Led by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Rep. Erin Houchin (R-IN), Sen. Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), and Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), the lawmakers submitted the brief Tuesday to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of U.S. Bishops (USCCB) and other religious entities in United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The Members of Congress explain in the brief that the bipartisan PWFA’s purpose was to allow for protections and accommodations for pregnant and postpartum women in the workplace. But despite the fact the law does not contain any reference to abortion, the Biden-era Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a Final Rule that extended the PWFA’s definition of “medical conditions” to include abortion and mandated that all employers nationwide accommodate employee abortions.

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

“Flouting the law Congress passed, the EEOC transformed the PWFA into a draconian national abortion-accommodations mandate that tramples the conscience rights of those who object to abortion, including some of the very faith-based organizations that supported the PWFA,” the lawmakers argue.

“Congress included a religious exemption in the PWFA, guaranteeing that no religious employer would have to violate its faith,” they said. “But by interpreting the religious exemption narrowly and medical justifications for abortion broadly, the Final Rule fundamentally repurposes the PWFA into an unprecedented instrument of radical abortion policy.”

The 37 Representatives and 13 Senators argue that the EEOC required, yet bypassed, congressional authorization to enforce its Final Rule, explaining how “the EEOC contorted the PWFA into a radical revision of national policy on one of the most contentious issues in America today.”

They say as well that Congress specifically chose “not to link the PWFA’s definition of ‘medical condition’ to the definition in other statutes” that could possibly create loopholes for abortion.

“The intent and text of the PWFA are clear,” they said, “to ensure healthy pregnancies by supporting women with pregnancy-related medical conditions both during and after their pregnancy. The EEOC ignored the statute and substituted its views on abortion for those of Congress, injecting abortion politics into a law designed to help mothers healthily carry their child to term.” 

The full list of Members of Congress who cosigned the friend-of-the-court brief is below.

House Cosigners (37): Reps. Smith (R-NJ), Houchin (R-IN), Aderholt (R-AL), Alford (R-MO), Babin (R-TX), Bice (R-OK), Biggs (R-AZ), Biggs (R-SC), Bilirakis (R-FL), Cammack (R-FL), Cline (R-VA), Cloud (R-TX), Clyde (R-GA), Davidson (R-OH), Downing (R-MT), Estes (R-KS), Fedorchak (R-ND), Fleischmann (R-TN), Franklin (R-FL), Fulcher (R-ID), Griffith (R-VA), Hageman (R-WY), Harris (R-MD), McGuire (R-VA), Miller (R-IL), Moore (R-UT), Moore (R-WV), Moran (R-TX), Ogles (R-TN), Onder (R-MO), Rose (R-TN), Schmidt (R-KS), Stutzman (R-IN), Tenney (R-NY), Weber (R-TX), Webster (R-FL), Yakym (R-IN)

Senate Cosigners (13): Sens. Cassidy (LA), Lankford (OK), Barrasso (WY), Banks (IN), Budd (NC), Cramer (ND), Graham (SC), Hyde-Smith (MS), Marshall (KS), Paul (KY), Ricketts (NE), Tim Scott (SC), Sheehy (MT)

LifeNews Note: Lisa Bourne is Managing Editor of Pregnancy Help News and Content Writer for Heartbeat International. This originally appeared at Pregnancy Help News.

The post Joe Biden Used Law to Protect Pregnant Workers to Promote Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The monument honors the 236,243 unborn children aborted in Arkansas between 1973 and 2022, Following extensive deliberation, the Commission selected a “living wall” design featuring plants framed by a retaining wall. The design was approved on May 12 after months of discussion among artists and commissioners. To date, $28,790 has been donated toward the project’s construction.

Arkansas Right to Life, which is leading fundraising efforts, confirmed that the project has cleared all required approvals and is now entering its next phase.

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

“A new design has been chosen and the design and project have been approved by the Capitol grounds committee,” said Singleton. “Memorial ‘pavers’ are available for $100 and sponsorships of $1,000, $5,000, and $10,000 are also available. Those sponsors will be recognized on the wall by the memorial.”

