A Northern Ireland court on Thursday (May 7) fined a retired Baptist pastor for preaching at a worship service near an abortion clinic, a move the minister called a “dark day for Christian freedom.”
by Chris Eyte at Christian Daily
Coleraine Magistrates’ Court ordered the Rev. Clive Johnston to pay £450 ($565) following his conviction under the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act 2023. Johnston, former president of the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland, held an open-air Sunday service on July 7, 2024 within a protected “buffer zone” outside Causeway Hospital in Coleraine, County Londonderry.
The Vienna-based Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe (OIDAC Europe) reported that the court considered Johnston’s conduct a criminal offense due to the “location and surrounding circumstances.”
The prosecution argued that because the service featured a large crucifix, hymns and a microphone, it amounted to an attempt to influence people accessing abortion services. Johnston maintained his sermon made no mention of abortion. Police body-worn footage showed Johnston’s group singing hymns and quoting Bible passages, including John 3:16.Stay informed with The Christian Daily NewsletterSign up
“The buffer zone legislation is so broad that holding a Sunday service has been found to be a criminal offense,” Johnston said in a statement after the hearing. “If someone is out there causing trouble, stirring up violence, harassing or verbally attacking people, then, absolutely, go ahead and prosecute them. But I wasn’t doing any of those things.”
The 2023 Act criminalizes conduct within designated zones intended to influence – or conduct considered “reckless” as to whether it influences – a “protected person” accessing abortion services. Judge Peter King found Johnston guilty of two counts: acting within a safe access zone with the intent or recklessness of influencing a protected person, and failing to comply with a direction to leave the zone.
King acknowledged Johnston as a “man of strong religious belief and good character” who has been publicly associated with anti-abortion views in the past. The judge concluded, however, that Johnston had “tested the law to the point where he broke the law.”
The court ruled that Johnston specifically chose the location because of the clinic’s proximity, meeting the legal threshold for conviction.
By Chris Eyte. Republished from Christian Daily under a Creative Commons license. Christian Daily International provides biblical, factual and personal news, stories and perspectives from every region, focusing on religious freedom, integrated gospel and other issues that are relevant to the global Church today.
Tragically, an expansion of Queensland’s abortion access regulations is now being implemented. This expansion enables “trained” nurses and midwives to perform abortions (Medicines and Poisons (Medicines) Amendment Regulation 2026).1 Shockingly, it is the Queensland LNP government who is quietly advancing this regulatory framework, despite having opposed the original amendment introduced by Labor in March 2024.2
Let’s back up, the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 was introduced by then Labor Health Minister and Minister for Women Shannon Fentiman on 7 March 2024. The amendment passed because Labor had the numbers in the chamber at that time.3
Shannon Fentiman, Qld Labor MP for Waterford
This Act forms part of the broader Queensland Health Termination of Pregnancy Action Plan 2032, a long-term policy framework that was designed by the Pro-Abortion lobby to expand access to abortion across the state.4 Pro-Abortion stakeholders included in collaborating on the TOP Action Plan 2032 include, MSI International (who, as we will see, benefits financially from this push),5 The Australian College of Midwives (the principle professional organisation for midwives which has adopted a pro-abortion policy)6 and The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (another organisation captured by anti-life ideology).7
When the legislation passed in March 2024, it did so under a Labor majority, with opposition from the Liberal National Party (LNP), One Nation and the Katter’s Australian Party.8 Yet more recently, under the direction of Health Minister Tim Nicholls, the LNP government has moved to implement the regulatory framework necessary to roll out the Act.9
Within the Termination of Pregnancy Action Plan 2032, one of the key milestones for the Pro-Abortion lobby was to commit to “amending the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 and Criminal Code Act 1899, to enable nurses and midwives with appropriate qualifications and training to perform a medical termination of pregnancy through the use of termination of pregnancy drugs.”10 In practical terms, this represents a shift in how abortion is accessed in Queensland.
Three key implications arise from this change. First, the law now allows nurses and midwives to participate directly in medical abortions. Whilst framed as a measure to improve access, especially in rural and remote Queensland,11 this reform effectively cuts through any red tape to allow more pills to be sold and consequently making midwives and nurses complicit in the mass killing of Queensland’s unborn children.
