is, by its own data, doing less preventive healthcare and more abortions.

This is not a minor statistical shift. It is a pattern. A researcher at the Charlotte Lozier Institute noted that over the past decade, abortion numbers and revenue have both increased significantly — even as the overall number of patients Planned Parenthood serves has declined. More abortions. Fewer patients. More money.

$832 Million in Taxpayer Funding

Government funding to Planned Parenthood increased by nearly $40 million in the reporting period, bringing total taxpayer support to $832 million dollars. American taxpayers are, in effect, the single largest funder of the most prolific abortion provider in the United States.

These are not abstract policy debates. Each of those 434,000 abortions represents a human life. And each of those dollars represents a policy choice — a decision by governments that this is where public money should go.

Why This Matters in Australia

Australia does not have Planned Parenthood. But the dynamic it represents — the cultural pressure, the institutional momentum, the framing of abortion as routine healthcare — is very much present here.

The language used to defend these numbers in the United States is the same language used in Australian parliaments, newsrooms, and schools. The narrative that abortion is simply a health service, that objections to it are fringe or religious, that the details do not need to be examined — this is not an American phenomenon. It is a global one.

What the Planned Parenthood report makes plain is that when organisations are not scrutinised, numbers climb and accountability disappears. The 434,000 figure did not happen in isolation. It happened inside a structure of funding, political protection, and cultural normalisation that has been built over decades.

The Alternative Already Exists

One detail worth holding onto: pro-life pregnancy centres in the United States outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics 15 to 1. That network — largely volunteer-run, privately funded, and operating without government support — serves hundreds of thousands of women and families every year. It offers what Planned Parenthood’s model does not: genuine alternatives, ongoing support, and a commitment to both mother and child.

Australia needs that same energy. Not just pro-life arguments — but pro-life infrastructure. Pregnancy support services, practical care, and communities willing to stand with families when they need it most.

Laws matter. Advocacy matters. But culture is what ultimately shapes both. And culture is changed by people who decide to stop treating these numbers as someone else’s concern.

Sources

• Planned Parenthood 2024–25 Annual Report — Planned Parenthood

• Fact Sheet: Planned Parenthood’s 2024–25 Annual Report — Charlotte Lozier Institute

• Latest Planned Parenthood Report: Abortions and Taxpayer Funding Up, Cancer Screenings Down — OSV News

• Abortions Performed by Planned Parenthood Hit Record High Amid Defunding Push — The Washington Times

Found this valuable? Help us reach more Australians.

Share

Subscribe to Right to Life on Substack for weekly articles, analysis, and commentary:

Subscribe now

Support our work: Every donation helps us protect human life and change Australian culture.

Donate today

Instagram - Facebook - X - YouTube

In 2013, journalist David Daleiden began one of the most significant — and most controversial — pieces of undercover investigative reporting in recent American history. His work alleged that Planned Parenthood, the United States’ largest abortion provider, was engaged in the illegal sale of body parts from aborted foetuses. The recordings he produced shocked audiences around the world and were republished and discussed across mainstream media.

What followed was not a serious investigation into the organisations he had documented. What followed was a criminal case against him.

Fifteen Charges and Twelve Years

In 2017, Daleiden and fellow journalist Sandra Merritt were charged with 15 counts related to alleged violations of California’s privacy laws. The charges related to the undercover recordings they had made as part of their investigation into Planned Parenthood tissue procurement practices. The case was initiated under then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

The legal proceedings stretched for years, carrying with them enormous financial and personal cost. The message sent — whether intentionally or not — was clear: document this, and there will be consequences.

This year, that chapter finally closed. The final remaining charge was dropped, bringing an end to a case that had lasted more than a decade. Daleiden and Merritt’s vindication is worth acknowledging. But vindication after twelve years of legal pressure is a complicated kind of victory.

A Pattern Worth Examining

The Daleiden case would be easier to explain away if it stood alone. It does not.

In 2022, pro-life activist Mark Houck was prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice. Federal charges were filed against him in relation to an incident outside a Philadelphia abortion facility. His home was raided by armed FBI agents in front of his wife and children. He was ultimately acquitted by a jury, but only after enduring the full weight of a federal prosecution.

Investigative journalist Lila Rose, whose organisation Live Action has produced extensive undercover reporting on abortion providers, has faced repeated platform bans and content removal efforts across major social media platforms in response to her work.

