Abortion - - Page 2

Freedom from addiction and abortion by Anouska Firth

Published on March 3, 2026March 3, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

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.

by Family Life International

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.

CIA promoted LGBT & abortion to Muslims

Published on February 27, 2026February 27, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

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.

Response to EU initiative, “My Voice My Choice”

Published on February 17, 2026February 21, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

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.

For reference, I encourage you to review the research compiled at:
www.afterabortion.org
www.bcpinstitute.org

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

UN agencies call to censor pro-life speech

Published on February 12, 2026February 12, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

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.

Pro-life group urges Canva boycott over abortion stance

Published on February 9, 2026February 11, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

The graphic design platform is under fire for subsidising its US employees’ out-of-state abortions and Right to Life NSW is urging a boycott.

by Kathy Clubb

Sydney-based non-profit, Right to Life, is urging members of the pro-life community to stop using the graphic design platform, Canva. The popular Australian software company has more than 220 million active monthly users and caters to over 100 languages in 190 countries. Canva is a favourite among small businesses and NGOs – including many pro-life groups – but until recently, Canva’s abortion policy had gone unnoticed.

After the fall of Roe vs Wade, many big corporations began offering to subsidise their employees’ out-of-state abortions if their own state became pro-life. News articles from that time list companies who were offering financial assistance – a formal co-operation with the evil of abortion – including big corporations like Disney, Bank of America and Facebook’s parent company, Meta.

Late last year, members of Right to Life were horrified to see that their favourite graphic design tool, Canva, was among those listed in an older article. Right to Life immediately sought clarity over Canva’s policy, writing letters and emailing the company, but received no response. Right to Life members also noticed that while Canva boasts a plethora of social media templates which promote abortion, it has no pro-life templates in its repository.

An example of Canva’s public statements comes from this 2022 article in which a spokesman is quoted as saying:

“We are deeply concerned by the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade – concerned for the millions of people who have lost access to safe healthcare, concerned for our team in the United States who are directly impacted by changes to the law, and concerned for society as a result of the precedent this decision sets.”

A post from the same year on Canva’s Linkedin profile reveals that the company pledged to cover the costs of travel and accommodation for employees and one support person who sought an abortion out-of-state.

The post said that Canva would “continue to do everything we can to best support our team in accessing their right to health care in the United States and around the world.”

Canva’s stance on abortion appears to be in conflict with its safeguarding policy, which states that it is “committed to protecting the rights, safety and wellbeing of anyone who interacts with, or is affected by, our work” including children. It’s difficult to square this policy with Canva’s desire to help its American employees end the lives of their own babies.

After their queries went unanswered, Right to Life members decided to stage a protest outside of Canva’s Sydney headquarters and also created an online petition to garner support for the boycott. The group has begun reaching out to schools, many of which use “Canva for Education”, one of the company’s free products which is used by schools and other educational institutions. They also plan to make business owners aware of Canva’s abortion policy.

Right to Life also raised awareness of Canva’s stance via their social media channels, which attracted the attention of the mainstream news outlet, Channel Ten News+ . Channel Ten’s ongoing investigation of big tech companies led them to contact Right to Life for an interview, and this coverage has brought the issue to the attention of thousands all over Australia. Notably, Canva has also so far declined to respond to Channel 10 after the news team contacted its staff for a statement.

Read the rest at LifeSite News.

Kathy Clubb is an Australian mother and grandmother and home-educated her children for the best part of 30 years. She has undertaken official pro-life work for 10 years, first in Tasmania, and then in Victoria. In 2016, Kathy was part of an unsuccessful attempt to defeat Victoria’s abortion exclusion-zones, which led to a constitutional challenge in the High Court of Australia in late 2018. Her articles have also appeared at Family Life International, LifeSiteNews, Online Opinion, Caldron Pool and Fidelity magazine.

Left to die: surely this is enough to break MPs’ hard hearts?

Published on February 6, 2026February 7, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

A Queensland case of a baby left to die re-ignites abortion debate, urging Christians and conservatives to confront late-term terminations, hold politicians accountable, and attend a united pro-life rally at Parliament.

by Dave Pellowe.

A medical professional in the Queensland “Health” system has taken a heartbreaking photo that should deeply grieve and anger a normal person. It’s not okay to look away from the betrayal of justice happening in our name and funded by public money in every state of this Commonwealth.

Baby Samuel was at just 16 weeks gestation when his mother, God forgive her, recently decided to have an abortion. He was born alive, and left to die alone, sucking his thumb.

In Queensland, the deliberate termination of healthy babies in utero happens about 33 times every day for any reason — there are no good reasons. This is happening under the Liberal/National Party government: allegedly representative of Christians and conservatives, allegedly full of pro-life and Christian MPs.