Second, this shift raises serious ethical and financial questions. MSI International has the exclusive rights to MS-2 Step (the Abortion pill), meaning they benefit financially from every medical abortion in Australia. In terms of statistics, between 2019 to 2024, MS-2 Step has been prescribed 212,029 times nationwide, with 99,075 prescriptions in Queensland alone.12
Each course of the drug costs $391.06 to the Australian taxpayer, subsidised to $25.00 for the patient.13 This equates to an estimated $82.9 million in public expenditure nationally, and approximately $38.7 million in Queensland alone from 2019 to 2024. These funds are directed to MS Health, part of a global network linked to MSI Australia.14
Third, this regulatory framework directly engages with the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 – the very legislation Premier David Crisafulli has effectively placed under a “gag order.” This raises an obvious question: is this a contradiction? On one hand, the government is actively advancing regulations that shape and expand how the Act operates. On the other, it is restricting open debate and discussion among Queensland’s elected representatives. Put simply, they are willing to act on the legislation—but not willing to allow it to be publicly scrutinised.
So, this development prompts three important questions:
1. Are the LNP fully aware that, through these actions, they are effectively implementing the Termination of Pregnancy Action Plan 2032 – a central strategy of the pro-abortion lobby, spearheaded by Labor MP Shannon Fentiman?
2. Why is the LNP government now advancing the implementation of legislation that they previously opposed, why not pursue an amendment instead?
3. Isn’t it contradictory for you to amend regulation and yet not allow any other public representative to even discuss or debate the changes?
These are significant questions – that the Queensland public demand answering!
Fascinatingly both Qld Queensland Health Minister Tim Nicholls and Premier David Crisafulli voted against the legislation at the time.15 Now, Tim Nichols is certainly no ally to the Pro-Life movement. Queenslanders need to be reminded that Tim Nichols, the health minister of Queensland, is ideologically aligned with the Pro-Abortion Lobby, so aligned in fact that he was one of three MP’s that crossed the floor and voted with Labor in support of the 2018 Termination of Pregnancy Act.16 An act which has resulted an even larger number of abortions in Queensland since it was enacted.
Tim Nichols, Queensland Health Minister and LNP Member for Clayfield
Furthermore, scrutiny is warranted in relation to training and oversight proposed in the amendment. Under the new framework, nurses17 and midwives18 authorised through an Extended Practice Authority (EPA) may administer abortion drugs. However, basic questions remain about the nature of the required training:
2. What type of Pre and Post abortion counselling is conducted and again, by whom?20
Surely if organisations with a direct interest in abortion provision are involved in shaping these frameworks, concerns about bias and conflicts of interest inevitably arise.
Equally significant is the issue of conscientious objection. What protections exist for nurses and midwives who, on ethical or religious grounds, do not wish to participate in abortion procedures or related training? Without robust safeguards, there is a risk that healthcare professionals may experience pressure, whether direct or indirect, to act against their deeply held convictions.
In sum, the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 represents a horrendous turning point in Queensland’s abortion provision landscape. Most distressingly it now makes those nurses and midwives who have undergone their “training” complicit in the deaths of more and more unborn children in this state.
So what’s next – we need your help, by submitting the following petition you will send an email to key LNP members of whom we are seeking answers on those important questions listed above. (Click here to access the petition and email)
By Matthew Cliff. This article was first published at Cherish Life and was used here with permission. Cherish Life is one of the largest pro- life organisations in Australia. Cherish Life Queensland was founded in 1970 (as Right to Life Queensland), to advocate for the right to life from conception until natural death.
Evangelical leaders warn that it “undermines the protection of unborn life”. The Spanish Evangelical Alliance already opposed the inclusion of abortion as a constitutional right.
The Spanish cabinet recently submitted a draft amendment to the Spanish Constitution to Parliament, which aims to recognise and “safeguard” women’s sexual and reproductive rights, specifically including the right to abortion.
The proposal suggests the addition of a fourth paragraph to Article 43 of the Constitution on health protection, stating that “the state shall guarantee the right of women to voluntary termination of pregnancy under conditions of real and effective equality”.
The minister for equality, Ana Redondo, claimed that the initiative aims to ensure the effective exercise of this right throughout the country.
She explained that only around 20% of abortions are currently performed in public healthcare centres, with significant variations between Spanish regions.