Across these cases, a recognisable shape begins to form. Those who challenge the system — through journalism, through presence, through speech — often find themselves facing consequences that go well beyond ordinary public disagreement.

What This Tells Us

There is a particular kind of discomfort that comes with prosecuting a journalist for recording what he believes to be a serious crime. It raises questions that do not resolve easily.

If the recordings were false or misleading, the appropriate response would have been to demonstrate that — clearly and publicly. Instead, years of criminal proceedings were directed at the people who made them. Whatever one’s view of the methods involved, the disproportionality of that response demands scrutiny.

The Daleiden and Merritt outcome is, genuinely, a reason for relief. No one should spend twelve years under criminal threat for the act of reporting. And the dropping of the final charge matters — not just legally, but symbolically.

But the vindication of individuals does not resolve the broader pattern. There are people whose stories have not yet been told publicly. There are activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens who have experienced professional, legal, or personal consequences as a result of speaking honestly about abortion, euthanasia, or the value of human life. Many of them will never make the news.

The Question We Need to Keep Asking

Free societies are built on the premise that the truth can be spoken — even when it is unwelcome, even when it disrupts powerful institutions, and even when the people speaking it are few in number.

When that principle is tested — when speaking out reliably attracts investigation, prosecution, deplatforming, or financial ruin — something important is under pressure. It does not require a conspiracy to produce a chilling effect. It only requires that enough people look at what happened to others and decide that the cost is too high.

Daleiden and Merritt were not silenced. The charges against Houck did not hold. But the question worth sitting with is not only what happened to them — it is what happened to the people who saw their cases and quietly decided to say nothing.

That question deserves an answer. And if you have a story — if you know of someone who has faced consequences for standing for life — it is worth telling.

Sources

• 2 Activists Who Secretly Recorded Planned Parenthood Face New Felony Charges — NPR

• Final Charge Dropped in Yearslong Harris-Era Case Against Pro-Life Activist — Fox News

• Pennsylvania Man Indicted for Assaulting Reproductive Health Care Provider — U.S. Department of Justice

• Mark Houck: Anti-Abortion Activist Acquitted of Federal Charges — The Independent

Found this valuable? Help us reach more Australians.

Share

Subscribe to Right to Life on Substack for weekly articles, analysis, and commentary:

Subscribe now

Support our work: Every donation helps us protect human life and change Australian culture.

Donate today

Instagram - Facebook - X - YouTube

A new selection process is underway for the next Secretary-General of the United Nations — and one of the leading candidates has a track record that deserves serious scrutiny.

Michelle Bachelet, the former President of Chile and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, was nominated in February 2026 by the governments of Brazil and Mexico (Chile initially co-nominated her but withdrew its support in March 2026). Her candidacy is now attracting significant attention — not just for her diplomatic credentials, but for her long and consistent record of promoting abortion access as a global priority.

The role she is seeking is not a minor one. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is tasked with representing the interests and dignity of all humanity — across every culture, every value system, and every nation.

That makes her record worth examining carefully.

What Her Record Shows

During her second presidential term in Chile, Bachelet championed legislation that ended that country’s longstanding total ban on abortion. In 2017, the Chilean Congress passed her bill permitting abortion in limited circumstances: cases of rape, fatal fetal abnormality, or risk to the mother’s life. Supporters described it as a triumph of reason; for many in Chile and Latin America who had defended protections for unborn life for decades, it was a significant defeat.

Her positions did not remain at the national level. When Bachelet became UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, she used that platform consistently to promote abortion access as a matter of international human rights law.

When the United States Supreme Court issued its Dobbs decision in 2022 — returning abortion policy to the individual states — Bachelet’s response was immediate and pointed. She described the ruling as “a huge blow to women’s human rights and gender equality,” and stated that access to abortion was “firmly rooted in international human rights law.” She went further, describing the overturning of Roe v. Wade as a “major setback” and warning that the US was moving away from what she called a “progressive trend.”

This framing — that protecting unborn life is a violation of human rights — is not a neutral or universally shared position. It is a deeply contested moral and legal claim. Many nations, many legal traditions, and many millions of people across the world hold a fundamentally different view.

Earlier in her UN career, as the first Executive Director of UN Women, Bachelet declared that “reproductive rights” was “absolutely fundamental” to that organisation’s mission. The UN Women reports produced under her leadership pushed member states to weaken existing legal protections for the unborn.

What the UN Is For

This matters because of what the United Nations is supposed to be.

