Tag: Women

abortion

Abortion pills easier to access than ever in Australia

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

A study from the La Trobe University on the impact of deregulation of the abortion pills, MS-2 Step, revealed that the number of chemists stocking the drugs has almost doubled.

by Kathy Clubb

What is MS-2 Step?

MS-2 Step, also known as the abortion pill, is produced by Marie Stopes International and was formerly known as RU-486. The change of name reflects the two-stage protocol for inducing an abortion via chemicals. First the drug Mifepristone is consumed to stop progesterone production, effectively stopping a baby from accessing nutrition from its mother. Then thirty-six to forty-eight hours later, the drug Misoprostol is taken to expel the child. At that point, the baby is expected to have died, but that is not always the case. Many mothers have traumatically delivered live babies into their toilets at home, this is more likely when the mother takes the drugs later in her pregnancy.

MS-2 Step is available in Australia under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and is recommended for use until sixty-three days gestation.

Effects of deregulation

After the Therapeutic Goods Administration made changes in 2023, the number of pharmacies selling MS-2 Step increased from 2,228 to 4,107. This increase reflects the TGA’s decision to eliminate the need for pharmacists to be registered before they could dispense chemical abortion drugs.

The new figures, reported by La Trobe University’s School of Nursing and Midwifery, show that mothers have access to the abortion pill in almost half of the postcodes around Australia – this has long been a goal of abortion advocates, who frequently describe a “postcode lottery” when referring to what is, in their view, limited abortion access.

Along with that change for pharmacists, GP’s were no longer required to be registered or to have specialised training before prescribing the drugs. Additionally, midwives and nurse practitioners were given permission to prescribe them.

A new brand of abortion drug on the market

Until recently, MS-2 Step was the only abortion pill available in Australia, with that product being the sole focus of the La Trobe University study. However, a second chemical abortion drug was released this month, having been approved by the TGA in February.

The drug, Arzestra, comprising the same two medicines, is registered as a “generic drug”, making it a lower-cost alternative to MS-2 Step. There is little information available about Arzestra – it is not yet possible even to view the packaging. But there is little doubt that once it hits the shelves, there will be an even greater rise in the number of abortions using chemicals.

Rebellion at the heart of abortion

With abortion pills so readily available and increasingly becoming the preferred method for killing unborn babies worldwide, it is no wonder that we are witnessing the blatant promotion of their use by abortion activists.

Two examples of this spring readily to mind. In Poland, activists have just begun providing abortion pills via lockers placed strategically near the Warsaw Parliament building. The locker system is known by the chilling term “abortomat” in Polish. Mother can use a six-digit code to open one of the doors and access abortion pills in hostile opposition to the nation’s stringent anti-abortion laws.

In the US, the Satanic Temple recently released the horrifying music video about a woman consuming an abortion pill as part of an “abortion ritual.” The video was filmed inside the toilet of a Hobby Lobby store, to highlight that company’s opposition to abortion.

How is this healthcare?

According to this report, abortion advocates are, perhaps unsurprisingly, still not content with the availability of abortion around Australia. Dr Anna Noonan, an abortion researcher with the University of Technology Sydney, said that despite the increase in accessibility reported by La Trobe University, more expansion is necessary.

Dr. Noonan said her research showed that medical professionals are already facilitating that expansion. She claims:

Doctors and nurses are going to pharmacies in advance saying, ‘I’m going to be an abortion provider in this community, will you stock this medication?’

She also suggests that regulation “harms” patients, especially those on limited means:

“The more we encourage a deregulated environment, the easier access will be, particularly for people with less resources.”

“People with less resources” is code for those on the lower socio-economic rungs. It should come as no surprise to see a promoter of abortion trying to ensure that there are fewer children being born to poor families.

De-regulation is not progress

There needs to be a halt to the use of drugs for abortions, rather than an expansion. Their danger to babies is obvious, the harms to mothers are well-documented.