On March 16, 2023, Republican Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders officially enacted SB307 (Act 310) from the Regular Session of 2023, authorizing the establishment of a sacred “monument to the unborn” within the esteemed grounds of the Arkansas State Capitol. SB307, which was introduced by Senators Kim Hammer, Tyler Dees, and John Payton along with Representative Mary Bentley, created the Monument to Unborn Children Display Fund to receive gifts, grants, and donations for the monument’s construction and long‑term maintenance.

The memorial would be the first of its kind on any state capitol grounds in the nation and will serve as a lasting reminder of Arkansas’s commitment to protecting life following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, said Singleton.

Arkansas has been named the “No. 1 Pro-Life State in America” for six consecutive years by Americans United for Life (AUL). Each year, AUL releases its Life List, which ranks states from most to least pro-life based on their existing life-affirming policies, such as a state’s protections for life from conception to natural death. This includes laws on abortion, legal recognition of preborn children, bioethics, assisted suicide and end-of-life patient care, and healthcare rights of conscience. Additionally, states are recognized for their life-affirming cultural and political landscape and momentum.

For more information or to contribute to the Monument to the Unborn project, visit artl.org/monument or contact Arkansas Right to Life at 501-663-4237.

The post Arkansas Will Install “Monument to the Unborn” to Mourn Babies Killed in Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Omar and Cissy did not abandon their daughter in suffering. They walked with her through years of pain, fear, treatment, and heartbreak. They knew hospital corridors. They knew medical appointments. They knew the terror of suicide attempts. They knew the agony of watching a child, once active and bright, become trapped inside an illness no parent could cure by love alone.

No decent person should speak of them with contempt. But love does not make every decision right, and that is the hard truth this story demands.

Iris began struggling around age thirteen. Pain came first: back pain, head pain, stomach pain. Then came the isolation of the pandemic, the depression, the fear, and the loss of ordinary teenage life. She later received a diagnosis of functional neurological disorder, or FND, along with severe depression.

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

FND can cause real and frightening symptoms: paralysis, seizures, tremors, weakness, pain, and wheelchair dependence. It is not imaginary. It is not attention-seeking. It is a genuine disorder involving disrupted communication between the brain and body.

But FND is not a death sentence; there are countless stories of those who have broken through the fog, the pain, and now lead pain-free lives.

Iris was nineteen when she chose to stop eating and drinking. She entered hospice under palliative sedation and died on March 1, 2026, in Bergen op Zoom, Netherlands. Her parents believed they were honoring her wishes. They believed they were showing mercy. Their grief deserves compassion.

The decision itself should alarm every person who still understands the duty to protect the vulnerable.

A young woman with severe depression and FND did not need society to ratify her despair. She needed more time. She needed protection from the false finality of her darkest thoughts. She needed a culture willing to say, “You cannot see hope right now, so we will hold hope for you.”

Instead, she was allowed to die by dehydration and sedation.

This is not only a private tragedy. It is a public warning.

Young people listen to stories like this. They draw conclusions. A teenager with depression may hear, “If the pain lasts long enough, death becomes acceptable.” A young adult with FND may hear, “If I lose mobility or feel trapped in my body, my life may no longer be worth fighting for.” A suffering child may hear, “Maybe the people who love me most should let me go.”

Such a message is dangerous. It is deadly. It is the opposite of compassion.

The pro-life answer must stay firm and humane.

We relieve pain. We treat depression. We invest in long-term care. We support exhausted parents. We build better programs for FND. We refuse to abandon the young to their worst moment. We tell every suffering person, “Your life still has meaning. Your pain is not the whole truth. Your future deserves protection.”

The Dekker family’s grief is real. Their love for Iris was real. But this path was wrong.

Iris should have been surrounded by a society that fought harder for her life than her illness fought against it. She should have heard, again and again, that FND can improve, depression can lift, and the future can return in ways she could not yet imagine.

Her story should break our hearts.

It should also warn us.

When a culture calls death by dehydration “choice,” it teaches the young to mistrust hope. When it calls surrender “mercy,” it abandons the vulnerable. When it allows a nineteen-year-old in psychiatric suffering to die, it fails the most basic test of civilization.