According to the UN Charter, the organisation exists to maintain international peace and security, promote human rights, deliver humanitarian assistance, and uphold international law. It was founded to serve all people — across cultures, religions, and moral frameworks.

Abortion is not a settled question in international law, despite repeated attempts by UN bodies to position it as one. It is a deeply divisive moral issue on which countries differ profoundly. Many nations — including significant majorities across Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and parts of Asia — maintain strong legal protections for unborn life. These countries are also UN members. Their values and their sovereignty are meant to be respected, not overridden.

A Secretary-General who enters office with a documented, career-long commitment to advancing abortion as a human rights priority is not a neutral steward of global cooperation. She is someone who has already chosen sides on one of the most contested moral questions in the world.

A Question of Representation

The concern here is not partisan. It is foundational.

The process for selecting the next Secretary-General involves nominations from member states, interactive dialogues, and ultimately a recommendation from the Security Council to the General Assembly. It is a process meant to identify someone capable of representing all of humanity with integrity and impartiality.

A number of legislators in the United States — including members of the Senate — have formally written to the Secretary of State urging opposition to Bachelet’s candidacy, arguing that her record demonstrates a consistent pattern of using international platforms to pressure member states on abortion, regardless of their own laws and values. Even the Chilean government that initially nominated her ultimately withdrew its support.

These concerns are legitimate and worth raising in the Australian context as well. Australia is a UN member state. Australians have a stake in who leads the organisation and what priorities they bring to that role.

Changing Culture Starts with Asking the Right Questions

At Right to Life, we believe every human life has inherent dignity — from the earliest stages of development to natural death. We also believe that questions of this magnitude deserve honest, open public debate — not the kind of bureaucratic pressure that attempts to settle contested moral questions by institutional decree.

The UN has an important role to play in the world. That role is best fulfilled when its leadership genuinely reflects the diversity of humanity — including those nations and peoples who believe that unborn children deserve protection.

Whether Michelle Bachelet is the right person to carry that responsibility is a question the world should be asking openly.

Sources

• Michelle Bachelet

• Selection and Appointment of the Next Secretary-General — United Nations

• Chile abortion bill: Michelle Bachelet signs law — BBC News

• Chile abortion bill: a triumph of reason — The Guardian

• Overturning of Roe v Wade a ‘huge blow to women’s human rights’ warns Bachelet — UN News

• Young Opposes Pro-Abortion United Nations Nominee — Senator Todd Young, U.S. Senate

• Charter of the United Nations — Full Text

Found this valuable? Help us reach more Australians.

Share

Subscribe to Right to Life on Substack for weekly articles, analysis, and commentary:

Subscribe now

Support our work: Every donation helps us protect human life and change Australian culture.

Donate today

Instagram - Facebook - X - YouTube

In June 2022, the Supreme Court handed down one of the most significant legal decisions in American history. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, returning the question of abortion law to individual states for the first time in fifty years.

For many in the pro-life movement, it felt like a turning point. And in legal terms, it was.

But law and culture are not the same thing. And the numbers, four years on, tell a sobering story.

The Data That Cannot Be Ignored

According to the Guttmacher Institute, one of the most widely cited research organisations tracking abortion statistics in the United States, abortions have not declined since Dobbs. They have increased.

In 2024, there were an estimated 1.124 million abortions in the United States. In 2025, that figure rose to 1.126 million.

These are not the numbers of a nation that has changed its mind.

Perhaps more striking is what has happened in states with total abortion bans. Rather than reducing the number of abortions, these laws have driven a dramatic rise in telehealth abortion provision. According to a Guttmacher report on abortion incidence and telehealth trends, there were 74,000 telehealth abortions in ban states in 2024. By 2025, that number had surged to 91,000.

Abortion has not been eliminated. It has moved — online, out of sight, and out of reach of the laws designed to prevent it.

A Fertility Rate in Freefall

The picture is compounded by what is happening to birth rates more broadly. As reported by The New York Times, and supported by data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American fertility rates continue to fall. Fewer children are being born. Parenthood is increasingly viewed as optional, burdensome, or simply unaffordable.

This is not a legal problem. It is a cultural one.

A society that does not value children will not be moved by laws that restrict abortion. It will find ways around them. It will turn to telehealth. It will cross state lines. It will reframe every effort to protect life as an attack on freedom.

Until something deeper changes, the legislation will keep running ahead of the culture — and the culture will keep finding ways to catch up.

