The incident took place at the end of the event, when the attendees were gathered in front of the Portuguese Parliament in Lisbon. Christian groups have condemned the violence and asked for peaceful disagreement.
A 39-year-old man was arrested during the March for Life on Saturday, 21 March, in Lisbon, Portugal, for throwing a Molotov cocktail at participants.
The incident took place at the end of the event, when the attendees were gathered in front of the Portuguese Parliament. The device failed to ignite when it landed among the crowd and there were no reported injuries from the attack.
The attacker was subdued by the demonstrators before the police intervened. They brought him to the hospital for examination, and later put him in custody. According to the police, he and three other individuals who fled, “were allegedly part of a group with anarchist leanings”.
Right after the incident, Portugal’s new minister of internal administration, Luís Neves, said on social media that the government does not tolerate any form of violent extremism, and they “will continue to act firmly to prevent and combat it, safeguarding democratic values”.
Lisbon Christians react
The patriarch of Lisbon, Archbishop Rui Manuel Sousa Valério, also condemned the attack against the March for Life, and defined it as unacceptable. Violence is never the way, he said, because it “harms human dignity and does not serve the truth”.
The Portuguese Evangelical Alliance (AEP) also regretted and denounced the incident.
“Even if we disagree”, the evangelical body said, they “respect those who hold opposing views”. That said, the AEP “repudiates any type of violence as a way of expressing these disagreements”.
“Just as we defend respect for life, we also hold the same position regarding freedom of expression”, stresses the Alliance.
“A terrorist act”
The Portuguese Federation for Life, which organizes the march, issued a press release calling the incident a “terrorist act”.
According to the organisation, “the failure of the attack cannot obscure the fact that a political organization planned and sought to carry out an attack against a public event packed with families, youths, and children”.
The federation also announced that it will request a meeting with the minister of internal administration and the Attorney General to address the incident and that, “at the appropriate moment”, it will “join a friend of the court in the ensuing judicial proceedings”.
4,000 march for life in Lisbon
Thousands took to the streets in twelve Portuguese cities March for Life on 21st March, to take a stand against abortion and euthanasia.
The one in Lisbon was the most attended, with around 4,000 participants.
This year theme was “The pro-life people take to the streets” and aimed to be a march “for the dignity of all human beings, for life from the moment of conception until natural death, and for families”.
This article was written by an American doctor who is pro-choice. Despite that flaw, he thoughtfully examines many of the immoral aspects of the use of aborted foetal tissue harvesting for use in medicine and science.
Ignorance is often desirable. It allows us to benefit from things our conscience might deny us. ‘Informed consent’ can be something we need to force upon ourselves.
Sacrificing others for the greater good
Science, we prefer to think, has removed us from the dark inhumanity of human sacrifice and the historic callousness that would kill and dismember a child as insurance against starvation. The Aztecs and Mayans dismembered living prisoners to appease gods and ensure crop fertility, which they believed essential to survival. The Egyptians and Norse killed servants of their deceased wealthy to improve the quality of their afterlife. Our futures now are secured on the laboratory bench rather than the stone altar. We have Science, and consider ourselves far better off because of it.
A few days ago, someone shared this short video, ‘It’s OK,’ about 4 minutes long and worth watching. It is made by a group opposing abortion called Choice42.
The abortion issue is complicated and evokes emotions and is discussed later. What matters here is that the video is well researched, objective, and explains how scientists are paid to cut and disembowel live humans on laboratory benches in the hope of improving the futures of those who pay them, and the rest of us.
As a society, we have developed well-organised, methodical ways to do this, and pride ourselves in their cleverness. The video is very moving – it is meant to be because pulling little humans apart without anaesthetic for the benefit of others is something that, when removed from its veil of scientific progress, can be hard to think about.
The use of aborted human fetuses and embryos brought us many of the vaccines we use today, including some promoted by the Roman Catholic Church and those used by many who oppose abortion itself. The cell cultures derived from the unborn babies represented in the video, and from similar cases, are used widely by people working in the biological sciences. They can be purchased online. Undoubtedly, many lives of people who lived after have been saved by the use of some of these cell lines, and people are therefore born today who would not be if the cells had not been harvested.
The researchers who regularly work with these cells come from a whole swath of different cultures, religious beliefs, and political perspectives. Mostly, they probably never seriously consider whom the cells in the petri dish descended from. If they do, they may dismiss the harvesting as too long ago to be relevant (though the practice continues) or somehow necessary (as the Aztecs did, needing to keep the world itself habitable). The video simply reminds us of certain truths, and of how willing we are, or how far we will go, to ignore them.
What is a human foetus?