According to Redondo, the reform also responds to an international context in which an “ultra-reactionary movement” challenges sexual and reproductive rights.
She also stressed that the constitutional amendment would reinforce the case law of the Constitutional Court and consolidate existing legislative advances.
The constitutional amendment requires a qualified majority to be approved. As it is an article included in the guiding principles of social and economic policy, it will need the support of at least three-fifths of both Congress and the Senate.
In certain circumstances, the text could also be put to a referendum if requested by one-tenth of parliamentarians.
FEREDE: “Undermines the protection of unborn human life”
The Federation of Evangelical Religious Entities of Spain (FEREDE) issued a statement expressing its concern over the government’s initiative.
According to FEREDE, making abortion a constitutional right “undermines the protection of unborn human life” and would go against the spirit of the Constitution.
FEREDE points out that, while there is no single dogmatic position on abortion within Protestantism, there is a broad consensus that life is a gift from God and must be protected from its very beginning.
The Federation also questions whether there is sufficient consensus within society and Parliament to introduce this constitutional change.
In its view, enshrining abortion as a constitutional right “will make the protection of prenatal life meaningless”.
The statement points out that case law of the Constitutional Court recognises prenatal life as a protected legal interest, and stresses the need to find a balance between women’s rights and the protection of unborn children.
Spanish Evangelical Alliance
The Spanish Evangelical Alliance (AEE) already expressed its views on the abortion debate in a document released in October 2025.
In that text, the organisation stated that, from an evangelical perspective, human life exists from the moment of conception, and therefore they consider abortion ethically permissible only in cases of clear danger to the mother’s life or serious malformations that make the foetus unviable.
The AEE also criticised the fact that the public debate focuses exclusively on the woman’s decision, ignoring the rights of the unborn child.
“Talking about voluntary termination of pregnancy is to ignore the fact that it is not a matter of flipping a switch, but of eliminating a life”, pointed out the statement,
They also stressed the need to provide more alternatives and social support for women with unwanted pregnancies.
The document concluded by describing the enshrining of abortion as a constitutional right as “a contradiction in terms” and warned of the social and demographic impact of a high annual abortion rate in Spain.
European debate
The debate over whether abortion should be enshrined in national constitutions has also been a major topic of discussion in Europe in recent years.
On this page, you’ll find interviews conducted with members of Endeavour Forum.
On April 9th, Kathy Clubb was interviewed by Andrew “Robbo” Robinson for Vision Media’s 20Twenty show. The topic was Observations from a visit to the United Nations.
On November 11th 2025, Kathy Clubb was interviewed by Neil Johnson for Vision Media’s 20Twenty show. The topic was Being open to life.
On 10th June 2025, Kathy Clubb was interviewed by Neil Johnson for Vision Media’s 20Twenty show. The topic was The changing landscape around abortion: pills not clinics
Judges consider that prayer vigils or expressions of opinion cannot automatically be regarded as an attack on women seeking to terminate their pregnancies.
In recent years, many European countries have introduced measures to prevent women seeking abortions from encountering people who might try to dissuade them from going ahead with the procedure.
A well-known example is the law in the United Kingdom, where pro-life and civil rights groups have repeatedly criticised the creation of “buffer zones” around abortion clinics. Christians have been reported to the police and fined simply for praying in silence near one of these clinics.
However, in two Central European countries, judges have now lifted such bans.
Ban lifted in Germany
According to Pro Medien Magazin and Livenet.ch, in 2024 the government of North Rhine-Westphalia banned a pro-life group from coming within 100 metres of abortion clinics. They cited the German Pregnancy Conflict Act, which in Section 13 “prohibits vigils if pregnant women are ‘harassed or intimidated’”.
A court in Aachen, however, has concluded that the state government misapplied the law, because the pro-life group, which has been promoting alternatives to abortion for 20 years, merely displayed images of Jesus or children, but at no point interacted with the women or approached them directly. The law, the court states, neither “generally prohibits the expression of opinion nor the confrontation of pregnant women with the opinions of those attending the gathering”.
Vienna court says public prayers allowed
A similar decision was recently taken by an administrative court in Vienna, the capital of Austria. The group Jugend Fürs Leben (Youth For Life) announced its intention to hold “silent, peaceful prayer for the protection, dignity and preservation of human life” near abortion clinics, an action which was reported to the police, banned by them, though ultimately authorised.