What Dobbs Did and Did Not Do

None of this is to diminish what Dobbs achieved. Overturning Roe was a necessary correction of a serious legal error. It returned democratic authority to states and their citizens. It opened the door for genuine legal protection of unborn life in a way that had not existed for half a century.

But a court decision cannot change a heart. It cannot persuade a frightened woman that she is not alone. It cannot rebuild a culture in which pregnancy is welcomed rather than feared. It cannot make parenthood feel possible for people who feel unsupported and unheard.

Dobbs corrected a wrong. It did not win a culture.

The Real Fight

The pro-life movement now faces a more difficult challenge than the one it faced before 2022. Abortion is more accessible in some respects than it has ever been — quieter, faster, and conducted with less visibility than at any point in recent history. The political and legal battles will continue and they must. But they are not sufficient on their own.

What is needed now is a movement that speaks not just to legislatures but to living rooms. That meets people where they are. That offers something real to those facing an unexpected pregnancy — not condemnation, not a pamphlet, but genuine support, community, and hope.

The goal was never simply to change the law. The goal was always to change the answer to the question: what kind of society do we want to be?

Four years after Dobbs, that question is still waiting to be answered.

The fight is not over. In many ways, it is only now becoming clear what the fight actually requires.

Sources

• Induced Abortion in the United States — Guttmacher Institute

• Abortion Incidence and Telehealth Provision Report — Guttmacher Institute

• U.S. Fertility Rates Continue to Decline — The New York Times

• National Vital Statistics Report: Fertility Data — Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Found this valuable? Help us reach more Australians.

Share

Subscribe to Right to Life on Substack for weekly articles, analysis, and commentary:

Subscribe now

Support our work: Every donation helps us protect human life and change Australian culture.

Donate today

Instagram - Facebook - X - YouTube

Subscribe now

Donate

A story has been circulating in international media about a woman from Georgia, in the United States, who was arrested in connection with an abortion. The headline from Reuters read: “Georgia woman faces murder charge after taking abortion pill.” The story spread quickly. The framing was clear: a state with restrictive abortion laws had arrested a woman simply for having an abortion.

That framing is not accurate. And the gap between what happened and what was reported tells us something important about the state of media coverage on abortion.

What Actually Happened

On December 30, 2025, Alexia Moore, a 31-year-old woman in Camden County, Georgia, was rushed to the emergency room in severe pain. She had taken misoprostol — a drug commonly used in medication abortions — along with oxycodone, an opioid painkiller that had not been prescribed to her, and which she obtained from a family member. At the hospital, a baby girl was delivered prematurely, estimated to be between 22 and 24 weeks gestation. The infant was born alive and survived for approximately one hour before she was declared deceased. FOX 5 Atlanta

That is not a story about a woman who had an early abortion. That is a story about a child, nearly six months old in the womb, who was born alive. Who breathed. Who suffered. And who died.

According to the arrest warrant, Moore told nursing staff: “I know my infant is suffering, because I am the one who did the abortion. I want her to die.” CBS News

The warrant also noted that a toxicology screening detected oxycodone in the fetus’ blood. CBS News

Moore was subsequently charged with murder, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of a dangerous drug. She has been jailed in coastal Camden County since March 4 on those charges. CBS News

The Law Being Applied — And the Law That Wasn’t

Here is the critical detail that most outlets buried or missed entirely. As an assistant law professor at Georgia State University College of Law explained to First Coast News: “She is being charged under Georgia’s homicide law — not under Georgia’s criminal abortion law. And I think that’s an important distinction to make, because a lot of the reporting has been mixing those two issues.”

The murder charge was not brought under Georgia’s abortion restrictions. Under Georgia law, the arrest warrant referred to Moore’s baby as “a human being who was born alive and survived for one hour. Under Georgia law, the victim became a person at the moment of live birth.” CBS News

In other words: a child was born. That child lived. That child died. The question before the law is what responsibility, if any, the mother bears for those facts — particularly given the illegal opioids she introduced into both her body and the baby’s, and her own stated intent.

This is a homicide investigation, not an abortion prosecution.

What Georgia’s Abortion Law Actually Says

Georgia’s abortion law — the LIFE Act — bans most abortions after detectable cardiac activity, which typically occurs at around six weeks gestation. The law includes exceptions for medical emergencies and cases of rape or incest. It was signed into law in 2019, and Georgia has since been one of the states that has sought to place meaningful limits on abortion. Georgia Recorder

This is a law the abortion lobby actively campaigns against. It is a law that stands in the way of abortion on demand up until birth. And it is a law that was conspicuously absent from the framing of most coverage of this case — even as that coverage used the existence of the law to generate outrage.