Abortion is an emotive subject, but unfortunately also politicised, and this makes any discussion like this difficult. So, to be clear, this article is not about abortion, on which my views are nuanced. As a doctor, I have taken part in abortions, as prior family members took part in bombing people and machine-gunning them. I have used some of the products mentioned in the video here and have no high ground to stand on.
I have also worked in a country where several thousand women die of septic abortions every year, because they cannot access practices safe for them. We probably all know people who vehemently oppose abortion but support the death penalty, and people who hold opposite views on both.
Taking a life is a terrible thing, and sometimes circumstances can lead to choices between terrible things. Nearly all of us find ways around “Thou shall not kill.” But we need to understand what is happening.
The other thing to be clear on here is whether a developing fetus is a human (i.e. a person). The World Health Organization (WHO) considers them “pregnancy tissue” until delivery from the womb in its hopelessly incoherent Abortion Care Guidelines, and ”lives lost” if they happened to be born prematurely before being deliberately aborted. Such a position, that personhood is purely geographical (in or out the womb), is convenient but obviously bankrupt, telling us more about the WHO than the status of a foetus. The unborn foetus can hear, respond, feel pain, move, and is fully genetically human.
Having spent months nursing a baby born at 28 weeks, I had no doubt of that child’s humanity. I have cradled premature babies born far earlier before they died. They move, struggle to breathe sometimes for hours, and I am unable to see how they were not human children, helpless though they were.
Outside of a eugenicist or fascist mindset, I also struggle to see how there can be a hierarchy of human worth. We are equal or we are not, and that is not dependent on an arbitrary time of existence or the arbitrariness of position within or without the womb. This does not mean humans cannot be killed (sadly, we have wars still and may sometimes also face other difficult choices), but those we kill are our equals.
Most of us also consider humans different in worth and essence from other animals. However, irrespective of one’s view on this, we do have strict rules on the use of animals in research. Institutional (Ethics) Review Boards (IRBs) are usually reluctant to allow the infliction of pain on animals. There was a loud outcry when the National Institutes of Health were shown to have been torturing beagles in the name of science. Hollywood movies using animals have a standard line in the credits reassuring us that “no animal was harmed.” We don’t, for whatever reason, afford the same care to developing members of our own species, and we don’t at present, label our medicines to indicate their derivation from such practices. That is a strange thing, and seems somewhat cowardly.
Inflicting pain on living beings
So, the point of the video, and this article, is not the rightness or wrongness of abortion. It is that we sacrifice others in horrific ways for our own good, or accept others (the high priests of our Science) doing it for us. We accept that it is worth cutting open a developing human without anaesthetic, disemboweling them, and using bits we cut out for experiments that may or may not prove useful to someone. The only really relevant factor is that someone was willing to pay for it to be done. So, we accept it.
This practice (for which you would be jailed in the United States for doing so to a cat) is considered so acceptable when done to our own that many jurisdictions actually mandate that people have vaccines developed from such practices injected into them. There is strong political pressure at present to block religious exemptions in the United States, preventing people from opting out of partaking in the results of such practices.
With some religious leaders insisting that the use of products derived from fetal mutilation is an act of love, refusal based on revulsion at the slicing and tearing of live humans becomes very much a personal matter that can elicit considerable retribution from society.
The choices we make
It is not necessary to do these experiments. This is true on two levels. Firstly, the human race was not dying out before we started doing this. Most health gains come from what we eat, how we live, and our environment (e.g. good sanitation). What we derive from foetal stem cells and organs is a small fractional gain on top of this. For some people it may be life or death, but for nearly all it is not. There is no such thing as “essential medical research,” just desirable research, and research that someone is paying to have done (which may or may not coincide).
Secondly, it is possible to get stem cells from adults, from bone marrow and other organs. It is harder, and they are less adaptable, so such cells may be less effective in developing the products we desire. But this is certainly a risk we can reasonably choose to take.
We can do well, as a society, without tearing aborted babies apart. We choose to do this for small incremental gain. We are horrified at what the Aztecs did, and think we are better, but objectively we are essentially the same. We sacrifice growing humans, with pain and lack of concern, in the hope of a common good for the rest of us. We make a choice, based on how we value others and value ourselves.
Facing what we do, or have become party to, should not always be a comfortable thing. The past is in the past, but fetal harvesting is still happening. For those who believe a person exists beyond their organic form, the past also continues to have relevance today. We can block from our minds what we do to others for our benefit, but if humanity is worth anything, then we should recognize the act of betrayal that involves.
At the very least, based on logic, rationality, and decency, we should be transparent. This should ensure truly informed consent, labelling medicines, for instance, as having been derived or not through procedures or experiments on unconsented humans. Then, clearly, we should respect those who say “no” and wish no part in the outcomes of what they may consider repugnant or immoral practices. Forcing others to follow our own choice in this matter through mandates would be unjustifiable under any enlightened system of human values.