Experience overseas shows that apart from killing babies and potentially harming mothers, the ease with which the chemical abortion regimen can be obtained leads to serious abuses. It is becoming alarmingly common to hear of mothers being slipped abortion pills by their partners or family members, in order to surreptitiously kill their unborn babies. ( See here, here and here.)

There is no other form of “healthcare” that allows someone to so easily force death upon a child or an unsuspecting mother. Allowing for greater access to abortion pills is not a sign of progress, but of barbarism, of a society in decline.

human rights

Dangerous language enters Human Rights Council

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

A novel category – “reproductive violence” – was accepted in a recent Human Rights Council resolution, threatening to serve as a Trojan horse for the pro-abortion agenda if it gains further acceptance.

by Rebecca Oas, Ph. D. at C-Fam

The resolution, which dealt with the rights of women and girls in humanitarian situations, listed violations “such as forced or denial of contraception, forced pregnancy, forced abortion and forced sterilization” as examples of “reproductive violence.”

The denial of abortion was not explicitly mentioned in this non-exhaustive list, but that does not mean it was not included by implication.  Abortion advocates like the International Planned Parenthood Federation applauded the new language. An article in Ms. Magazine embraces this term as a way to pressure the United States for state-level abortion restrictions, noting that while the resolution was focused on humanitarian situations, this language will have broader implications.

For delegates from countries with pro-life laws, opposing the new term is difficult given the topic of the resolution, which focuses on vulnerable women and girls facing violence, including sexual assault, in the midst of conflict and natural disasters.  However, the architects of “reproductive violence” terminology make clear that they intend to use it to enable one form of violence while condemning others.  Specifically, they want to equate the denial of abortion with forced abortion as types of violence.

“Reproductive violence” has already entered UN discourse through reports of agencies like the United Nations Population Fund. Earlier this year, they coauthored a report promoting the term with the abortion provider MSI Reproductive Choices. Their proposed definition includes “laws, policies, institutional practices and social and gender norms that restrict choice, deny consent or impose reproductive outcomes” – clearly taking aim at pro-life measures.

Not everyone who favors the new category does so for pro-abortion reasons. Some proponents of surrogacy bans have argued that the practice is a form of “reproductive violence,” including the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls.  However, for pro-life advocates, the potential harms of this tactic outweigh the benefits.  Surrogacy, as well as forced abortion and other harmful acts, can be condemned individually without creating a new category.

Human rights or wrongs?

This is particularly true when the novel category has already been purpose-built by the international abortion lobby to describe those who would restrict abortion as “violent.”  Additionally, the new term further distorts the definition of violence beyond acts perpetrated by individuals against other individuals and including things like pro-life laws, policies, and even social norms.

Proponents of “reproductive violence” terminology are already well on their way to inserting it into a forthcoming treaty on crimes against humanity, still under negotiation.  They also seek to broaden the definition of “forced pregnancy” beyond the narrow one that was agreed to in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which explicitly exempted it from including pro-life laws.  This was a loss for the abortion lobby, which proposed a definition of “enforced pregnancy” that targeted abortion restrictions.

In the near future, the governments in support of this new language, chiefly Western European, will undoubtedly try to build on their success in Geneva and bring this terminology to the UN General Assembly in New York this fall.  It remains to be seen if their efforts can be stopped.

by Rebecca Oas, Ph. D. at 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.

gender

GenderSpeak: weaponizing gender against sex

Published on by EF Team1 Comment

When and why did the word “gender” displace the word “sex?” “Gender” refers to a person’s socially constructed identity of being male, female, or some other category, while “sex” refers to physical characteristics of male or female, such as chromosomes. Gender is a matter of a person’s self-perception; sex is a circumstance of birth.

by Wendy McElroy at the Brownstone Institute

When did sex get pushed to the curb by gender? In his book The Man Who Invented Gender, Terry Goldie claims that the sexologist John Money of Johns Hopkins Medical Center (Baltimore) first used the word “gender” in its modern meaning in 1955. Money pioneered the word to describe his famous John/Joan experiment that was conducted on a young boy named Bruce who’d lost his penis in an accident. To ‘prove’ Money’s theory that sexual identity was learned and not biological, Bruce’s parents raised him as a girl, complete with a surgically constructed vagina. The experiment failed. Bruce ultimately insisted on living as male, but he did not recover from the ordeal Money imposed on him, which he called torture. Bruce committed suicide in his 30s.