The Media’s Role in This Story

There is a legitimate and serious debate to be had about the Alexia Moore case. Legal experts have raised genuine questions about whether the murder charge can be sustained in court. The Brunswick District Attorney himself said that local police brought the charges without consulting his office, and both he and the presiding judge expressed significant doubt about the strength of the murder charge. The Current Judge Steven Blackerby called the charge “extremely problematic” and said it would be “a hard charge to convict upon,” setting the murder bond at just one dollar. First Coast News

Those are real legal complexities worth reporting on. But that is not the story that was told.

The story that was told was a simpler one: a state with abortion restrictions arrested a woman for having an abortion. That story served a particular purpose. It generated fear. It generated outrage. And it generated political momentum against the very laws that protect unborn life.

The executive director of the Georgia Life Alliance said that any claim the charges stem from the 2019 abortion law is “misrepresenting the facts and trying to again make it a fear-mongering thing that Georgia is prosecuting women on pregnancy outcomes.” CBS News

What was left out of most reporting:

1. The baby was born alive, at nearly six months gestation, and lived for an hour.

2. The mother had taken illegal opioids that were detected in the baby’s blood.

3. The mother stated clearly, to medical staff, that she wanted her baby to die.

4. The charge was brought under homicide law, not abortion law.

5. The coroner declined to rule the death a homicide, and the DA is not pursuing the murder charge.

6. The Georgia Recorder noted that a friend of Moore’s who was present disputed the account, saying Moore had not knowingly taken abortion pills and had only taken a prescribed pain medication.

These details are not side notes. They are the story. Leaving them out is not an editorial choice. It is a distortion.

Why This Matters

We are not calling for silence on a complex case. We are calling for accuracy. The job of journalism is to inform, not to curate reality in service of an ideological outcome.

The abortion lobby’s position — which it rarely states plainly — is abortion on demand, at any stage, for any reason, with zero restrictions. Georgia’s law is a direct challenge to that position. It draws a line. It says: this far, and no further. That makes it a target.

When a story emerges that can be shaped into an argument against that law, the media moves quickly. When the facts complicate that narrative, those facts are quietly set aside.

This is why Right to Life exists. If the media will not report the truth about human life, then we must find a way to tell it ourselves — calmly, accurately, and without flinching.

A child was born. She was alive. She deserved better than what she received — from the circumstances of her brief life, and from the coverage that followed.

References

1. Georgia woman faces murder charge after taking abortion pill — Reuters (via WTVB) — https://wtvbam.com/2026/03/20/georgia-woman-faces-murder-charge-after-taking-abortion-pill/

2. Woman charged with attempted murder under Georgia abortion law — Georgia Recorder — https://georgiarecorder.com/2026/03/18/woman-charged-with-attempted-murder-under-georgia-abortion-law/

3. Georgia woman charged with murder after police say she took abortion pills to end pregnancy — CBS News — https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-woman-charged-murder-abortion-pills/

4. Georgia woman faces murder charge after allegedly taking pills to induce abortion — NBC News — https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/georgia-woman-faces-murder-charge-taking-pills-induce-abortion-rcna264486

5. Georgia woman accused of murder after allegedly using pills to end pregnancy — FOX 5 Atlanta — https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/georgia-woman-accused-murder-after-allegedly-using-pills-end-pregnancy

6. Georgia woman was charged with murder for taking an abortion pill in her 2nd trimester. A judge set her bond at $1 — First Coast News — https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/local/georgia-abortion-murder-charge-one-dollar-bond/77-a689b454-8fe5-45cf-ba67-e67db8806494

7. Judge, expressing doubt on abortion murder charge, grants bond to Georgia mother — The Current GA — https://thecurrentga.org/2026/03/23/da-judge-question-murder-charge-against-camden-county-mother-in-abortion-case/

8. Georgia woman charged with murder after allegedly taking abortion pills — The Washington Post — https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/03/19/georgia-attempted-murder-abortion/

Share

Subscribe now

Donate

There are moments when statistics stop being numbers and become something far more confronting.

According to reporting based on data from Ireland’s healthcare system, 108 babies were born alive following abortion procedures between 2019 and 2023 — and later died.

As one report puts it:

“108 babies were born alive following abortions… all of whom subsequently died.”