David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. David is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organisation (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.
Jim Hughes (1943–2026) was a Canadian and international pro-life leader. Below are excerpts from five of the many tributes published in honour of his tireless work on behalf of the unborn.
LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac praises Hughes’ remarkable leadership skills. LifeSiteNews columnist Jonathon Van Maren chronicles the pro-life movement’s titanic battle against the Pierre Trudeau government’s Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which lacked explicit protections for the unborn. Its enactment in the early 1980s “would utterly transform and define Canada for the rest of her history”.
It is with deep sorrow that we share the passing of Jim Hughes, president emeritus of Canada’s Campaign Life Coalition, who passed away yesterday surrounded by his family.
At home, Jim was a devoted husband, father and grandfather. In the office, he was a mentor and a fatherly presence to so many. Wherever he went, he brought a down-to-earth spirit and a sense of humour that could brighten any room.
Jim’s leadership in the Canadian pro-life movement spanned nearly five decades. His tireless work helped shape, strengthen and mobilize the movement across the country, saving countless lives and inspiring generations of pro-life Canadians. Yet Jim’s impact extended far beyond public leadership. If someone needed help, he would help, often quietly, without recognition, and without ever seeking praise.
Jim Hughes: indefatigable champion
by Quinton Admundson, associate editor The Catholic Register (Archdiocese of Toronto, Canada), May 20, 2026.
Excerpt
Do not tell Jim Hughes he must be a compromiser who tempers his pro-life beliefs. The national president of Campaign Life Coalition, the political arm of the Canadian pro-life movement, from 1984 to 2018, does not answer to you, lobbyists, corporations or any government. The octogenarian Catholic abides by the law of God, who unambiguously told Moses on Mount Sinai, “Thou shalt not kill.”
“He didn’t say after 14 weeks or talk about any strategy,” said Hughes. “He said ‘do not kill an innocent life.’ ”
Jim Hughes saw Canada’s abortion future in the fight over the Charter
by Jonathon Van Maren LifeSiteNews (Canada/USA), May 20, 2026.
Excerpt
From a historical perspective, the most consequential fight Hughes was involved in was his very first. Campaign Life was founded in May 1978; the following month, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced the Constitutional Amendment Bill, which included a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Key pro-life leaders — including Jim Hughes — recognised that a charter which did not include explicit protections for the unborn would inevitably be used to justify a regime of abortion on demand.
We will never know if the efforts of Campaign Life and the pro-life movement to defeat the charter would have succeeded; history tells us that when Cardinal Emmett Carter, with explicit assurances from Justice Minister Jean Chrétien [later to be prime minister of Canada, from 1993 to 2003], published a statement of neutrality on the issue in the Catholic Register, Liberal MPs rejoiced that they could now vote for it in good conscience.
Years later, Jim Hughes said, Carter would tell him that he’d been lied to. That day, a sad scene unfolded at the Campaign Life offices. Pro-life leaders felt that they were close to beating the charter. The effort, right across Canada, had been herculean, but there was a sense that victory was possible. When they heard the news, darkness seemed to descend. “I saw pro-life leaders, many of them, extremely shocked, devastated, grown men and women in tears, crying,” Steve Jalsevac recalled. “That’s what I saw. It’s like someone put a knife in their back. It was that close.”
Although few Canadians understood it at the time, the battle over the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was the most consequential political fight of the 20th century. It would utterly transform and define Canada for the rest of her history. The story of the pro-life movement’s resistance to the charter has been largely ignored by historians, even though the warnings of prominent pro-life groups were prophetic.
The Jim Hughes I remember
by John-Henry Westen, co-founder and CEO of LifeSiteNews.com LifeSiteNews (Canada/USA), May 19, 2026.
Excerpt
For more than four decades, Jim Hughes stood as the unwavering heart of Canada’s pro-life movement until his death on Monday. I was privileged to have known and worked with him for three of those decades.
From his first involvement with Campaign Life Coalition in October 1978 until long after he stepped down as national president in September 2018, Jim gave his life so that others might live. A successful Toronto businessman at 35, he saw the gruesome reality of abortion at a right-to-life presentation at the Canadian National Exhibition in 1978. That moment changed him forever. He accepted his wife Ginny’s challenge to give “just two years” to the cause. He left his lucrative career and worked full time without a salary in the beginning while the couple lived on Ginny’s income as a registered nurse.
In 1984, he became national president of Campaign Life Coalition, a position he held for 34 years. Under his leadership, CLC became the powerhouse of Canadian pro-life activism. He founded The Interim newspaper in 1983. He served on the founding board of LifeSiteNews when it launched in 1997. He built the annual National March for Life in Ottawa into a major national event and helped bring the Life Chain and 40 Days for Life to Canada.
