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.

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.

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.

Nordic governments most radical at UN

Published on January 6, 2026January 6, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

When it comes to the sexual revolution, the Nordic governments continue to show they are among the most radical in the world. This was borne out again at the most recent session of the Universal Periodic Review, where governments review each other’s human rights records.

The Nordics continued to pressure other governments on abortion, gender ideology, and extreme sex-ed. In the most recent session of the UPR, where thirteen countries were reviewed, there were 35 instances where governments were pressured to liberalize their abortion laws. Twelve of them came from Nordic governments, which include Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden—but predominantly Iceland. Iceland generates by far the most abortion pressure out of all 193 UN member states at the UPR—around 20 percent of the total in the last completed review cycle.

The Nordic countries called for abortion to be legalized, decriminalized, and made more accessible, including by limiting the right of conscientious objection by health care providers.

On the issues of sexual orientation and gender identity, the governments under review were pressured 160 times, 33 of which were from Iceland (close to 20 percent). These recommendations included urging the Marshall Islands to legalize same-sex marriage and “introduce a transparent administrative self-identification process for legal gender recognition free from intrusive requirements.” Iceland and Norway urged several countries to decriminalize same-sex sexual behavior and enact comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation that included sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories.

Iceland also recommended that Liberia, Malawi, Mongolia, and Panama guarantee that comprehensive sexuality education be provided, both in and out of school settings.

Nordic countries are among the top funders of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and UN Women, which in turn promote SRHR in developing countries where they work. This is despite the fact that the UN General Assembly has never accepted the SRHR terminology—despite decades of repeated efforts by the Nordics and their allies.

Unlike the U.S., which is a bigger donor but undergoes significant shifts in its foreign policy depending on which party controls Congress and the White House, the Nordic countries have maintained consistent political and financial support for SRHR over time. This has included Sweden’s launch of the first explicitly feminist foreign policy in 2014, a 2020 statement from Nordic prime ministers opposing any restrictions on abortion, and a 2024 joint statement from Nordic gender ministers in support of LGBTI rights.

In addition to their funding for UN agencies earmarked for promoting SRHR, Nordic countries also strategically fund activist groups within developing countries, particularly where social norms remain largely pro-life and pro-family. In 2014, the Queen of Denmark announced a new funding mechanism called Amplify Change, which supports “grassroots movements for SRHR.” It has provided grants for groups promoting abortion, “sex work,” comprehensive sexuality education, and reducing stigma around LGBT issues.

Despite continued Nordic investment in international SRHR, Sweden decided in 2022 to abandon the explicitly “feminist” framing of its foreign policy after a right-wing bloc won in a general election. This year, Norway’s left-wing government narrowly held on to power despite gains on the right. However, while populist parties make gains in the Nordic region, often motivated by mass immigration, it remains to be seen whether this will translate into a rightward movement on social issues in their foreign policy.

Pro-life groups lose European Union funding

Published on December 17, 2025December 17, 2025 by EF TeamLeave a comment

The European Union blocked funding to two European pro-life groups charging that they do not adhere to “EU values,” specifically abortion, homosexual marriage, and gender ideology.

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. and Kelly Heilman, J.D.

The European Union denied the Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe (FAFCE) EU project funding six times in recent years. The World Youth Alliance received three review letters from the EU, which are essentially threats to lose funding. Both groups are pro-life and pro-family and say they are being targeted for their pro-life and pro-family beliefs.

FAFCE’s President, Vincenzo Bassi, told the Italian Bishops’ daily newspaper Avvenire, that his group was the target of “ideological discrimination” based on the EU Commission’s latest LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy.

Bassi explained that the Federation’s latest request for funds was turned down because it emphasized the importance of the family in their application and it is known that FAFCE represents Catholic families founded on the union of one man and one woman. EU authorities decided that “this focus (on the family) could violate EU equality norms” and that the group did not carry out enough “gender analysis” in its programs, which could in turn lead to discrimination.

FAFCE is one of Europe’s original pro-life and pro-family groups. It represents Catholic family associations from across Europe in EU institutions since 1997 and operates on a shoestring budget. In recent years it has held events and campaigns to promote family policies, the protection of children, and to oppose abortion and surrogacy.