The question is not simply that these children were born alive.

It is what happened next.

A System Under Strain

Ireland legalised abortion in 2019 under the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act. Since then, abortion numbers have risen significantly.

• Over 10,000 abortions were performed in 2024 alone

• Nearly 49,000 abortions have taken place since 2019

(See: Department of Health review)

What is striking is that 98% of these abortions were not related to maternal health risks.

This raises a deeper issue: What happens when abortion is no longer framed as an exceptional medical procedure, but as a routine part of healthcare?

When Survival Happens

Some of the babies recorded were:

• Over 24 weeks gestation

• Or weighed more than 500 grams

At that stage, survival outside the womb is medically possible.

Yet the available data does not clearly indicate:

• What care, if any, was provided

• Whether these infants were treated as patients

As Irish outlet Gript reported:

“Babies who survived abortion were left to die.”

That line is confronting.

But it captures the tension at the heart of the issue.

Not Just Ireland

This is not confined to one country.

Recent reporting in Australia highlighted the case of Baby Samuel, a 16-week-old who survived a failed abortion but was later left without care.

This exposes something fundamental: What happens when the system encounters a life it did not expect to continue?

A Deeper Question

The issue here is not simply medical.

It is philosophical.

If abortion is framed as a matter of choice, then what happens when that choice fails?

Who bears responsibility for the life that remains?

And what obligations does medicine have at that moment?

The Uncomfortable Reality

The data suggests something many would prefer not to confront:

• Outcomes are not always controlled

• Lines are not always clear

• And when survival occurs, there is often no agreed response

The result is a system that can appear — at least in these cases — inconsistent and ethically strained.

Conclusion

These stories do not simply raise questions about how abortion is practiced.

They reveal what it is.

Because when a child is born alive after an abortion attempt, the reality becomes undeniable.

The issue is no longer abstract.

It is no longer theoretical.

It is a human life — present, visible, and in need of care.

And any system that allows that life to be abandoned is not merely flawed in practice — it is wrong in principle.

Sources & Further Reading

• Ireland Health Service Executive — https://about.hse.ie/our-work/

• Irish Department of Health — https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-health/press-releases/review-of-the-operation-of-the-health-regulation-of-termination-of-pregnancy-act-2018-appointment-of-independent-chair/

• Right to Life UK — https://righttolife.org.uk/news/108-babies-born-alive-then-died-after-failed-abortions-in-ireland

• Gript — https://gript.ie/barbaric-that-108-babies-survived-abortion-left-to-die/

• National Right to Life - https://nrlc.org/nrlnewstoday/2026/02/australia-baby-left-to-die-alone-while-sucking-thumb-following-failed-abortion/

• The Guardian — https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/feb/09/foetus-image-social-media-joanna-howe-anti-abortion-post-removal-ntwnfb

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

It certainly looks that way.

In a recent video, Zara Larsson, who openly identifies as pro-choice, raised a question that cuts deeper than she may have intended. While affirming her position, she began challenging a common instinct within her own side of the debate.

Her observation was simple, but sharp: If abortion is truly about choice, why does it always have to be framed as something tragic, painful, or emotionally difficult for it to be acceptable?

Why, she asks, can it not simply be a neutral decision, or even, in some cases, a positive one?

At first glance, this might sound like a push for consistency. But in reality, it exposes something far more revealing.

The contradiction no one wants to name

Even among strong supporters of abortion, there is a persistent hesitation.

People say:

• “It’s a hard decision.”

• “It’s sad, but necessary.”

• “No one wants this, but…”

Notice what’s happening here.

If abortion is truly just another choice, no different in principle from any other personal decision, then why the need to soften it with tragedy? Why the emotional disclaimers?

We don’t do this with ordinary choices.

The language itself gives something away.

It suggests that, deep down, even those defending abortion recognise that it is not morally neutral. There is an instinct, often unspoken, that something serious, even grave, is taking place.

When celebration enters the picture

This tension becomes even clearer when we look at the other extreme.

Alongside the language of tragedy, there is a growing trend, particularly online, of openly celebrating abortion.

Videos, jokes, slogans:

• Dancing after procedures

• Counting multiple abortions as milestones

• Phrases like “you killed it” used as encouragement

And here, something fractures.

Because many who are pro-choice feel uncomfortable with this.

They recoil.

They may not say it publicly, but something in them resists the idea that abortion is something to be celebrated.

What that discomfort reveals

That discomfort matters.