He played key roles in establishing or advancing Aid to Women, REAL [Realistic, Equal, Active, for Life] Women of Canada, Catholic Insight magazine, the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus, Show the Truth campaigns, and the early Family Coalition Party. He also worked closely with Priests for Life Canada, Silent No More Canada [founded by Endeavour Forum’s Canadian associate, Denise Mountenay], and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition [founded by Alex Schadenberg].
As everyone in the movement knows, Jim often joked that you only retire from this calling being carried out “feet first”. And that’s exactly how he lived — never truly retiring, always in the fight until the Lord called him home.
——————————
‘Well done, good and faithful servant’
Steve Jalsevac on Jim Hughes, Canada’s pro-life patriarch by Steve Jalsevac, co-founder of LifeSiteNews.com LifeSiteNews (Canada/USA), May 20, 2026.
Excerpt
Jim Hughes was a truly humble, surprisingly shy, and very caring man. Few people knew that he was uncomfortable being in the limelight and tended to give all the glory for whatever Campaign Life Coalition managed to accomplish to others, above all to God.
Jim was a leader unlike many others I have met over the past 46 years. He had an incredible memory, was a gifted organiser and strategist and a commanding speaker. He managed to build strong, long-term loyalty among CLC volunteers and staff who valued his consensus-based leadership style and personal concern for them and their needs. CLC was never a top-down type of organisation.
Jim was a delegator who much preferred to pass on important and high-visibility tasks to others and help them to grow into a larger pool of competent pro-life leaders.
We were a close-knit team of “ordinary people doing great things for God”, as Mother Teresa of Calcutta told Jim when she was with him in our humble Ottawa lobby office. She also told him that we were “doing the most important work in the world”.
Under Jim, CLC was a precious second family for everyone in CLC. I spent 46 years working closely with this man. He dramatically changed my life when he brought me into the pro-life movement and patiently guided me and many others to be more understanding and patient with those considered our enemies. In many cases, they were instead sinners whom no one took the time to talk to, find out why they did what they did, or reach out with a prayerful, helping hand. I am forever grateful for that guidance.
A Northern Ireland court on Thursday (May 7) fined a retired Baptist pastor for preaching at a worship service near an abortion clinic, a move the minister called a “dark day for Christian freedom.”
by Chris Eyte at Christian Daily
Coleraine Magistrates’ Court ordered the Rev. Clive Johnston to pay £450 ($565) following his conviction under the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act 2023. Johnston, former president of the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland, held an open-air Sunday service on July 7, 2024 within a protected “buffer zone” outside Causeway Hospital in Coleraine, County Londonderry.
The Vienna-based Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe (OIDAC Europe) reported that the court considered Johnston’s conduct a criminal offense due to the “location and surrounding circumstances.”
The prosecution argued that because the service featured a large crucifix, hymns and a microphone, it amounted to an attempt to influence people accessing abortion services. Johnston maintained his sermon made no mention of abortion. Police body-worn footage showed Johnston’s group singing hymns and quoting Bible passages, including John 3:16.Stay informed with The Christian Daily NewsletterSign up
“The buffer zone legislation is so broad that holding a Sunday service has been found to be a criminal offense,” Johnston said in a statement after the hearing. “If someone is out there causing trouble, stirring up violence, harassing or verbally attacking people, then, absolutely, go ahead and prosecute them. But I wasn’t doing any of those things.”
The 2023 Act criminalizes conduct within designated zones intended to influence – or conduct considered “reckless” as to whether it influences – a “protected person” accessing abortion services. Judge Peter King found Johnston guilty of two counts: acting within a safe access zone with the intent or recklessness of influencing a protected person, and failing to comply with a direction to leave the zone.
King acknowledged Johnston as a “man of strong religious belief and good character” who has been publicly associated with anti-abortion views in the past. The judge concluded, however, that Johnston had “tested the law to the point where he broke the law.”
The court ruled that Johnston specifically chose the location because of the clinic’s proximity, meeting the legal threshold for conviction.
By Chris Eyte. Republished from Christian Daily under a Creative Commons license. Christian Daily International provides biblical, factual and personal news, stories and perspectives from every region, focusing on religious freedom, integrated gospel and other issues that are relevant to the global Church today.
A new selection process is underway for the next Secretary-General of the United Nations — and one of the leading candidates has a track record that deserves serious scrutiny.
Michelle Bachelet, the former President of Chile and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, was nominated in February 2026 by the governments of Brazil and Mexico (Chile initially co-nominated her but withdrew its support in March 2026). Her candidacy is now attracting significant attention — not just for her diplomatic credentials, but for her long and consistent record of promoting abortion access as a global priority.
