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.
The video below is a talk by pro-life campaigner, Anouska Firth, and was given at the February 2026 launch of 40 Days for Life in Sydney, Australia. The talk describes her journey from addiction and abortion to healing in Christ.
This powerful video features the harrowing and compelling testimony of Anouska, a woman who journeyed from a devout upbringing to the depths of addiction and back to radical hope.
Anouska was raised in a faithful Catholic home, even participating in prayer vigils at abortion clinics with her family. Despite these deep roots, she found herself disconnected from her faith, leading to a decision at age 25 to undergo her first abortion. This event catalyzed a downward spiral into a world of drug addiction and homelessness, eventually leading to a second abortion funded by her drug dealer.
In this intense and emotional talk, Anouska breaks the silence surrounding the unspoken pain and psychological trauma of abortion. She candidly describes the “wicked web” of addiction used to numb her guilt and the “assisted assassination” of her children. Her story is a raw look at human depravity, but more importantly, it is a witness to the transformative power of the Gospel and the “radical hope” found in Christ. Now six years clean from heroin, she shares her journey to help others find the same freedom from shame and sin.
Redacted reports show how CIA analysts recommended “discrete” promotion of LGBT rights in the Middle East, increased funding for “sexual and reproductive health services” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
By Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe has ordered the intelligence agency to retract and revise nineteen “intelligence products” because they were determined to be highly politicized and contained substandard work. Three of the reports were published by Ratcliffe in a redacted format.
The published reports show how CIA analysts recommended “discrete” promotion of LGBT rights in the Middle East, increased funding for “sexual and reproductive health services” during the COVID-19 pandemic relying primarily on reports from abortion industry groups that stood to receive those funds, and meddling in German politics through “tailored gender-conscious approaches” to prevent the recruitment of women with traditional views of motherhood by “white extremists.”
The three products released until now may be the tip of the iceberg. They are likely the least controversial of the nineteen, the ones deemed least dangerous to national security. This raises the question of how bad the other sixteen CIA intelligence products are that have not been published.
The reports were produced while Obama, Trump, and Biden were in the White House. A CIA press release that accompanied the reports said they show how the intelligence agency failed to remain “independent from a particular audience, agenda, or policy viewpoint.”
“The intelligence products we released to the American people today — produced before my tenure as DCIA — fall short of the high standards of impartiality that CIA must uphold and do not reflect the expertise for which our analysts are renowned,” said Director Ratcliffe. “There is absolutely no room for bias in our work, and when we identify instances where analytic rigor has been compromised, we have a responsibility to correct the record.”
The reports were reviewed by the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB) alongside hundreds of other reports containing intelligence assessments and analyses produced in recent decades.
Notably, a CIA “Wire” report titled “Middle East-North Africa: LGBT Activists Under Pressure” produced in 2015 shows the inherent dangers of attempts at cultural engineering abroad, something C-Fam, publisher of the Friday Fax, has reported for many years.
This report should be understood in the context of the Obama White House designating LGBT issues a U.S. Foreign Policy Priority beginning in 2011 and expanding that commitment with several subsequent executive actions by Obama and Biden. The Trump administration revoked all those actions.
The report warns that the governments of majority-Muslim countries in the region would “almost certainly” portray U.S. efforts to advance LGBT rights as “foreign meddling” and that this in turn would undermine the U.S. goal of protecting LGBT rights abroad. It cites the reactions of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, calling this “cultural imperialism” in the context of United Nations debates, as an example of the resistance to be expected.
The report specifically warns of backlash against the very individuals intended for protection.
“Discreet international support could help avoid drawing undue attention and possibly counterproductive backlash against activists,” the report reads.
It warns that “Egyptian civil society organizations –already vulnerable to government scrutiny—have warned US officials that overt engagement puts them at risk” and that “a Lebanese activist in May 2014 stated that public outreach by the US would be counterproductive.”
Nevertheless, it calls for “community engagement with local police forces and the Ministry of Interior to limit the targeting of LGBT individuals” and “supporting gender studies in academic institutions in the Middle East and North Africa.”
By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. . C-FAM: The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.
Endeavour Forum’s US-based chief administrative officer, Denise Mountenay, has written this response to a proposal by the EU to fund the travel expenses of women wishing to procure an abortion in a foreign country. The “My Voice My Choice” campaign aims to accommodate women whose own countries limit access to abortion.
Pro-life legal expert, Nicolas Bauer, calls the initiative, “a new step in the pro-abortion lobby’s strategy to promote abortion through supranational institutions”, giving the following as examples of how the new law would work: “… a French woman who is 22 weeks pregnant, and therefore outside the legal time limit for an abortion, could travel to the Netherlands and have an abortion there with EU funding. A Polish woman whose child has Down syndrome and who wishes to have an abortion for this reason could travel to France to do so, with EU funding.”
Concerns Regarding the “My Voice My Choice” Initiative and Its Implications for EU Competence & Women’s Health & Human Rights
by Denise Mountenay
Dear President of the European Commission & ALL Commissioners:
I am writing to respectfully express my deep concern regarding the upcoming decision of the European Commission concerning the “My Voice My Choice” initiative. As proposed, this initiative would enable EU‑funded travel for women seeking abortions in Member States with more permissive laws, effectively allowing individuals to bypass the legal safeguards, gestational limits, and ethical frameworks established by their own countries.
This raises significant concerns regarding EU competence, Member State sovereignty, and the ethical diversity protected within the Union. Abortion legislation has always been the responsibility of Member States, reflecting their constitutional, cultural, and moral values. The EU has no competence in this area, yet it does have competence to support motherhood, families, and social protection—areas that deserve strengthening rather than displacement.