By then, however, Money had declared for decades that John/Joan was a complete success; discussions of “gender identity” abounded in ‘60s medical journals and academia. By the ‘70s and ‘80s, feminists brought the term to the streets, with “gender” describing a person’s self-defined sociocultural identity and “sex” meaning biology. Then, the word wedged its way into government. In 1993, for instance, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) replaced “sex” with “gender” in its literature. In 2011, “sex” returned to the FDA to mean biology while “gender” meant “a person’s self-representation.” The term went global. Also in 1993, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (DEVAW) vaguely defined this aggression as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women.”

Genderspeak became the language of elites, social justice activists, and the government, while average people still spoke of “sex”. But more than elitism lies behind the difference in words. By swapping in their own terms, elitists—especially professional feminists—grabbed the narrative on sexuality and politicized it to dismiss anyone who disagrees. Since the average male generally still uses biology to define his sexuality, he is an opponent; the average male is a living, breathing disagreement.

The ideology of gender faces an obstacle, however. If people can argue effectively against gender, then the narrative is difficult to manage. Those who dissent must be intimidated into silence or otherwise marginalized. The main strategy is to condemn dissenters as hate-filled. If some people cannot be silenced, then their words or opinions can become hate crimes punishable by law. George Orwell’s novel Nineteen-Eighty-Four is about a dystopian society of social control, which is maintained largely through restricting language. Since words are the foundation of thought, this means people cannot form thoughts, let alone articulate them. The villain of Nineteen-Eighty-Four proclaims, “The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought.” He concludes, “The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.” 

Men’s health researcher James L. Nuzzo highlights an attempt to perfect the language. “In recent years, use of the phrase “gender-based violence” (or “gendered violence”) in the titles and abstracts of papers indexed in PubMed has increased noticeably. Between 2019 and 2025, the phrase “gender-based violence” (or “gendered violence”) appeared in the titles or abstracts of 2,784 articles indexed in PubMed.” [Chart available here.] 

A typical definition of gender-related violence or gendered violence is “any form of physical or non-physical violence or abuse against a person or group of people because of biased or harmful beliefs about gender. It can include things that happen online and that use digital technology.” This definition is typical because it includes non-physical violence (discrimination) and abuse (words) that are motivated by non-specific ”biased or harmful beliefs about gender.” Nineteen-Eighty-Four would refer to such non-physical violence as “crimethink,” with thought itself being an assault. 

Just as “sex” is displaced by “gender,” well-researched and comparatively clear terms such as “domestic violence” are displaced by less-defined ones such as “gender-related violence.” This achieves several goals. For one thing, the confusing definition becomes elastic. Almost any word or act can be stretched to qualify as “gender-related violence,” especially since virtually everything in the politicized feminist universe is gender-related. 

But the most important purpose of swapping in the word “gender” is to introduce a subtle but powerful bias that controls the narrative; it creates Genderspeak. 

The concept of gender comes directly from the twin ideologies of Social Constructionism and Gender Feminism. Social Constructionism tells us that male and female are learned forms of behavior (gender) rather than biology (sex). 

To this, Gender Feminism adds an ideological layer. Male and female are patriarchal learned behaviors; they are social concepts derived from white male capitalistic culture. Thus, approaching violence in a correctly gendered way means rejecting white male capitalism—the economic system that is said to vest power and wealth in the hands of white men at the expense of everyone else. To embrace gender is to reject white male culture and capitalism, with ‘the free market’ usually viewed as a synonym. 