The role she is seeking is not a minor one. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is tasked with representing the interests and dignity of all humanity — across every culture, every value system, and every nation.
That makes her record worth examining carefully.
What her record shows
During her second presidential term in Chile, Bachelet championed legislation that ended that country’s longstanding total ban on abortion. In 2017, the Chilean Congress passed her bill permitting abortion in limited circumstances: cases of rape, fatal fetal abnormality, or risk to the mother’s life. Supporters described it as a triumph of reason; for many in Chile and Latin America who had defended protections for unborn life for decades, it was a significant defeat.
Her positions did not remain at the national level. When Bachelet became UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, she used that platform consistently to promote abortion access as a matter of international human rights law.
When the United States Supreme Court issued its Dobbs decision in 2022 — returning abortion policy to the individual states — Bachelet’s response was immediate and pointed. She described the ruling as “a huge blow to women’s human rights and gender equality,” and stated that access to abortion was “firmly rooted in international human rights law.” She went further, describing the overturning of Roe v. Wade as a “major setback” and warning that the US was moving away from what she called a “progressive trend.”
This framing — that protecting unborn life is a violation of human rights — is not a neutral or universally shared position. It is a deeply contested moral and legal claim. Many nations, many legal traditions, and many millions of people across the world hold a fundamentally different view.
This matters because of what the United Nations is supposed to be.
According to the UN Charter, the organisation exists to maintain international peace and security, promote human rights, deliver humanitarian assistance, and uphold international law. It was founded to serve all people — across cultures, religions, and moral frameworks.
Abortion is not a settled question in international law, despite repeated attempts by UN bodies to position it as one. It is a deeply divisive moral issue on which countries differ profoundly. Many nations — including significant majorities across Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and parts of Asia — maintain strong legal protections for unborn life. These countries are also UN members. Their values and their sovereignty are meant to be respected, not overridden.
A Secretary-General who enters office with a documented, career-long commitment to advancing abortion as a human rights priority is not a neutral steward of global cooperation. She is someone who has already chosen sides on one of the most contested moral questions in the world.
A question of representation
The concern here is not partisan. It is foundational.
The process for selecting the next Secretary-General involves nominations from member states, interactive dialogues, and ultimately a recommendation from the Security Council to the General Assembly. It is a process meant to identify someone capable of representing all of humanity with integrity and impartiality.
A number of legislators in the United States — including members of the Senate — have formally written to the Secretary of State urging opposition to Bachelet’s candidacy, arguing that her record demonstrates a consistent pattern of using international platforms to pressure member states on abortion, regardless of their own laws and values. Even the Chilean government that initially nominated her ultimately withdrew its support.
These concerns are legitimate and worth raising in the Australian context as well. Australia is a UN member state. Australians have a stake in who leads the organisation and what priorities they bring to that role.
Changing culture starts with asking the right questions
At Right to Life, we believe every human life has inherent dignity — from the earliest stages of development to natural death. We also believe that questions of this magnitude deserve honest, open public debate — not the kind of bureaucratic pressure that attempts to settle contested moral questions by institutional decree.
The UN has an important role to play in the world. That role is best fulfilled when its leadership genuinely reflects the diversity of humanity — including those nations and peoples who believe that unborn children deserve protection.
Whether Michelle Bachelet is the right person to carry that responsibility is a question the world should be asking openly.
This article first appeared at Right to Life and is reproduced here by permission. Right to Life is an action group dedicated to defending the inalienable human right to life from conception to natural death. Its work seeks to influence both culture and law in Australia, helping build a society where every human life is protected and valued.
Tragically, an expansion of Queensland’s abortion access regulations is now being implemented. This expansion enables “trained” nurses and midwives to perform abortions (Medicines and Poisons (Medicines) Amendment Regulation 2026).1 Shockingly, it is the Queensland LNP government who is quietly advancing this regulatory framework, despite having opposed the original amendment introduced by Labor in March 2024.2
Let’s back up, the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 was introduced by then Labor Health Minister and Minister for Women Shannon Fentiman on 7 March 2024. The amendment passed because Labor had the numbers in the chamber at that time.3
Shannon Fentiman, Qld Labor MP for Waterford
This Act forms part of the broader Queensland Health Termination of Pregnancy Action Plan 2032, a long-term policy framework that was designed by the Pro-Abortion lobby to expand access to abortion across the state.4 Pro-Abortion stakeholders included in collaborating on the TOP Action Plan 2032 include, MSI International (who, as we will see, benefits financially from this push),5 The Australian College of Midwives (the principle professional organisation for midwives which has adopted a pro-abortion policy)6 and The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (another organisation captured by anti-life ideology).7
When the legislation passed in March 2024, it did so under a Labor majority, with opposition from the Liberal National Party (LNP), One Nation and the Katter’s Australian Party.8 Yet more recently, under the direction of Health Minister Tim Nicholls, the LNP government has moved to implement the regulatory framework necessary to roll out the Act.9
Within the Termination of Pregnancy Action Plan 2032, one of the key milestones for the Pro-Abortion lobby was to commit to “amending the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 and Criminal Code Act 1899, to enable nurses and midwives with appropriate qualifications and training to perform a medical termination of pregnancy through the use of termination of pregnancy drugs.”10 In practical terms, this represents a shift in how abortion is accessed in Queensland.