If our “conservative” MPs can’t convince the voting public of the humanity of preborn people and the injustice of killing them with taxpayer funding, what use are they at all? That’s gross incompetence and cowardice.

I’m sometimes told we lose public moral battles like marriage, euthanasia and abortion because we’re not sophisticated or subtle enough with language, and Christians are too easily dismissed as “fringe radicals”.

Let me be clear — this is child sacrifice: medicalised, normalised, subsidised and industrialised, but nevertheless as barbaric and brutal as ancient pagans putting their screaming babies in the searing hot hands of bronze idols with prayers for prosperity.

Every new day that our politicians turn their face away from the preventable, unjust suffering of innocent living humans like baby Samuel is another day they collaborate with abortionists, their hands also drenched in blood.

Yet every new day is another God-given chance to finally offer their careers “perhaps for such a time as this”, as a pleasing and acceptable sacrifice in His service, in the righteous cause of justice and mercy for the frailest, most vulnerable people.

While we can certainly judge their failures, we, Christian and conservative voters, must simultaneously exhort their repentance and reformation, and offer as much support for renewed courage as we do electoral punishment for turning their faces away from the greatest moral tragedy of this age.

There is more than politics available to Christians as a solution, but in a liberal democracy like Australia, politically intervening in injustice is not optional — it’s morally compulsory.

Here’s what you can do to help

Will you interrupt your routines and choose some inconvenience next Monday, 9 February, to join me in a Public Gathering for Queensland Babies night outside the Queensland Parliament?

Queensland has a marvellous unity between the six biggest pro-life Christian ministries — ACL, CAS, Cherish Life, FamilyVoice, Answers In Genesis and the Australian Family Association. Together with Dr Joanna Howe and Pro-life Health Professionals Australia, we are convening a mega rally at Speakers’ Corner from 5:30-6:30pm Monday — while politicians are attending Parliament.

CLICK HERE now to let us know you’ll be there to bear witness to the Qld government that baby Samuel’s life matters to God, as does every baby killed every day by the government and taxpayers in Queensland, and they matter to us. We the Church will not turn our faces away. We will not be silent.

Will you please do whatever it takes to be there? This is a watershed moment in the abortion debate in Queensland. I have been to many such rallies, and can assure you it’s safe, positive and suitable for children of all ages.

Please be in prayer this week for the Qld Life Coalition, Joanna Howe and our pro-life MPs. Do not underestimate the spiritual battle raging over us all as heavenly light battles demonic darkness.

Finally, please share my short videos on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and X this week to build attention and awareness of this moral emergency and the epidemic of injustice being suffered like that of baby Samuel’s.

by Dave Pellowe. Dave Pellowe is a Christian writer and commentator, founder of The Good Sauce, convener of the annual Australian Church And State Summit and host of Good Sauce’s weekly The Church And State Show, also syndicated on ADH TV. Since 2016, Dave has undertaken the mission of arming Christians to influence culture through events from Perth to Auckland, videos, podcasts and articles published in multiple journals across Australia and New Zealand.

The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. We are dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Our vision is to see the revitalisation of our Judeo-Christian values for the common good. We are non-profit, independent, crowdfunded, and we provide Christian news for a growing audience across Australia, Asia, and the South Pacific.

Cancer and pregnancy: how a mother chose life for her baby

Published on February 3, 2026February 5, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

21 years ago, a Melbourne mother Tricia Colman received a devastating cancer diagnosis during her seventh pregnancy. She was offered an abortion but chose life for her child.

by Kathy Clubb

It was 2005, and Tricia arrived for her routine 20-week ultrasound. As it was her seventh child,
Tricia wanted to know the gender and was happy to be told she was expecting a girl. She barely
noticed when the attendant left the room to find the department head.

He came quickly and asked Tricia to get back onto the bed. The two medicos then discussed
various tests and their results, and finally the senior man gave Tricia the news: a lump had been
found on her kidney.

At first, Tricia saw no cause for alarm. She thought this was a minor development, perhaps just a
cyst, and went home unperturbed.

That all changed after a call from her GP, who laid Tricia’s options on the line. She said that the
discovery was a serious one — renal cell carcinoma — and that it may come down to saving the
life of Tricia or her baby. She reminded Tricia that she had a husband and six other children to care
for, yet Tricia was resolute.

“No harm will be done to my baby,” she told her doctor.

Tricia was given her records and referred to one of Monash Health’s hospitals in Melbourne. There,
a second ultrasound showed that the lump on her kidney was now a 20 cm mass.

Later that day, when Tricia’s GP called with the results, Tricia jokingly asked her, “Should I get on
my knees?”

Her doctor answered sombrely, “Your whole church needs to get on its knees.”

More specialist visits followed: one to a urologist who scheduled a magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) scan. Again, the suggestion of abortion was mentioned and again, Tricia refused. The
specialist told her the best path would be to deliver her baby early, and that the Obstetrics
Department would want her to wait until 32 weeks.