Genderspeak is similar to Orwell’s Newspeak. Both are ambiguous speech that embeds ideology into the language so that every word perpetuates correcthink—officially approved thought. In Orwell’s dystopian world, Newspeak serves the ideological goals of Ingsoc – an abbreviation for English Socialism. It gradually replaces Oldspeak and becomes pivotal in defining politics and culture. Genderspeak has the same ideological goal. If you embed gender ideology into words, then you control how people think and how culture develops.  

The process goes something like this:

  • Embed new ideologically-driven language when possible. For example, substitute the term “gendered violence” for the more research-driven term “domestic violence.” 
  • Eliminate “wrong” words. In Nineteen-Eighty-Four, salvageable literature was rewritten in Newspeak so that authors either disappeared or were reinterpreted to serve Ingsoc. Today, school texts are commonly reviewed to eliminate wrong words. ‘Improper’ ones like “Founding Fathers” are changed to proper ones like “Framers.” 
  • Change the meaning of words. In Nineteen-Eighty-Four, the word “free” is used only in the simple form of ‘my sweater is free of lint.’ The concept of freedom does not exist. The current usage of “diversity” in Genderspeak is similar. It is a diversity that tolerates no deviation. Its conclusions are or can be mandated by law. 
  • Introduce doublethink. Doublethink is when someone accepts two contradictory ideas as being true. A modern example is students who attend “sensitivity training,” which includes publicly ridiculing and humiliating whites and males because of their race and sex. This is sensitivity?
  • Last of all, decry anyone who objects as a hater and oppressor; punish them.

Precise wording provides the incredible benefit of letting people know what they are talking about. It is time to reclaim the richness of precise English…verb by verb, adjective by adjective. Words should not be propaganda that blocks thought; disagreement is no crime. And sex is reality, while gender is not. The concept and the word “gender” should be abandoned by people who respect either accuracy or truth.

Wendy McElroy is a Canadian individualist feminist and voluntaryist writer. McElroy is the editor of the website ifeminists.net. This article first appeared at Brownstone Institute and is reproduced here under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

eugenic

Global effort to shut down eugenic baby mills

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

Governments from multiple countries recently signed a political declaration calling for an international moratorium on surrogacy and advocating a complete worldwide ban.

by Diana L. Banister at C-Fam

The declaration warns that women and girls in surrogacy arrangements “face medical risks, coercion, exploitation and loss of agency that fall disproportionally on vulnerable populations with limited access to legal remedies.” It also points to psychological, emotional, and identity-related impacts on children born through surrogacy, along with risks of abandonment and human trafficking.

“Surrogacy is no longer a matter confined to domestic legislation or individual choices,’ said Eugenia Roccella, the Italian Minister for Family, Natality and Equal Opportunities. “ It has become a global phenomenon increasingly shaped by international markets, cross-border arrangements, and profound inequalities within and between societies.”

A $600,000 lawsuit recently filed in Canada against a surrogate mother reveals the legal and moral complications of the practice. Two years after giving birth, the mother was sued by the same-sex couple who hired her because she refused to abort the child after it was diagnosed with a cleft lip and a possible heart defect at 22 weeks of pregnancy.

The child, conceived through in vitro fertilization using a donor egg and sperm from each of the men, has had one reported medical incident, but is otherwise healthy. The lawsuit alleges the mother failed to “follow the direction regarding decisions affecting the fetus’s medical care.”

Research indicates that 33% to 40% of those commissioning surrogates are same-sex couples. Homosexual male couples represent a substantial majority of this group, while heterosexual couples make up about 66% of surrogacy arrangements overall. The “Gayby Boom,” as it is called, represents the largest demographic in gestational surrogacy, which requires an egg donor, an IVF procedure, and a surrogate.

Celebrities who have engaged surrogates, such as Kim Kardashian, Nicole Kidman, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Neil Patrick Harris, have also boosted the popularity of the practice.

According to a UN study on surrogacy published late last year by the UN special rapporteur on violence against women, Reem Alsalem, surrogacy is now worth nearly $14.95 billion a year and is expected to grow to $99.75 billion by 2033.