Three key implications arise from this change. First, the law now allows nurses and midwives to participate directly in medical abortions. Whilst framed as a measure to improve access, especially in rural and remote Queensland,11 this reform effectively cuts through any red tape to allow more pills to be sold and consequently making midwives and nurses complicit in the mass killing of Queensland’s unborn children.
Second, this shift raises serious ethical and financial questions. MSI International has the exclusive rights to MS-2 Step (the Abortion pill), meaning they benefit financially from every medical abortion in Australia. In terms of statistics, between 2019 to 2024, MS-2 Step has been prescribed 212,029 times nationwide, with 99,075 prescriptions in Queensland alone.12
Each course of the drug costs $391.06 to the Australian taxpayer, subsidised to $25.00 for the patient.13 This equates to an estimated $82.9 million in public expenditure nationally, and approximately $38.7 million in Queensland alone from 2019 to 2024. These funds are directed to MS Health, part of a global network linked to MSI Australia.14
Third, this regulatory framework directly engages with the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 – the very legislation Premier David Crisafulli has effectively placed under a “gag order.” This raises an obvious question: is this a contradiction? On one hand, the government is actively advancing regulations that shape and expand how the Act operates. On the other, it is restricting open debate and discussion among Queensland’s elected representatives. Put simply, they are willing to act on the legislation—but not willing to allow it to be publicly scrutinised.
So, this development prompts three important questions:
1. Are the LNP fully aware that, through these actions, they are effectively implementing the Termination of Pregnancy Action Plan 2032 – a central strategy of the pro-abortion lobby, spearheaded by Labor MP Shannon Fentiman?
2. Why is the LNP government now advancing the implementation of legislation that they previously opposed, why not pursue an amendment instead?
3. Isn’t it contradictory for you to amend regulation and yet not allow any other public representative to even discuss or debate the changes?
These are significant questions – that the Queensland public demand answering!
Fascinatingly both Qld Queensland Health Minister Tim Nicholls and Premier David Crisafulli voted against the legislation at the time.15 Now, Tim Nichols is certainly no ally to the Pro-Life movement. Queenslanders need to be reminded that Tim Nichols, the health minister of Queensland, is ideologically aligned with the Pro-Abortion Lobby, so aligned in fact that he was one of three MP’s that crossed the floor and voted with Labor in support of the 2018 Termination of Pregnancy Act.16 An act which has resulted an even larger number of abortions in Queensland since it was enacted.
Tim Nichols, Queensland Health Minister and LNP Member for Clayfield
Furthermore, scrutiny is warranted in relation to training and oversight proposed in the amendment. Under the new framework, nurses17 and midwives18 authorised through an Extended Practice Authority (EPA) may administer abortion drugs. However, basic questions remain about the nature of the required training:
2. What type of Pre and Post abortion counselling is conducted and again, by whom?20
Surely if organisations with a direct interest in abortion provision are involved in shaping these frameworks, concerns about bias and conflicts of interest inevitably arise.
Equally significant is the issue of conscientious objection. What protections exist for nurses and midwives who, on ethical or religious grounds, do not wish to participate in abortion procedures or related training? Without robust safeguards, there is a risk that healthcare professionals may experience pressure, whether direct or indirect, to act against their deeply held convictions.
In sum, the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 represents a horrendous turning point in Queensland’s abortion provision landscape. Most distressingly it now makes those nurses and midwives who have undergone their “training” complicit in the deaths of more and more unborn children in this state.
So what’s next – we need your help, by submitting the following petition you will send an email to key LNP members of whom we are seeking answers on those important questions listed above. (Click here to access the petition and email)
By Matthew Cliff. This article was first published at Cherish Life and was used here with permission. Cherish Life is one of the largest pro- life organisations in Australia. Cherish Life Queensland was founded in 1970 (as Right to Life Queensland), to advocate for the right to life from conception until natural death.
Evangelical leaders warn that it “undermines the protection of unborn life”. The Spanish Evangelical Alliance already opposed the inclusion of abortion as a constitutional right.
The Spanish cabinet recently submitted a draft amendment to the Spanish Constitution to Parliament, which aims to recognise and “safeguard” women’s sexual and reproductive rights, specifically including the right to abortion.