At this point, the fast-growing tumour weighed more than Tricia’s baby. Most of the tests which
would have normally been run at this time, as well as treatment for the cancer, were out of the
question due to Tricia’s pregnancy. There was little to be done except praying, waiting — and for
Tricia, planning for the arrival of her new baby.

On June 6, baby Imogen was born by caesarean section at 31 weeks, weighing 1.5 kg, while the
tumour weighed a massive 1.7 kg! The doctors thought the tumour would have spread by that time
and told Tricia she would need another surgery two weeks later to remove her kidney as well as
her spleen.

Due to the surgery, medications, testing and recovery period, Tricia was never going to be able to
breastfeed. Thankfully, a friend who had also just given birth donated milk to Imogen for three
months.

With a lot of family support, Tricia was, over time, able to recover from her surgeries while managing
her premature baby and was eventually given the all-clear from her cancer.

Tricia marvels at the fact that she experienced no symptoms from the kidney carcinoma, which is
typical for that condition. She says, “I’m so grateful for Imogen because it was only due to the
pregnancy that the tumour was detected. Had it not been for my baby, it wouldn’t have been
discovered in time and I would not have survived.”

Tricia’s story underscores the fact that abortion is never medically necessary. With good care,
some courage and a commitment to preserving the unborn child, it’s possible to achieve the outcome everyone wants — a healthy mother and a healthy baby.

About the author

Unholy alliances: how divorcing sex from procreation married two movements

Published on January 30, 2026January 30, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

The abortion and transgender movements have been linked for a very long time; parents and lawmakers must first understand where these ideas came from in order to combat them.

by Sheena Rodriguez

(Live Action News) In 2023, Planned Parenthood Action claimed that abortion and ‘transgender care’ go ‘hand-in-hand.’ But few know the history behind transgender ideology and why the nation’s number one abortion provider became so invested in trying to reach young people with pro-transgender sex-ed materials and services.

Activist groups such as Advocates for Youth (AFY), Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, and other organizations aligned with the Future of Sex Ed coalition, continue to shape society by employing digital platforms, educational programs, and a variety of resources to promote abortion, birth control, and transgender ideology. These radical groups seek to counteract parental rights and re-engineer the attitudes of future generations.

Many Planned Parenthood donors are beginning to question why the organization’s mission appears to have shifted — but has it, really? As this series will show, pro-abortion and transgender ideologies have been linked for a very long time.

Parents and lawmakers must first understand where these ideas came from in order to combat them.

(Read Parts Two and Three of this series at the links.)

Key Takeaways:

A look at the history of collaboration between abortion advocates and advocates of transgender ideology reveals shared, disturbing philosophies.
These advocates all believed in the idea that minors can give “consent” to any number of things related to sex — sexual activity, abortion, and ‘gender transition.’
Over the past two centuries, efforts were made to distinguish between homosexuality and those who committed child sexual abuse (leading to the classification of ‘pedophiles’). Then, those who held to the idea that children are ‘sexual from birth’ and can ‘consent’ led efforts to sympathetically portray pedophilia as ‘innate’ and acceptable with ‘consent’.
Efforts were also made to distinguish ‘sexual expression’ as separate from procreation, drawing in the cooperation of pro-birth control and pro-abortion eugenicists.
Disturbing philosophical ideas led to early “sex reassignment” experimentation; one of the doctors performing the earliest surgeries had participated in torturous experiments on human victims within the Nazi regime.

The False Idea of Minor ‘Consent’:

Neuroscientific and psychological communities have long understood that a minor’s brain development, particularly the maturation of the prefrontal cortex, is not complete until 22-25 years of age. The prefrontal cortex regulates behavior, assesses risk, and enables comprehension and proper planning. Consequently, children, minors, and young adults are particularly prone to engaging in risky or dangerous behavior. They cannot developmentally comprehend potentially life-long detrimental consequences.

Yet, despite this scientific reality, the idea that youth can provide ‘consent’ for sex, life-ending abortions, and life-altering ‘gender-affirming care’ is promoted by purveyors of comprehensive sex education.

This idea is foundationally based on concepts propagated by early proponents of the transgender movement.

Context

After World War I, severe economic hardship in Germany contributed to widespread prostitution in Berlin, involving minors and children. As awareness of child development and the harms of sexual abuse grew in the late 1800s and early 1900s, documented abuse cases prompted efforts to distinguish homosexuality from child sexual abuse (p. 271). Consequently, at the turn of the 20th century, “sexual scientists” began using the term “paedophile” to describe child sexual abusers (p. 271).

Read the entire article here at Live Action News

By Sheena Rodriguez. This article was originally published at Live Action News and is reprinted here in part with permission.