The judges have now made it clear that peaceful prayer constitutes an assembly protected by the constitution and that expressions of this kind must not be banned in future.
The Austrian parliament is debating new legislation on street harassment in 2026, which could pose new obstacles for pro-life groups. However, any public expression or prayer gathering that does not initiate an unwanted conversation with a woman seeking an abortion could hardly be banned in the context of freedom of expression and assembly enshrined in the constitutions of most European countries.
Attacks in Europe
Pro-life organisations have regularly come under attack from radical groups, particularly during the annual pro-life marches. In Portugal, in March 2026, an individual identified by the police threw a Molotov cocktail at the peaceful March For Life, though it did not cause any harm.
Countries across the European continent have been liberalising their abortion laws. The latest case is that of England, where ‘home’ abortions will no longer be prosecuted, even if they take place after the time limit permitted by law.
This article first appeared at Evangelical Focus and is republished under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 license.
A disturbing new research paper from Canadian academics argues that teenaged girls should be given forced abortions. They write that sedation may be required because “Such a patient might interpret her pregnancy as a baby and feel love for it and a desire to be a mother. She might believe that by having an abortion she is killing her baby.”
Parents and carers have a “moral duty” to ensure under-18s abort their babies, researchers have argued.
Professor Kimberley Brownlee and PhD student Alyssa Izatt, both at The University of British Columbia, claimed that “in relation to children, we should be ‘pro-abortion’” and promoted forced abortions for those who express a wish to carry their babies to full-term.
In a paper published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Ethics, the academics branded attempts to discourage under-18s from having an abortion as “antigirlism”.
‘Sedation or restraint’
Brownlee and Izatt said that adults should view a child’s “impregnation as a malady and take steps to terminate it”. Similarly, doctors should revise their approach “so that adequate medical care includes abortion care”.
They wrote: “A critic might balk at our contention that doctors should provide abortion care to a girl who has contrary preferences or an aversion to the procedure.
“Such a patient might interpret her pregnancy as a baby and feel love for it and a desire to be a mother. She might believe that by having an abortion she is killing her baby.”
In such instances, they proposed, carrying out an abortion might justifiably “require sedation or physical restraint”.
Totalitarianism
Writing in the National Review, author and philosopher Wesley J. Smith warned that the “push for unlimited abortion access is now advancing beyond the issue of ‘choice’” and described Brownless and Izatt’s rationale as “totalitarian”.
He said: “The authors claim that abortion is always in the best interest of girls because of the many supposed harms of giving birth, mothering, or allowing the baby to be adopted. Failing to immediately abort costs girls their ‘carefreeness,’ don’t you know.”
Smith added that “the fact that an article as authoritarian in its argumentation as this one appeared in one of the country’s most prestigious philosophy journals — and passed peer review, no less — is deeply troubling”.
Republished from The Christian Institute. The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom and elsewhere” and “the advancement of education”. It is a nondenominational Christian charity with more than 60,000 supporters throughout the UK, including more than 5,000 churches. The Christian Institute is committed to upholding the truths of the Bible which we believe is inerrant and the supreme authority for all of life, and is committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception.
This post is from a series by Jim Twelve, highlighting key aspects from each chapter of his new book, While We Were Sleeping: A Wake-up Call For All Christians (2025). This theme of this chapter is abortion and, citing the pro-life organisation, Love Australia, Jim urges all Australians to do their part to make abortion unthinkable.
Jodie Pickard is the Founding Director of Love Australia, a leading prolife organisation that first began as Love Adelaide. Love Australia’s latest endeavour is the introduction of the House of Refuge ministry to Australia, in partnership with Love Life America. This mission is to equip churches across Australia to be safe havens—where those experiencing an unplanned or crisis pregnancy have no need to seek an abortion clinic and where those who have been hurt by abortion can find healing.
Now that’s a novel approach. Like many of my readers, no doubt, I have felt increasingly frustrated, powerless and angry that the agenda to kill unwanted life has gained acceptance in our so-called civilised society.