Alsalem gave a report to the U.N. Human Rights Council during the recent session and again stressed her concern for the women who are most vulnerable to violence because of the surrogacy practice.

“The states that are joining the declaration today recognize that surrogacy raises fundamental concerns relating to human dignity [and] the commodification of women and children,” said Alsalem. “They recognize that these concerns are not only limited to commercial arrangements, but that fragmented national approaches will facilitate the growth of a global cross-border market that transfers harm onto women and children in more vulnerable jurisdictions…This declaration shows that policy action is possible.”

The declaration was released in June, during the 62nd session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, by the Holy See along with Italy, Chile, and Cameroon. It was announced as the first step toward abolishing the practice they believe involves the “commodification of human life and women’s reproductive abilities.”

More than 220 organisations from 40 countries have been working together on a coordinated international strategy to end surrogacy.

by Diana L. Banister at 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.

abortion

The data pro-abortion advocates don’t want you to see

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

A growing body of research is dismantling the claim that pro-life laws harm women’s health. Abortion advocates are willing to overlook the facts for the sake of ideology.

by Right to Life NSW

A growing body of research is challenging claims that pro-life laws harm women’s health, as new data from across the United States suggest abortion restrictions may reduce abortions without increasing maternal mortality. A recent study published on April 3, 2026, examined more than 22 million births and 12,000 pregnancy-related deaths between 2018 and 2023. Researchers found no significant rise in maternal mortality in states that enacted strong pro-life protections after the 2022 Dobbs decision overturned the federal right to abortion.

The study’s findings add to evidence that pro-life legislation can protect unborn children while maintaining quality healthcare for mothers. In Iowa, the state’s foetal heartbeat law — which bans abortion after a heartbeat is detected at around six weeks — reportedly reduced abortions by 40% since July 2024. Indiana saw an even more dramatic decline, with abortions falling by 98% following similar restrictions.

Texas also experienced notable demographic changes after implementing its heartbeat law in 2022. Data indicate the state’s fertility rate rose between 2% and 8%, suggesting more children are being carried to term rather than aborted. At the same time, maternal mortality rates in Texas reportedly declined by 2.4%, while states with comparable pro-life laws saw decreases averaging 3.3%.

Pro-life advocates say these findings undermine longstanding arguments that abortion is necessary to protect women’s health. While researchers caution that more long-term analysis is needed to establish direct causation, current evidence suggests that laws defending unborn life can coexist with positive public health outcomes for women and families alike.

References

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.

United nations

Can the United Nations represent everyone?

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

A candidate for the world’s top diplomatic role has a record on abortion that raises serious questions about who the United Nations is really for.

By Right to Life NSW

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.

Earlier in her UN career, as the first Executive Director of UN Women, Bachelet declared that “reproductive rights” was “absolutely fundamental” to that organisation’s mission. The UN Women reports produced under her leadership pushed member states to weaken existing legal protections for the unborn.

What is the United Nations for?

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.

Sources

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.

spanish

Spanish Christians reject government proposal to enshrine abortion in the constitution

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

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.

According to official statistics presented by the government last October, 106,172 abortions were performed in Spain in 2024, the highest figure in over a decade.

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.

In 2024, France became the first country in the world to enshrine the right to abortion in its Constitution, after a social debate in which evangelicals took a stand against it.

In the Netherlands, a similar initiative was rejected.

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

abortion

While we were sleeping – abortion

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

This post is from a series by Jim Twelve, highlighting key aspects from each chapter of his new book, While We Were Sleeping: A Wake-up Call For All Christians (2025). This theme of this chapter is abortion and, citing the pro-life organisation, Love Australia, Jim urges all Australians to do their part to make abortion unthinkable.

by Jim Twelves at The Daily Declaration

Jodie Pickard is the Founding Director of Love Australia, a leading prolife organisation that first began as Love Adelaide. Love Australia’s latest endeavour is the introduction of the House of Refuge ministry to Australia, in partnership with Love Life America. This mission is to equip churches across Australia to be safe havens—where those experiencing an unplanned or crisis pregnancy have no need to seek an abortion clinic and where those who have been hurt by abortion can find healing.