Live Action exists to shift culture and law on abortion. Through compelling educational media, human interest storytelling, investigative reporting, and community activism, Live Action reveals the humanity of preborn children and exposes the abortion industry’s exploitation of women and families for profit.

Lack of demand for contraceptives?

Published on January 22, 2026January 23, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

A recent report from the Guttmacher Institute intended to promote increased funding for contraceptives admitted that most women don’t actually want them.

By Rebecca Oas.

A recent report from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute intended to promote increased funding for “sexual and reproductive health,” including family planning, admitted that, in fact, the majority of so-called “need” for contraceptives is made up of women who have expressed no openness to using them or have rejected them explicitly.

The latest edition of Guttmacher’s Adding It Up continues to promote the concept of an “unmet need” for family planning, which is often misconstrued by family planning proponents like the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) as a lack of access. In reality, as a 2016 report by Guttmacher reveals, only five percent of women described as having a “need” say the reason is lack of access.

The new report introduces the concept of “unmet demand,” described as the “narrowest” subset of “unmet need,” which is made up of women “who want to avoid pregnancy and say they are interested in or open to using contraception in the future.” This category includes an estimated 78 million women—less than half of the total 214 million with “unmet need.”

The broader definition of “unmet need” includes women who want to avoid pregnancy but are not using a family planning method, regardless of the reason. This aligns with the metrics used in previous Adding It Up reports, as well as indicators in use at the United Nations for decades. However, as Guttmacher admits, “it is not the most appropriate estimate of actual need for contraception.”

This is because, when asked, most women with a “need” cite concerns about health risks and side effects of contraceptive methods, personal or religious opposition, or infrequent sex as their reasons for non-use. Based on the 2016 estimate that five percent of “unmet need” was due to lack of access, even most of the women in the narrower category of “unmet demand” are making a personal choice not to use contraceptives.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, “[f]ocusing on this [narrower] group helps prioritize limited resources.” However, they insist that “broader investments will ultimately be needed to reach the many other women who also face barriers to contraceptive care.” Based on Guttmacher’s own data, these “barriers” are likely to be women’s own priorities and decisions.

The Adding It Up report estimates that it would cost $104 billion a year to address the “unmet demand” for contraception, all maternal and newborn care, abortion services, and treatment for sexually transmitted infections for women in low and middle-income countries.

However, it emphasizes that “[e]very dollar spent on contraceptive services beyond the current level would save $2.48 in the cost of maternal, newborn and abortion care.” While this may sound like a way to reduce abortion, there are two important problems. First, it presumes that funding more contraceptives will result in increased use, despite the evidence coming from the same organization demonstrating that the market for family planning is approaching saturation.

Secondly, and more importantly, the Guttmacher Institute is calling for investment in “sexual and reproductive health” organizations that provide abortions and lobby for abortion in pro-life countries and are explicitly trying to siphon funding away from maternal and child health services in favor of contraception. This does nothing to build the basic health infrastructure required by the women who will want to become mothers, and their children, in the poorest regions of the world.

an ultrasound and pregnancy tests on a red surface

Abortion numbers in England and Wales at an all-time high

Published on January 16, 2026January 16, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

The latest official figures released (from the year 2023) are the worst since the Abortion Act of 1967.

Never before have there been so many abortions in England and Wales as in 2023.

The latest figures to be released are for that year, which ended with 277,970 officially recorded abortions, a significant increase of 11% compared to the previous year, 2022.

The Abortion Act of Great Britain legalised the termination of pregnancies in 1967.

With the Covid-19 pandemic, the authorities provided medication to facilitate abortions at home (a controversial measure that was to be temporary but was later maintained).

In 2023, the number of ‘home’ abortions already accounted for 73% of the total.

The data show that the number of abortions among women over 35 continues to rise (from 7.1 women per thousand in 2013 to 12.3 women per thousand in 2023). Among women under 18, the ratio is 7.8 per thousand.

The age group that most frequently terminates pregnancies is women between 20 and 24 years of age.

Why now two abortion figures from 2023?

‘We have waited two years for this report, and the scale of what it reveals is staggering – 277,970 abortions, that averages to 762 abortions every day: 32 per hour and one abortion every two minutes,’ said Dawn McAvoy of the pro-life campaign Both Lives UK.

McAvoy points out that ‘there has been a two-year delay in reporting and now significant gaps in data remain’. She believes that “caution” should be exercised when analysing ‘abortions for disability and post-abortion complications with significant under-reporting of both’ and points to ‘serious concerns about transparency, policy direction, and the long-term impact on women, babies, and society’.

The expert considers that ‘the reasons for such a significant delay in publishing these figures remain unclear. During that two-year wait, abortion activists have sought to introduce the most significant changes to abortion legislation since 1967. Changes that remove safeguards including in-person care.’

This article first appeared at Evangelical Focus and is republished under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 license.