It reveals that the issue is not as settled, even internally, as it is often presented.

Because if abortion is:

• morally neutral → why the sadness?

• morally good → why the discomfort with celebration?

There is a gap here.

A tension between what is claimed and what is felt.

And that tension points to a deeper question that cannot be avoided:

What is abortion, really?

A question worth sitting with

For those who identify as pro-choice, this is where the conversation becomes personal.

If something about this contradiction unsettles you — if the celebratory tone feels wrong, if the constant framing as “tragic” feels necessary — then it’s worth pausing.

Not reacting. Not defending. Just thinking.

Because sometimes the most important questions are the ones that quietly refuse to go away.

And sometimes, when an argument begins to contradict itself, it’s not a sign to double down— it’s a sign to reconsider.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

If you agree that every Australian voice deserves equal creative space and that tech platforms should be transparent in how they treat differing views, you can add your name to the petition.

10 News+ YouTube

Brianna Parkins Article

SIGN THE PETITION

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Canva, a proudly Australian creative giant, is now using its platform to fund abortion access for U.S.-based employees — covering travel and accommodation costs to states where abortion remains legal.

This policy, publicly confirmed on Canva’s LinkedIn page, reads:

“From today, we’re covering the cost of travel and accommodation for U.S.-based Canvanauts and their chosen support person to access abortion care in a state where it is not restricted or banned.”
Articles in The Australian Financial Review and The Sydney Morning Herald echoed the news, placing Canva alongside other tech companies that now bankroll abortion-related travel.

This move stands in stark contrast to the values Canva claims to uphold: empowerment, inclusion, and care.

Because true empowerment does not come at the expense of the most vulnerable.
Because real inclusion includes the unborn.
Because care should heal — not harm.

We believe:

• Every child is a potential creator — life is the first masterpiece.

• Every mother deserves compassion and support, not abandonment or pressure.

• Every employee deserves healthcare that affirms both lives.

• Every creative deserves to be heard — but Canva silences pro-life voices.

Search “pro-choice” on Canva and you’ll find pages of bold, colourful designs.
Search “pro-life”? Nothing. No templates. No voice. No place.

We ask you to take a stand.

• If you are a paying Canva user — unsubscribe.

• If you support life — stop using their tools.

• If you believe in real creative freedom — leave the platform.

Let Canva hear us loud and clear:

• Stop funding abortion

• Let pro-life creators speak

• Support both mother and child

Join us. And sign the petition today!

Because human life is not a problem to erase — it’s the greatest design of all.

SIGN THE PETITION

Sources & References

• Canva LinkedIn Statement

• The Australian Financial Review — The Australian companies paying for US staff to access abortions

• The Sydney Morning Herald — Australian businesses offer support to US employees after Roe v Wade

• 10 News+ - Pro-Life Group Targets Tech Giant Canva

• The New Daily — Pro-life activists target Canva over abortion travel benefits

• LifeSiteNews — Pro-lifers urged to boycott Canva over abortion travel benefits

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

For decades, Australia has spoken confidently about women’s rights.

Equality.
Dignity.
Protection.

These are not fringe values. They are part of our national identity. We teach them in schools, promote them in policy, and celebrate them in public life.

But there is a quiet contradiction—one that begins at the very start of life.

A Pattern That Shouldn’t Exist

New research by Edith Cowan University, has uncovered something deeply unsettling.

In parts of Victoria and New South Wales, the natural ratio of boys to girls at birth has been distorted.

Not slightly. Not randomly.

But in a way that points to a consistent outcome: fewer girls are being born than biology predicts.

Nature tends to follow a remarkably stable pattern. When that pattern shifts, especially at scale, it demands explanation.

And in this case, the most plausible explanation is also the most confronting: unborn girls are being selectively aborted because they are female.

Not Chance. Not Accident.

This is not about rare medical complications.
This is not about miscarriage.

This is about decision.

A decision that, in effect, says: this life is less valuable because it is female.

Strip away the language, and what remains is stark: discrimination—at its most final stage.

The Contradiction We Avoid

Australia invests heavily in the advancement of women.

We speak about closing gaps, protecting rights, and ensuring dignity.

And yet— there is no national protection for girls before birth against sex-selective abortion.

So we are left with a contradiction that is difficult to ignore: We defend equality in principle, but allow inequality at the very point where life begins.

Equality that begins only after birth is already too late for those who were never given the chance to arrive.