The World Youth Alliance (WYA) is a youth organization that promotes the engagement of pro-life and pro-family youth with international institutions. It has received EU project funding in recent years but appears slated to lose it all because of its pro-life and pro-family work.

WYA was recently accused by the George Soros funded group openDemocracy with spreading false information about abortion. As a result, a formal compliance investigation into the organisation’s funding was opened and it was officially denied project funding. WYA’s status for future grants has not been determined.

WYA says the EU Commission does not have a legal basis for denying them funds. They argue that the Commission is relying on non-binding political decisions as if they were binding law.

EU funding projects are run by the EU Commission as the executive branch of the European Union. In recent years the Commission has begun to speak of “EU values” as a threshold issue for participating in EU civil society space and receiving EU funds.

The EU values that the Commission is purportedly enforcing are found in the 1992 Treaty on the European Union. That treaty provides the Commission with the authority to take action against EU member states for a failure to uphold “respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, including the rights of minorities.” The Commission interprets these EU values to include homosexual and transgender issues as well as abortion and extrapolates that its mandate requires imposing these as ideological requirements on organizations that receive EU grants.

Discrimination against pro-life groups

These developments are part of a wider push by abortion and LGBT advocates to censor pro-family and pro-life groups and exclude them from participation in public debates. Several reports from groups funded by the EU Commission, the U.S. State Department, George Soros, and other progressive international actors call on international organizations to expel and deny participation to so-called “anti-rights” groups. Most recently, the “Next Wave Report” models this approach. It is authored by Neil Datta of the European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual & Reproductive Rights, an initiative of the International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network.

Most civil society organisations and charities in the European Union receive public funds and would not be able to operate without them. Unlike the United States, where the tax code encourages independent civil society institutions for religious, educational and charitable purposes, Europe does not historically have a robust civil society. Public funding from European institutions has tried to fill that gap. The difficulties of FAFCE and WYA face at the EU Commission show the tradeoff that happens when independent civil society organisations, including pro-life groups become dependent on public funds.

Stefano Gennarini, J.D. and Kelly Heilman, 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.

Pro-Life states pushing back at UN

Published on December 3, 2025December 3, 2025 by EF TeamLeave a comment

An increasing number of pro-life governments are pushing back against radical abortion and gender ideology at the UN General Assembly.

Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

More governments than ever voted for eliminating controversial language related to abortion and LGBT issues in the ongoing UN General Assembly.

In the Third Committee of the General Assembly, forty-eight governments voted in favour of removing “sexual and reproductive health” language from a resolution on children. Seventy governments voted to remove “sexual orientation and gender identity” from a resolution on persons with disabilities.

A close call

In both cases the amendments to remove the controversial terms failed, but the votes were closer than it was imagined possible. While seventy-four governments voted to retain the language on sexual orientation, they won by a mere four votes. Many of the governments that voted in favor of the homosexual and transgender agenda did so only because of pressure from the European Union. Over fifty states abstained or failed to cast a vote.

The close vote is a wakeup call for the European Union and progressive governments that promote abortion and gender ideology in UN policy. The vote demonstrated a realistic path to rollback abortion and gender ideology from UN policy altogether, something few thought possible during the first Trump administration.

Pushing back from Africa to Europe

Dozens of delegations made statements complaining of the attempt to corrupt children through explicit UN-style sex education and the promotion of abortion and contraception for children without parental consent.

Speaking on behalf of a group of African governments, Nigeria complained that proposals related to the importance of the family were not included in the final draft, despite being based on the obligations of all members states under binding international treaties.

A delegate from Burkina Faso —speaking for Burundi, Cameroon, and Mali — said the use of the term sexual and reproductive health “cannot be interpreted as giving children access to drugs and medical treatment without parental consent.” She said the term must only refer to health services that are “legal and approved by competent authorities” in each nation. She emphasized the “inalienable and central role” of parents in the education of children.

Argentina’s delegate said parents had the “primary responsibility” to protect children and that the State could “support, but never replace” the family. He emphasized that protecting the family is a “structural principle of human rights law, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and that it is part of respect for the principle of subsidiarity.

The delegate of Denmark speaking on behalf of all the nations that are part of the European Union attacked the amendment to protect children from sexualization as “harmful to the substance of the resolution” and urged nations to keep “sexual orientation and gender identity” in the resolution on persons with disabilities. Earlier in the day, he had also attacked developing nations in Africa and Asia for refusing to recognize homosexual unions as families in a resolution about the family. “Families are living dynamic entities” and “various forms of the family exist” he said.