I also write from personal experience. As a former abortion patient, I—like many young pregnant women—was misinformed, deceived, and pressured into undergoing abortions. My experience is not isolated. A recent study by David Reardon et al. documents the widespread reality of women being pressured into abortions they do not truly want. This is a serious women’s‑rights issue that deserves recognition.
There is also a substantial body of scientific literature raising concerns about the health consequences of induced abortion. More than 60 published studies in peer‑reviewed medical journals have identified a statistical association between induced abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer. Numerous studies document cervical and uterine trauma, contributing to preterm birth in subsequent wanted children. Additionally, dozens of studies report significant mental‑health impacts, including depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and trauma‑related symptoms. A Finnish government study found that women who undergo abortions are six times more likely to attempt or commit suicide compared to women who give birth.
Beyond the medical concerns, induced abortion raises profound human‑rights questions. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that “Everyone has the inherent right to life.” Modern embryology is clear that human life begins at conception, when a genetically complete human organism comes into existence. By 3–4 weeks, the embryonic heart is beating. By 8–9 weeks, the developing child has arms, legs, fingers, toes, and rapidly forming organs. These are biological facts, not matters of ideology.
To permit the deliberate ending of these young lives simply because they are small, dependent, or temporarily residing in their mother’s womb is deeply troubling. Their size or location does not diminish their humanity. Nor should the economic interests of those who profit from abortion override the rights of the most vulnerable. These children have no voice; many of us who have lived through abortion and lost our children now speak on their behalf.
Rather than facilitating the destruction of unborn children across borders, the European Union should prioritize support for pregnant women, including financial, medical, and social assistance, and ensure that fathers are held responsible for their children. Strengthening support systems would uphold both women’s dignity and the rights of their children, without undermining Member State sovereignty or ethical diversity.
I respectfully urge the Commission to:
Recognize that abortion remains outside EU competence
Uphold the principle of subsidiarity
Protect the sovereign right of each Member State to determine its own laws
Prioritize policies that support women, motherhood, and families
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that the Commission will carefully consider the legal, ethical, and social implications before taking any action. We look forward to your reply.
Respectfully, Denise Mountenay
NGO-Endeavour Forum Inc. In Consultative Status with ECOSOC
Chief Administrative Officer
Denise Mountenay is the chief administrative officer of the Endeavour Forum Inc. and is based in Canada. Since 2009, Denise has been leading teams into the United Nations headquarters in New York City to participate at the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). She has also represented Endeavour Forum at the UN headquarters in Geneva as a voice for the voiceless. Denise is founder of Together for Life and pursues pro-life film-making with Advancing Truth Alliance
Digital platforms should be held accountable for allowing misinformation on abortion. These agencies working in tandem say pro-life speech is tantamount to “misinformation” and should be stopped.
By Rebecca Oas, Ph.D. at C-Fam
The UN’s human reproduction program (HRP), housed in the World Health Organization (WHO), recently published the first of a series of papers examining the impact of abortion “misinformation” as it relates to human rights. Their analysis requires their own idiosyncratic understanding of both misinformation and human rights.
For instance, they accept without caveat that abortion access is a right as part of “sexual and reproductive health and rights”, a term never defined or adopted in any international negotiated outcome.
The paper also cites independent experts and committees as sources of human rights standards. Such experts and committees offer recommendations and opinions on human rights treaties, though they have no authority to create new human rights apart from the plain language of the various human rights treaties.
At the same time, the article makes no mention of the consensus position of the International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 1994) that the legal status of abortion is solely for individual governments to determine.
The authors define misinformation as “false, inaccurate, or misleading information shared without intent to deceive,” while disinformation is spread with knowledge and intent to deceive, and “a particularly harmful form of misinformation, with the potential to deliberately erode human rights protections and restrict access to evidence-based care.”
As an example, the authors cite an article claiming that “inaccurate beliefs about fetal pain were linked with antiabortion views, shaping attitudes toward access and policy.” However, the article they cite bases its view of when unborn children can first feel pain on a “current medical consensus” that simply does not exist, while labeling survey participants who support abortion restrictions based on fetal pain as “anti-choice,” a clearly partisan—and derogatory—label.
The article also expressly calls out the U.S.-based Project 2025 project for containing “strategies to embed misinformation into federal governance by altering agency mandates and rewording policies to stigmatize and delegitimize [sexual and reproductive health.]” Here, the citation is to an article in the feminist and pro-abortion Ms. Magazine.
Another example of misinformation offered by the HRP article is the fact that a Canadian Catholic hospital blocked access to the websites of abortion clinics. The article is broadly critical of traditional cultural and religious views; it expresses alarm that a “a rising anti-rights movement in Ethiopia, aligned with the US Christian Right, is working to dismantle the right to safe and legal abortion.” It takes for granted that the nonbinding opinions of UN human rights experts take precedence over religious beliefs. “Human rights standards related to equality and nondiscrimination are routinely impacted” by misinformation, they write, “particularly when gender stereotypes, religious ideologies, or cultural beliefs are used to delegitimize SRHR.” In other words, anything that casts abortion in a negative light is misinformation.
The article does offer some examples of what would commonly be understood as misinformation and disinformation, such as scammers purveying “miracle drugs” and clearly unqualified people offering spurious medical advice on TikTok. However, the HRP authors’ credibility is undermined by their own ideological biases and overreliance on citing others who share them. Ultimately, whatever policy and legal solutions they recommend will have the effect of stifling pro-life voices and censoring conservative viewpoints if they are implemented.
By Rebecca Oas. C-FAM: The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