The proposal suggests the addition of a fourth paragraph to Article 43 of the Constitution on health protection, stating that “the state shall guarantee the right of women to voluntary termination of pregnancy under conditions of real and effective equality”.
The minister for equality, Ana Redondo, claimed that the initiative aims to ensure the effective exercise of this right throughout the country.
She explained that only around 20% of abortions are currently performed in public healthcare centres, with significant variations between Spanish regions.
According to Redondo, the reform also responds to an international context in which an “ultra-reactionary movement” challenges sexual and reproductive rights.
She also stressed that the constitutional amendment would reinforce the case law of the Constitutional Court and consolidate existing legislative advances.
The constitutional amendment requires a qualified majority to be approved. As it is an article included in the guiding principles of social and economic policy, it will need the support of at least three-fifths of both Congress and the Senate.
In certain circumstances, the text could also be put to a referendum if requested by one-tenth of parliamentarians.
FEREDE: “Undermines the protection of unborn human life”
The Federation of Evangelical Religious Entities of Spain (FEREDE) issued a statement expressing its concern over the government’s initiative.
According to FEREDE, making abortion a constitutional right “undermines the protection of unborn human life” and would go against the spirit of the Constitution.
FEREDE points out that, while there is no single dogmatic position on abortion within Protestantism, there is a broad consensus that life is a gift from God and must be protected from its very beginning.
The Federation also questions whether there is sufficient consensus within society and Parliament to introduce this constitutional change.
In its view, enshrining abortion as a constitutional right “will make the protection of prenatal life meaningless”.
The statement points out that case law of the Constitutional Court recognises prenatal life as a protected legal interest, and stresses the need to find a balance between women’s rights and the protection of unborn children.
Spanish Evangelical Alliance
The Spanish Evangelical Alliance (AEE) already expressed its views on the abortion debate in a document released in October 2025.
In that text, the organisation stated that, from an evangelical perspective, human life exists from the moment of conception, and therefore they consider abortion ethically permissible only in cases of clear danger to the mother’s life or serious malformations that make the foetus unviable.
The AEE also criticised the fact that the public debate focuses exclusively on the woman’s decision, ignoring the rights of the unborn child.
“Talking about voluntary termination of pregnancy is to ignore the fact that it is not a matter of flipping a switch, but of eliminating a life”, pointed out the statement,
They also stressed the need to provide more alternatives and social support for women with unwanted pregnancies.
The document concluded by describing the enshrining of abortion as a constitutional right as “a contradiction in terms” and warned of the social and demographic impact of a high annual abortion rate in Spain.
European debate
The debate over whether abortion should be enshrined in national constitutions has also been a major topic of discussion in Europe in recent years.
On this page, you’ll find interviews conducted with members of Endeavour Forum.
On May 31, Kathy Clubb was interviewed by Lyle Shelton for Family First. The topic was abortion exclusion-zones. The relevant section is between 27:30 and 47:50.
On April 9th, Kathy Clubb was interviewed by Andrew “Robbo” Robinson for Vision Media’s 20Twenty show. The topic was Observations from a visit to the United Nations.
On November 11th 2025, Kathy Clubb was interviewed by Neil Johnson for Vision Media’s 20Twenty show. The topic was Being open to life.
On 10th June 2025, Kathy Clubb was interviewed by Neil Johnson for Vision Media’s 20Twenty show. The topic was The changing landscape around abortion: pills not clinics
The recent death of Paul Ehrlich (1932–2026), that master of anti-natalist propaganda, should cause us to consider the far-reaching consequences of his doctrine. As the author of The Population Bomb, (Note: all page references given below refer to this work) written in 1968, Ehrlich helped shape the disastrous demographic policies which many countries around the world are currently scrambling to reverse.
by Kathy Clubb
Among his predictions was the frightening spectre of overpopulation and world-wide famine to be experienced in the 1970s. By tying food availability to increasing population, Ehrlich successfully sowed enough fear into the academics of his day to ensure that his message would be taken up and disseminated into the unsuspecting community at large.
Contraception
Central to Ehrlich’s policies for population control was contraception; this was to be subsidised by the government and especially was to be made available to the poor.
He lauded the U.S. government’s multi-million-dollar funding of the supply and research of contraception during the 1960s, saying that, until that time, the government had spent as much on family-planning as it had on “rat control” (p. 85).
Perhaps the Freudian slip reveals the disdain Ehrlich had for human fertility.
He even suggested that some form of sterilisation agent could be added to the water or food supply, writing that “doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size” (p. 131).