The amendments that led to the debate were proposed by Burundi and Egypt, respectively. The Egyptian amendment to delete the homosexual and gender identity language was on behalf of the 54 member states of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation.

The sexual left among UN member states and UN bureaucrats are increasingly furious about traditional governments pushing back on abortion and LGBT issues. They have invented a new term — anti-rights — for those governments and NGOs that oppose their agenda.

Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

The ramifications of denial of doctors’ conscience rights

Published on November 28, 2025November 29, 2025 by EF TeamLeave a comment

Dr. Mark Hobart is an Australian GP in the state of Victoria, who was unjustly targeted for his stance against government overreach during the COVID pandemic. When it became known that he was writing exemptions from the mandatory, experimental mRNA vaccines, Dr. Hobart’s clinic, located in the Melbourne western suburb of Sunshine, was raided by the authorities and he subsequently was suspended from practising medicine. In this article, Dr. Hobart looks at three areas of Victorian health law which violate the conscience rights of medical doctors and other health professionals.

By Dr. Mark Hobart

In Victoria first we had denial of conscience with regards to abortion in 2008. Then we had the denial of conscience with regards to the Covid gene therapy in 2021 . And now it is legislated that we have denial of conscience with regards to the promotion of euthanasia. These three government directives lead to the inability of the doctor to give his or her independent opinion regarding abortion, covid injections and euthanasia.

Abortion

According to the Victorian 2008 Abortion Law Reform Act,¹ a request for abortion to a doctor who has a conscientious objection to abortion must be referred to a doctor who does not have a conscientious objection to abortion:

ABORTION LAW REFORM ACT 2008 – SECTION 8

Obligations of registered health practitioner who has conscientious objection
(1) If a woman requests a registered health practitioner to advise on a proposed abortion, or to perform, direct, authorise or supervise an abortion for that woman, and the practitioner has a conscientious objection to abortion, the practitioner must—
(a) inform the woman that the practitioner has a conscientious objection to abortion; and
(b) refer the woman to another registered health practitioner in the same regulated health profession who the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion.

It is the case now that if the doctor advises against abortion and then refuses to refer, he will be breaking the 2008 ALR Act. This is especially worrying if the woman is being coerced.

I was cautioned for this in January 2014² by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) when I refused to refer a woman for an abortion at 19 1/2 weeks for gender selection because the unborn baby was female and they wanted a boy. So, in fact, if a woman says she wants an abortion, she must be referred for an abortion.

Covid injections

In March of 2021, AHPRA issued a position statement³ for registered health practitioners and students regarding the COVID-19 vaccination.

If you opposed the position statement, you would have been suspended, as happened to me and to four other Victorian doctors. From the position statement (emphasis added):

Conscientious objection
In the case of a conscientious objection about receiving, authorising, prescribing or administering COVID-19 vaccination, practitioners must inform their employer and/or other relevant colleagues (where necessary) of their objection as soon as reasonably practical. For example, a practitioner’s personal beliefs may form the basis of a conscientious objection to particular treatments. In addition to the above, it is important that practitioners inform their patient or client of their conscientious objection where relevant to the patient or client’s treatment or care. In informing their patient or client of a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, practitioners must be careful not to discourage their patient or client from seeking vaccination. Practitioners authorised to prescribe and/or administer the vaccine but who have a conscientious objection must ensure appropriate referral options are provided for vaccination.

While some health practitioners may have a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, all practitioners, including students on placement, must comply with local employer, health service or health department policies, procedures and guidelines relating to COVID-19 vaccination. Any queries about these should be directed towards the individual employer, health service, state or territory health department and/or education provider for registered students. National Boards regulate individual practitioners and not health services or state and territory health departments. Queries about COVID-19 vaccination programs should be directed to the Commonwealth, state and territory governments which are responsible for these programs.

COVID-19 vaccination information sharing and social media
National Boards expect all health practitioners to use their professional judgement and the best available evidence in practice. This includes when providing information to the public about public health issues such as COVID-19 and vaccination. When advocating for community and population health, health practitioners must also use their expertise and influence to protect and advance the health and wellbeing of individuals as well as communities and broader populations.

Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.
….
Health practitioners are reminded that it is an offence under the National Law to advertise a regulated health service4 (including via social media) in a way that is false, misleading or deceptive. Advertising that includes false, misleading or deceptive claims about COVID-19, including anti-vaccination material, may result in prosecution by AHPRA.

In November 2021 I was suspended by AHPRA because I gave temporary medical certificates, usually three months duration, to my patients who were being forced to have the Covid injection. Had they refused, they would have lost their jobs and/or had an injection which was dangerous to their health and/or also conflicted with their religious beliefs because the injections are made using aborted human foetal parts.

When I had the opportunity to ask them, about 50% of these patients had suicidal ideation about this, so I had no hesitation in giving them a three months certificate saying that they should not have the injection.

I am still suspended now four years later. I will finally have a trial in April 2026 in which AHPRA/the medical board will attempt to prove that I am guilty of professional misconduct and a danger to the Australian public.

I am one of only four doctors who have been suspended for this because we all stood up for this violation of one of the most basic of human rights: the right to be fully informed of your medical treatment and the right to refuse this treatment if you don’t want it.

Voluntary Assisted Dying

The Victorian government has amended⁴ the Voluntary Assisted Dying law to make it a requirement that doctors give information about VAD to their patients.

Possibly, from as early as December this year, doctors must advise that another practitioner may assist and give the person the information. You are also required to give information approved by the “secretary.”

From the amended legislation:⁵

“(2) If a registered medical practitioner or nurse practitioner who has a conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying refuses to provide information about voluntary assisted dying to a person requesting information about or access to voluntary assisted dying, the practitioner must—

(a) advise the person that another registered medical practitioner or nurse practitioner may be able to assist the person in relation to information about or access to voluntary assisted dying; and
(b) give the person the following information—
(i) contact details for the prescribed voluntary assisted dying care navigator service;
(ii) the address of an Internet site of the Department of Health that provides information about voluntary assisted dying.”.

Now we have Voluntary Assisted Dying. This should be called voluntary assisted suicide, but because assisted suicide is a crime listed in the Crimes Act with a penalty of five years in jail, it can’t be called that.

It can’t be called voluntary assisted death either, because it’s up to the patient to take the medication at their discretion. The doctor doesn’t need to wait around to make sure that the patient is dead, as the drug is supposed to kill them; this is usually phenobarbitone, which may or may not work. [See this article on why assisted suicide is neither dignified nor painless.]

Also the doctor writing the death certificate must not write that the patient has died from the ingestion of the lethal dose of medication, but record the terminal condition which led to the patient feeling that life is not worth living any more; for example, cancer, heart failure, multiple sclerosis or Neil Daniher’s motor neurone disease.

Now we come to the crunch. In past years, if you felt there was a genuine possibility that a patient would commit suicide, you would call the CATT team⁶ or the police surgeon to prevent it. In the more distant past, you could certify the patient yourself.

Yet according to this new legislation, if patients comes to you, as a doctor, requesting “assisted dying” and the information needed to access it, (i.e. they want to know how to commit suicide), instead of asking them why they want to commit suicide, you must give the advice on how to kill themselves, including information approved by the government secretary. I hope she’s a good secretary.

Implications for Catholic doctors

All the formerly Catholic hospitals are now influenced by the government to a large extent, for example St. Vincent’s and the Mercy Hospital in Melbourne. There are obviously others as well, and we have the example of the fate of the Calvary hospital in Canberra.

Obviously, these laws are insane. We are Catholic doctors. We cannot advise patients to kill themselves. We cannot stand by and not give a good counter argument to a woman who wants to abort her child. We cannot stand by and agree with a medical treatment that we think is dangerous and has been recommended to the patient because the government says it is justified.

On the other hand, if we act on our consciences, we will not be able to practise medicine in our society. It is not only doctors but nurses who are at risk. They certainly won’t be able to do general practice or obstetrics and gynaecology. Endocrinology and psychology will be a big problem, as will plastic surgery and other forms of surgery be problematic. These include paediatrics and paediatric surgery. The implications are endless.

I believe Catholics were excluded from the professions in England following the Elizabethan persecutions and that this continued until 1871. Such restrictions on faithful health professionals are being imposed in C21st Australia and must be opposed at every stage.