Now that’s a novel approach. Like many of my readers, no doubt, I have felt increasingly frustrated, powerless and angry that the agenda to kill unwanted life has gained acceptance in our so-called civilised society.

Here’s a short extract from Jodie’s story:

Love Life invited me to go out with one of their teams to the abortion clinic in Charlotte, North Carolina. I was there to pray and watch what was going on. These sidewalk counsellors were offering hope and help—calling out, ‘Young mum, anything you need right now, we are here to help you. Please know you don’t have to walk into that clinic.’

Very occasionally, somebody would turn away, choosing life for their baby. I saw three women change their minds that day! Two of them drove away in their cars, letting the sidewalk counsellors know of their decision, and one entered the counselling RV bus.

Onboard was an ultrasound machine and a private lounge area to counsel, run by a pregnancy help centre. The young woman I saw go on the bus was offered a free ultrasound, and she chose life! What an impact this had on my involvement!

Back home in Australia, I started going to our abortion clinic and offering help. Unfortunately, it was short-lived. Less than a year later (in 2020), the South Australian Parliament legislated a 150-metre exclusion zone, which outlawed any communication related to abortion around a facility that performs them. It also prohibited praying. What has become of our nation when praying is made illegal? (Love Life)

Jodie’s Houses of Refuge ministry presents the church with a tool they can employ with no government restriction, while at the same time giving church leadership a positive platform from which they can address the elephant of abortion in society.

What can we do?

Every year in Australia, 88,000 babies are lost to abortion. As Proverbs 31:8-9 urges us, we must speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. Unborn babies are the most vulnerable in our society.

Love Life began in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 2016, and has now spread across the whole of the USA. They celebrate this testimony on their website:

Because of supporters like you, in 2023, Love Life was able to be present at 44 abortion centers across the nation with over 1000 partnering Churches and 306 House of Refuge Churches poised and equipped to help the moms that chose life. A watershed moment occurred in 2023 when we saw the 5,000th baby saved from abortion.

Let that number sink in. 5,000 babies who were scheduled to die, with the permission of their own parents, are alive today. God used you to help bring about this miracle. Because of you responding to God’s call to be a voice for the voiceless, Love Life was able to have trained people interceding at the darkest places in our cities.

United Kingdom votes to effectively legalise abortion to birth

We are deeply concerned that on the evening of March 18 2026, the House of Lords voted to remove women from the criminal law related to abortion when acting in relation to their own pregnancy. — Dawn McAvoy, Both Lives UK

The British Medical Journal (24 March 2026) reported on what they believe was driving parliament to decriminalise abortion to birth:

Some 277, 970 abortions were carried out in 2023 (the most recent year for which figures are available), an 11% increase from 251 377 in 2022. Controlling for population growth, this represents an abortion rate of 23.0 in every 1000 women aged 15-44 in 2023—up from 21.1 in 1000 the year before. Rates of abortion have notably risen in women over 35 in the past decade, at 12.3 in 1000 women in 2023, up from 7.1 in 1000 in 2013. However, rates remain highest among 20-24 year olds, at 39.4 in 1000 women in 2023.
— BMJ 2026;392:s562

As of 25 March 2026, Dame Sarah Mullally became the new Archbishop of Canterbury and the head of the Church of England. She is proudly pro-choice and not pro-life. Sarah, along with all the other bishops in the House of Lords, could have blocked this amendment to decriminalise abortion to birth, but they didn’t. It’s devastating when church leaders stay silent and effectively become complicit in this barbaric method of birth control (cf. Chris Wickland, below).

What the Bible says

Back in my school days, I remember debates about abortion. ‘What about the victims of rape?’ my opponents would say. ‘Whatever happened to adoption?’, I would reply.