Ehrlich singled out the Catholic Church for its stance against contraception, mentioning the controversy elicited by the 1968 papal document, Humanae Vitae. He noted,
“The announcement of the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae was greeted by a great wave of protest from within the Catholic Church. This dissent was not limited to lay people; it existed throughout the clergy as far up into the hierarchy as the rank of cardinal.” (p. 136)
In The Population Bomb, he praised U.S. federal bills aimed at limiting families to two children and legalising abortion. Although the former thankfully never came to fruition, the latter was eventually to be realised with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision of 1973.
Abortion
Ehrlich deemed legal abortion a sign of progress in the fight to stop population growth. He praised state abortion laws — already one-third of the American states had legalised abortion by the time his book appeared (p. 89).
He was at pains to ensure that scientists indoctrinate the populace with the notion that a newly- conceived zygote is in no way the same as a fully-formed foetus. He said: “They must point out the biological absurdity of equating a zygote (the cell created by joining of sperm and egg) or fetus (unborn child) with a human being.” (p. 138)
By every metric, this goal has been achieved, perhaps beyond his wildest dreams. Readers may recall attempts by the UK Guardian newspaper in (October 18, 2022), to show what “a real pregnancy looks like” in the first trimester. An accompanying image shows white fibres with the caption, “Tissue from five weeks of pregnancy to nine weeks”:
Image from the UK Guardian (photo credit: MYA Network). Reproduced under “fair use” terms.
By contrast to anti-natalist propaganda, a science-based Baby Life Begins diagram shows what a child at five weeks’ gestation actually looks like. (Click here for the video version)
Demographics and population control
Unsurprisingly, Ehrlich praised China’s attempts to halt the growth of its population. He lauded its one-child program, citing the “very strong social and political pressures also are exerted to limit amilies to a maximum of two children…” (p. 206), while failing to mention that those “very strong pressures” include forced abortion — even in the third trimester — as well as forced sterilisation.
Ehrlich also praised the early efforts of Japan to curb its population through the legalisation of abortion, which he said was “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control”. Through its anti-natalist agenda, Japan was able to halve its birth rate, but it later realised the demographic impact of a falling birth rate and tried to reverse course.
Ehrlich condemned this policy change, writing that “one can only hope that young Japanese couples have more sense than their government does” (p. 84). It would seem his confidence in Japan’s younger generation was not misplaced: a recent poll shows that 60 per cent of young Japanese are planning never to have children.
Like the Japanese authorities, many nations are discovering that their efforts to halt population growth were ill-advised. Even the ultra-progressive leaders at the United Nations acknowledge there is a problem with declining populations. Yet, thanks in large part to the efforts of Paul Ehrlich, they are unable to devise a way to encourage women to have more babies.
The ‘bright side’ of global famine
According to Paul Ehrlich and the scientists he cited, the optimum global population limit was around 1 billion citizens. He thought the earth possibly “had a chance” if a population of four to five billion could be maintained (p. 157).
Yet, for all his dire predictions of global famine, Ehrlich was remarkably upbeat about the consequences of such an event. In fact, he believed human tragedy of such a scale could actually serve his agenda. He wrote:
“Indeed, even if the worst happens, short of the end of civilization, efforts toward solving the population problem may not be in vain. Suppose we do not prevent massive famines. Suppose there are widespread plagues. Suppose a billion people perish. At least if we have called enough attention to the problem, we may be able to avoid a repetition of the whole mess. We must make it impossible for people to blame the calamity on too little food or technological failures or ‘acts of God’. They must at least face the essential cause of the problem — overpopulation.” (p. 158)
The role of academia
Ehrlich’s influence points to the role played by universities and other academic institutions in furthering anti-Christian agendas such as population control. Techno-Marxism’s “long march” through the institutions chose those platforms for good reason: it is difficult for spineless politicians and other policy-makers to dissent from apparently well-researched conclusions being thrust on them by the intelligentsia.
According to the pro-life author, “Alyosha” (a pseudonym), at his Between Two Ages Substack account,
“Real policy isn’t debated in X threads, YouTube clips of normie legacy news shouting matches, or in the campaign rhetoric of elections. It is formulated in dry academic literature, incubated in the classrooms of elite universities, and ultimately executed through the quiet, logistical restructuring of society.”
His conclusion reminds us that Ehrlich was not alone in his calls for population control: he was simply one of the loudest voices at a particular moment in history:
“The core objective of the transnational elite has remained remarkably consistent for over half a century: the scientific management, reduction, and absolute control of the human population.”
Our greatest asset
As most Christians acknowledge, a nation’s greatest asset is its children, especially those raised in stable households by both of their biological parents. While Ehrlich spread the lie that the reproductive act should be separated from its consequence — procreation — the future belongs to those who can integrate both, welcoming children as gifts from God and trusting in Him to provide for the needs of their families.
About the author 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.
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.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