Other Nations Have Acted

This is not an unsolvable problem.

Other countries have recognised sex-selective abortion for what it is—
a form of gender discrimination—and have taken steps to restrict it.

Australia has not.

And in the absence of action, the practice continues quietly, largely unspoken, and rarely challenged.

Why Silence Matters

Silence is not neutral.

When something goes unnamed, it goes unchallenged.
When it goes unchallenged, it continues.

And over time, what should shock us begins to feel normal.

Drawing a Line

Sex-selective abortion undermines the very foundation of equality.

It sends a message—quiet but powerful—that some lives are less worthy than others based solely on sex.

That is not progress.
That is regression in its most subtle form.

What Happens Next

We are calling for a clear and immediate response:

A national ban on sex-selective abortion in Australia.

Not as a symbolic gesture—but as a statement of principle:

That equality applies to every human life, from the very beginning.

Final Thought

A society reveals what it truly believes not in what it says—but in what it permits.

If we believe in the dignity of women,
then that belief must extend to girls before they are born.

Anything less is a contradiction we can no longer ignore.

Take Action

Add your name to the petition.
Share it.
Start the conversation.

Because equality, if it is real, must begin at the beginning.

SIGN THE PETITION

Source

Edith Cowan University - Indirect evidence of sex-selective abortion practices to the imbalanced sex ratio at birth in Australian migrant populations

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

There’s something deeply strange about the modern Australian economy.

You can go to work.
Pay your taxes.
Build your superannuation.

And still—without ever choosing it—be financially connected to something you fundamentally disagree with.

That’s not a conspiracy.
That’s just how the system works.

The Shift After Dobbs

After the overturning of Roe v Wade in the United States, many large corporations moved quickly.

Not to withdraw.
Not to remain neutral.

But to actively support employees seeking abortions across state lines.

According to reporting from the Australian Financial Review, companies like BHP introduced policies offering:

• Paid leave

• Travel reimbursement

• Financial support

…for employees needing to access abortion services in the United States.

The language is clinical. Corporate. Clean.

But the reality is not neutral.

This is not simply “healthcare access.”
This is a company making a moral decision—and funding it.

Why This Matters in Australia

You might think: That’s happening in America. Why does it concern us?

Here’s the uncomfortable answer.

Because you are likely invested in it.

BHP is not a small player. It is, in fact, the single largest holding across Australia’s 14 biggest superannuation funds.

Which means:

If you have super (and nearly every working Australian does),
you almost certainly have financial exposure to BHP.

Not directly. Not intentionally. But undeniably.

Your retirement savings are tied—however indirectly—to the actions of that company.

And that raises a serious question:

Should Australians be passively funding corporate decisions they would never personally support?

Leadership and Responsibility

There’s another layer here that can’t be ignored.

Dominic Perrottet—former Premier of New South Wales—is now Head of US Corporate and External Affairs at BHP.

A man publicly associated with pro-life convictions
now sits in a position where this policy continues under his watch.

No public objection.
No visible resistance.
No course correction.

That silence matters.

Because leadership is not just about what you say.
It’s about what you allow.

This Is Where Action Begins

At some point, a line has to be drawn.

Not with outrage.
Not with noise.

But with clarity.

Right to Life is launching a petition calling on BHP to end this policy.

Not as a symbolic gesture—but as a direct appeal for accountability.

Because corporations do respond.
But only when people speak clearly enough—and loudly enough—that they have to.

The Reality We Face

Here’s the truth most people avoid:

If no one speaks up, nothing changes.

Not slowly.
Not eventually.

Not at all.

Systems don’t correct themselves.
They follow incentives.
They follow pressure.

And right now, the pressure is minimal.

What Happens Next

Our goal is simple: 10,000 signatures.

Not because numbers alone change things—
but because they signal something undeniable:

That Australians are paying attention.
That Australians care.
And that Australians are willing to act.

Final Thought

The modern world has made it very easy to be involved in things without ever choosing them.

That’s precisely why moments like this matter.

Because they force a decision:

Will you remain passively connected?

Or will you step forward and say—clearly and deliberately—

“Not in my name.”

Take Action

Sign the petition.
Share it with others.
Start the conversation.

Because silence isn’t neutral.

It’s permission.

Source

The Australian companies paying for US staff to access abortions https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/the-australian-companies-paying-for-us-staff-to-access-abortions-20220701-p5ayab

SIGN THE PETITION

Subscribe now

Leave a comment