For You formed my inward parts; you covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvellous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret… — Psalm 139:13-15a

God has created every one of us and, for Him, there is no suggestion that life begins at birth; it is much earlier, at the point of fertilisation of the egg by the sperm.

In Bible times, the Lord was clearly grieved by His children’s idolatry in their adoption of the ways and customs of the surrounding nations (Canaanites, Moabites in particular).

The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, declares the Lord. They have set up their detestable idols in the house that bears my Name and have defiled it. They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.
— Jeremiah 7:30-31

Parents brought their sons and daughters to be burnt in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, immediately south of the walls of Jerusalem, seeking to gain a blessing from their false gods. Our one true God declared: it had never entered His mind!

In a video, Aline and Rodrigo take us on a tour of the Valley of Ben Hinnom (transliterated as Geenna or Gehenna in Greek). They unpack the scriptures while we admire the peaceful parkland where children play.

It is telling that this valley has not been built on, in contrast with the Cedrom Valley, just around the corner, between the old city and the Mount of Olives, which is filled with gravestones and a number of churches.

It is said that the Valley of Ben Hinnom has been cursed for all time on account of these child sacrifices. In many ways, I see this valley as a monument to the atrocity dating back thousands of years.

Abortion is our society’s sacrifice for “the good life“. We dress it up with justification, but in the end, it’s murder.

What about the doctors and nurses who violate their hierocratic oath to keep their jobs? Most of us will never see an abortion, but they handle them on a regular basis.

I will never harm my suffering friend, because life is sacred, from the tender fruit that he once was in his mother’s womb to that first sight he gave out between her legs when he opened his eyes to the world.
— Extract from Hippocratic Oath (translated by Amelia Arenas)

Let’s ask God to show us how we can take a stand against abortion.

If My people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
— 2 Chronicles 7:14

By Jim Twelves.  Jim also has a YouTube channel, where he posts a reflection on each chapter of his new book.

This article first appeared at The Daily Declaration and is reproduced here by permission. The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. It is dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Its vision is to see the revitalisation of our Christian values for the common good. 

united nations

Radical Feminist May Soon Head United Nations

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

A congressional letter is asking the U.S. to veto the nomination of Chilean Michelle Bachelet to be the next United Nations Secretary-General because of her longstanding and aggressive sexual leftism.

By Stefano Gennarini, J. D., C-Fam

The letter circulating among congressional offices says that Bachelet, the former President of Chile and the undisputed frontrunner in the race for the next UN Secretary-General, is unfit for the top UN job. It asks the Trump administration to exercise the veto power of the United States as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to stop her nomination.

What’s more, the new pro-life government of her country, Chile, also withdrew its support for her candidacy last week, calling her candidacy “non-viable.”

Bachelet is a longtime feminist who has been described as a Latin American version of Hillary Clinton. She aggressively promoted abortion, gender ideology, and climate alarmism for decades.

Congressman Chuck Edwards (R-NC) read the contents of the letter to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz during a congressional field hearing on UN reform held at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

“In her previous roles with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), as Executive Director of UN Women, and as President of Chile, Dr. Bachelet has repeatedly prioritized an extreme abortion agenda at the expense of state sovereignty,” he said.

Bachelet’s candidacy has a very good chance of succeeding. The EU bureaucracy is intent on anointing a woman as the next UN Secretary-General, someone they expect to ramp up gender and abortion advocacy. Several current candidates match this description, but Bachelet is widely seen as having been carefully groomed to take over the UN top job by European governments that control the UN bureaucracy and have ensured her advancement through the years.

She was President of Chile for two terms between 2004-2008 and 2014-2018. As Executive Director of UN Women from 2010 to 2013 and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights from 2018 to 2023, she ensured that gender ideology and abortion advocacy were mainstreamed across the entire UN system by UN gender experts and human rights lawyers.