Here’s a short extract from Jodie’s story:
Love Life invited me to go out with one of their teams to the abortion clinic in Charlotte, North Carolina. I was there to pray and watch what was going on. These sidewalk counsellors were offering hope and help—calling out, ‘Young mum, anything you need right now, we are here to help you. Please know you don’t have to walk into that clinic.’
Very occasionally, somebody would turn away, choosing life for their baby. I saw three women change their minds that day! Two of them drove away in their cars, letting the sidewalk counsellors know of their decision, and one entered the counselling RV bus.
Onboard was an ultrasound machine and a private lounge area to counsel, run by a pregnancy help centre. The young woman I saw go on the bus was offered a free ultrasound, and she chose life! What an impact this had on my involvement!
Back home in Australia, I started going to our abortion clinic and offering help. Unfortunately, it was short-lived. Less than a year later (in 2020), the South Australian Parliament legislated a 150-metre exclusion zone, which outlawed any communication related to abortion around a facility that performs them. It also prohibited praying. What has become of our nation when praying is made illegal? (Love Life)
Jodie’s Houses of Refuge ministry presents the church with a tool they can employ with no government restriction, while at the same time giving church leadership a positive platform from which they can address the elephant of abortion in society.
What can we do?
Every year in Australia, 88,000 babies are lost to abortion. As Proverbs 31:8-9 urges us, we must speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. Unborn babies are the most vulnerable in our society.
Love Life began in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 2016, and has now spread across the whole of the USA. They celebrate this testimony on their website:
Because of supporters like you, in 2023, Love Life was able to be present at 44 abortion centers across the nation with over 1000 partnering Churches and 306 House of Refuge Churches poised and equipped to help the moms that chose life. A watershed moment occurred in 2023 when we saw the 5,000th baby saved from abortion.
Let that number sink in. 5,000 babies who were scheduled to die, with the permission of their own parents, are alive today. God used you to help bring about this miracle. Because of you responding to God’s call to be a voice for the voiceless, Love Life was able to have trained people interceding at the darkest places in our cities.
United Kingdom votes to effectively legalise abortion to birth
We are deeply concerned that on the evening of March 18 2026, the House of Lords voted to remove women from the criminal law related to abortion when acting in relation to their own pregnancy. — Dawn McAvoy, Both Lives UK
The British Medical Journal (24 March 2026) reported on what they believe was driving parliament to decriminalise abortion to birth:
Some 277, 970 abortions were carried out in 2023 (the most recent year for which figures are available), an 11% increase from 251 377 in 2022. Controlling for population growth, this represents an abortion rate of 23.0 in every 1000 women aged 15-44 in 2023—up from 21.1 in 1000 the year before.Rates of abortion have notably risen in women over 35 in the past decade, at 12.3 in 1000 women in 2023, up from 7.1 in 1000 in 2013. However, rates remain highest among 20-24 year olds, at 39.4 in 1000 women in 2023. — BMJ 2026;392:s562
As of 25 March 2026, Dame Sarah Mullally became the new Archbishop of Canterbury and the head of the Church of England. She is proudly pro-choice and not pro-life. Sarah, along with all the other bishops in the House of Lords, could have blocked this amendment to decriminalise abortion to birth, but they didn’t. It’s devastating when church leaders stay silent and effectively become complicit in this barbaric method of birth control (cf. Chris Wickland, below).
What the Bible says
Back in my school days, I remember debates about abortion. ‘What about the victims of rape?’ my opponents would say. ‘Whatever happened to adoption?’, I would reply.
For You formed my inward parts; you covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvellous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret… — Psalm 139:13-15a
God has created every one of us and, for Him, there is no suggestion that life begins at birth; it is much earlier, at the point of fertilisation of the egg by the sperm.
In Bible times, the Lord was clearly grieved by His children’s idolatry in their adoption of the ways and customs of the surrounding nations (Canaanites, Moabites in particular).
The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, declares the Lord. They have set up their detestable idols in the house that bears my Name and have defiled it. They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind. — Jeremiah 7:30-31
Parents brought their sons and daughters to be burnt in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, immediately south of the walls of Jerusalem, seeking to gain a blessing from their false gods. Our one true God declared: it had never entered His mind!
In a video, Aline and Rodrigo take us on a tour of the Valley of Ben Hinnom (transliterated as Geenna or Gehenna in Greek). They unpack the scriptures while we admire the peaceful parkland where children play.