After the landmark pro-life Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health U.S. Supreme Court case, Bachelet issued an official statement criticizing the decision. She falsely claimed the case was wrongly decided because abortion is “firmly rooted” in human rights law as a “core” of women’s rights. She said the ruling was a “setback” and a “huge blow” for women’s human rights.

The next United Nations Secretary-General is expected to have a large role in shaping the UN system for an entire generation. The current UN development framework, known as the Sustainable Development Goals or Agenda 2030, expires in 2030.

The likelihood of a prolonged and contested election is now more than likely. The European Union and the United States do not see eye to eye on key areas of UN policy, including abortion, gender, climate, borders, and censorship. Finding a candidate who gives assurances that will satisfy all the members of the UN Security Council is unlikely.

The selection of the future Secretary-General is expected to be completed by the UN Security Council as early as this Spring and formalised by the General Assembly sometime in the Fall. Campaigning by countries is well underway. April 1st is the suggested deadline for nominations ahead of public hearings with the candidates that will take place on April 20th.

abortion

UK ratifies its decision to decriminalise home abortions up to birth 

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

The House of Lords rejects amendments calling for safety measures for women, such as an in-person consultation before receiving medication by post to induce abortions outside a clinic.

from Evangelical Focus

The House of Lords has not made any significant changes to the law passed in June by the United Kingdom lower house (House of Commons), which fully decriminalised abortion, including when performed shortly before the baby’s due date.

Pro-life groups had hoped that two amendments tabled by conservative politicians and representatives of the Church of England (which has representation in the House of Lords) would be accepted. But this was not the case.

The House of Lords voted on Wednesday 18 March, with 185 against and 148 in favour, to reject an amendment to the bill that would have removed clause 206 – the part of the text that allows abortions beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks to no longer be considered a crime.

In effect, therefore, any abortion carried out outside a medical practice will go unpunished.

So-called ‘home’ or ‘DIY’ abortions have become much easier to carry out since the British government temporarily facilitated access to medication by post to terminate a pregnancy during the pandemic in 2020. Then, in 2022, these arrangements were made permanent, even though there were no longer any restrictions on accessing medical centres.

A second amendment was also rejected. It called for women to have at least one in-person consultation at a medical centre before carrying out an abortion elsewhere. It was defeated by 191 votes against to 119 in favour.

This means that, barring any surprises, the law decriminalising all forms of abortion up to birth will go ahead. The legal limit for having an abortion in healthcare centres will remain at 24 weeks, but there will be no consequences for those who have an abortion at home beyond that timeframe.

The latest abortion statistics released by the UK government show a record number of abortions. In 2023, 277,970 abortions were performed in England and Wales – 762 a day.

The most significant change since 1967

Abortion was first legalised in the UK in 1967.

Pro-life groups such as Right to Life regard the law now set to be passed as the most significant change in these 60 years. “If this bill becomes law, it will likely lead to a significant increase in the number of women performing late-term abortions at home, endangering the lives of many more women,” said this group, which organises pro-life marches every year.

They believe the new law will also encourage abortions based on the baby’s gender, a practice which, according to a recent survey by Savanta ComRes, is rejected by 89% of the British population.

The Evangelical Alliance UK reacted to the vote with “deep concern” over the “bad news” coming from Westminster. If the law does come into force, the evangelical body added, it is necessary to “ensure that women facing crisis pregnancies receive compassionate, life-affirming support, and that both mother and child are cared for with dignity before and after birth”.

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children regrets that this liberalisation of the abortion law has been “pushed through without any pre-legislative scrutiny, public consultation or a detailed impact assessment”.

They believe the new law “will lead to late-term abortions being carried out on babies who, if born in hospital, would stand a good chance of surviving”.

More abortion in Europe

Attempts to further liberalise abortion laws are also taking place in other European countries.

The European Union has recently stated that its funds can be used for this purpose.

In 2024, France enshrined abortion as a fundamental right in its constitution, and countries such as Spain have also debated the issue.

Countries such as Ireland continue to record new record numbers of abortions.

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