It is telling that this valley has not been built on, in contrast with the Cedrom Valley, just around the corner, between the old city and the Mount of Olives, which is filled with gravestones and a number of churches.
It is said that the Valley of Ben Hinnom has been cursed for all time on account of these child sacrifices. In many ways, I see this valley as a monument to the atrocity dating back thousands of years.
Abortion is our society’s sacrifice for “the good life“. We dress it up with justification, but in the end, it’s murder.
What about the doctors and nurses who violate their hierocratic oath to keep their jobs? Most of us will never see an abortion, but they handle them on a regular basis.
I will never harm my suffering friend, because life is sacred, from the tender fruit that he once was in his mother’s womb to that first sight he gave out between her legs when he opened his eyes to the world. — Extract from Hippocratic Oath (translated by Amelia Arenas)
Let’s ask God to show us how we can take a stand against abortion.
If My people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. — 2 Chronicles 7:14
By Jim Twelves. Jim also has a YouTube channel, where he posts a reflection on each chapter of his new book.
This article first appeared at The Daily Declaration and is reproduced here by permission. The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. It is dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Its vision is to see the revitalisation of our Christian values for the common good.
A congressional letter is asking the U.S. to veto the nomination of Chilean Michelle Bachelet to be the next United Nations Secretary-General because of her longstanding and aggressive sexual leftism.
By Stefano Gennarini, J. D., C-Fam
The letter circulating among congressional offices says that Bachelet, the former President of Chile and the undisputed frontrunner in the race for the next UN Secretary-General, is unfit for the top UN job. It asks the Trump administration to exercise the veto power of the United States as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to stop her nomination.
What’s more, the new pro-life government of her country, Chile, also withdrew its support for her candidacy last week, calling her candidacy “non-viable.”
Bachelet is a longtime feminist who has been described as a Latin American version of Hillary Clinton. She aggressively promoted abortion, gender ideology, and climate alarmism for decades.
Congressman Chuck Edwards (R-NC) read the contents of the letter to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz during a congressional field hearing on UN reform held at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.
“In her previous roles with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), as Executive Director of UN Women, and as President of Chile, Dr. Bachelet has repeatedly prioritized an extreme abortion agenda at the expense of state sovereignty,” he said.
Bachelet’s candidacy has a very good chance of succeeding. The EU bureaucracy is intent on anointing a woman as the next UN Secretary-General, someone they expect to ramp up gender and abortion advocacy. Several current candidates match this description, but Bachelet is widely seen as having been carefully groomed to take over the UN top job by European governments that control the UN bureaucracy and have ensured her advancement through the years.
She was President of Chile for two terms between 2004-2008 and 2014-2018. As Executive Director of UN Women from 2010 to 2013 and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights from 2018 to 2023, she ensured that gender ideology and abortion advocacy were mainstreamed across the entire UN system by UN gender experts and human rights lawyers.
After the landmark pro-life Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health U.S. Supreme Court case, Bachelet issued an official statement criticizing the decision. She falsely claimed the case was wrongly decided because abortion is “firmly rooted” in human rights law as a “core” of women’s rights. She said the ruling was a “setback” and a “huge blow” for women’s human rights.
The next United Nations Secretary-General is expected to have a large role in shaping the UN system for an entire generation. The current UN development framework, known as the Sustainable Development Goals or Agenda 2030, expires in 2030.
The likelihood of a prolonged and contested election is now more than likely. The European Union and the United States do not see eye to eye on key areas of UN policy, including abortion, gender, climate, borders, and censorship. Finding a candidate who gives assurances that will satisfy all the members of the UN Security Council is unlikely.
The selection of the future Secretary-General is expected to be completed by the UN Security Council as early as this Spring and formalised by the General Assembly sometime in the Fall. Campaigning by countries is well underway. April 1st is the suggested deadline for nominations ahead of public hearings with the candidates that will take place on April 20th.
The House of Lords rejects amendments calling for safety measures for women, such as an in-person consultation before receiving medication by post to induce abortions outside a clinic.
The House of Lords has not made any significant changes to the law passed in June by the United Kingdom lower house (House of Commons), which fully decriminalised abortion, including when performed shortly before the baby’s due date.
Pro-life groups had hoped that two amendments tabled by conservative politicians and representatives of the Church of England (which has representation in the House of Lords) would be accepted. But this was not the case.
The House of Lords voted on Wednesday 18 March, with 185 against and 148 in favour, to reject an amendment to the bill that would have removed clause 206 – the part of the text that allows abortions beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks to no longer be considered a crime.
In effect, therefore, any abortion carried out outside a medical practice will go unpunished.
A second amendment was also rejected. It called for women to have at least one in-person consultation at a medical centre before carrying out an abortion elsewhere. It was defeated by 191 votes against to 119 in favour.
This means that, barring any surprises, the law decriminalising all forms of abortion up to birth will go ahead. The legal limit for having an abortion in healthcare centres will remain at 24 weeks, but there will be no consequences for those who have an abortion at home beyond that timeframe.
Pro-life groups such as Right to Life regard the law now set to be passed as the most significant change in these 60 years. “If this bill becomes law, it will likely lead to a significant increase in the number of women performing late-term abortions at home, endangering the lives of many more women,” said this group, which organises pro-life marches every year.
They believe the new law will also encourage abortions based on the baby’s gender, a practice which, according to a recent survey by Savanta ComRes, is rejected by 89% of the British population.
The Evangelical Alliance UK reacted to the vote with “deep concern” over the “bad news” coming from Westminster. If the law does come into force, the evangelical body added, it is necessary to “ensure that women facing crisis pregnancies receive compassionate, life-affirming support, and that both mother and child are cared for with dignity before and after birth”.
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children regrets that this liberalisation of the abortion law has been “pushed through without any pre-legislative scrutiny, public consultation or a detailed impact assessment”.
They believe the new law “will lead to late-term abortions being carried out on babies who, if born in hospital, would stand a good chance of surviving”.
More abortion in Europe
Attempts to further liberalise abortion laws are also taking place in other European countries.
A man who forced his girlfriend to take abortion pills that killed her nine-week-old unborn baby has been jailed at Letterkenny Circuit Court.
Last week, Judge John Alymer sentenced 28-year-old Adeleke Adelani to eleven years, with the final two years suspended, for the intentional destruction of an unborn life and five years with the last year suspended for causing harm to the child’s mother.
In 2020, Adelani locked the woman in a room and forced her to take five misoprostol 200mg tablets. Misoprostol is normally prescribed by abortion clinics to cause the termination of the unborn child. The court heard a recording in which he threatened: “It’s either you eat this or I beat that kid out of you tonight.”
Forgiveness
In a victim impact statement, the woman — who has since married another man — told the court: “When he wrongfully imprisoned me and caused the termination of my nine-week pregnancy, he took far more than my freedom.
“He took my child. He took my sense of safety. He took a future that I had already begun to plan and love.
“My baby was real to me. I had hopes, dreams, and a bond with the life that was growing inside me, and all of it was violently stolen from me in a moment of cruelty that I will never forget.”
She said she had forgiven the defendant, testified to the importance of her faith, and paid tribute to her husband, “who treats me with the love, dignity and kindness I always deserved, but in Christ, who carried me when I could not carry myself”.
However, she explained, “I will always grieve my child. I will always remember what was taken from me. Healing does not erase the loss, it only means I learned how to live with it.”
Coercion
In sentencing Adelani, Judge Alymer said that he had been “fully aware” of the woman’s “expressed desire to keep her baby and completely aware of the potential appalling emotional consequences of terminating the pregnancy without her consent”.
He described the forced abortion as “an extreme act of physical and emotional violence”, and noted: “While she is very forgiving of you in a very Christian way, it is clear the appalling emotional trauma she suffered as a result of your actions.”
Outside the court, Garda Detective Inspector Paul McGee acknowledged the victim’s “unwavering strength and resolve” throughout the investigation and trial, and said that her decision “to share her experience brings attention to the hidden reality of abuse that takes place behind closed doors”.
The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom and elsewhere” and “the advancement of education”. It is a nondenominational Christian charity with more than 60,000 supporters throughout the UK, including more than 5,000 churches. The Christian Institute is committed to upholding the truths of the Bible which we believe is inerrant and the supreme authority for all of life, and is committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