We must do better.

We must say to every Iris still with us: you are not a burden. You are not beyond help. You are not your diagnosis. You are not your darkest thought.

Stay.

We will fight for you until you can fight again.

LifeNews.com Note: Raimundo Rojas is the Outreach Director for the National Right to Life Committee. He is a former president of Florida Right to Life and has presented the pro-life message to millions in Spanish-language media outlets. He represents NRLC at the United Nations as an NGO. Rojas was born in Santiago de las Vegas, Havana, Cuba and he and his family escaped to the United States in 1968.

The post Despair is Not Mercy: Why Omar and Cissy Dekkar Were Wrong appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The ruling reverses a lower court decision and directs issuance of a preliminary injunction preventing Senate Bill 510 from taking effect while the legal challenge proceeds.

The 1985 pro-life law required notification to a parent or guardian — or judicial approval — for abortions involving unmarried, unemancipated girls under 18. It never fully took effect due to prior court injunctions but became potentially enforceable after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The court sided with Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion challengers, ruling the law unconstitutionally vague.

Justices focused on the phrase “personally notified,” finding it failed to provide clear guidance to physicians on how notification should occur or what constitutes a “reasonable effort.”

Nevada Right to Life sharply criticized the decision.

“The Nevada Supreme Court betrayed Nevada’s children,” the group said in a statement. “It struck down Senate Bill 510, a 40-year-old law that asked one simple, humane thing: before a doctor performs an abortion on a girl under 18, her parents deserve to know. Not to give permission. Not to give consent. Simply and solely to know.”

The organization stressed the law’s protective intent for vulnerable minors.

“Think about who this law protected. A 13-year-old doesn’t walk into a clinic alone. Sometimes she is brought there by the man who got her pregnant. Sometimes that man is her abuser. Sometimes he is a trafficker trying to make the evidence of his crime disappear before her family ever finds out. SB 510 was not a veto for parents. It was a lifeline. And for girls in dangerous homes, a court bypass was still available. This law left no one behind.”

Nevada Right to Life called the court’s reasoning flawed.

“The Court’s excuse for striking it down is shameful. The justices looked at the phrase ‘personally notified,’ admitted in their own opinion that it has a plain and clear meaning, and then struck the law down anyway. They invented a long list of imaginary problems that might someday confuse a doctor. This was not honest legal analysis. It was a conclusion dressed up as reasoning. Courts across the country have upheld laws exactly like this one for decades. Not a single one was ever thrown out because adults could not understand the words ‘notify the parents.’ Nevada’s justices chose to be the exception, and they chose it for a reason.”

The group also faulted Attorney General Aaron Ford’s defense of the law.

“And they were made bolder by an Attorney General who refused to truly fight. Aaron Ford is running for governor. Planned Parenthood, the same organization that went to court to kill this law, has endorsed his campaign. His office gave up key legal ground, dropped arguments in the middle of the case, and never once stood before the Court and said what needed to be said: this law exists because girls are being exploited, and their parents have a right to know. That is not a defense. That is a surrender with paperwork.”

The ruling does not permanently invalidate the law but keeps it blocked pending further proceedings.

Abortion remains legal in Nevada up to 24 weeks under a 1990 voter-approved initiative. Pro-life supporters argue the decision prioritizes abortion over family involvement and the safety of young girls.

ACTION: Aaron Ford’s office needs to be flooded with calls and complaints until he cannot ignore the people of Nevada for one more minute. Tell him exactly what he needs to hear: Stand with parents, not with predators of little girls!

The post Nevada Supreme Court Blocks Parental Notification Law on Abortion appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Some states have tried to protect unborn children and their mothers but others have expanded abortion access. Wealthy abortion funds paid to transport women to abortion-friendly states, while abortionists in “Shield Law” states mailed abortion pills into states where abortion was restricted, flouting their protective laws.

Abortion advocates argue their efforts to circumvent pro-life laws and pay for women to leave their states to have abortions elsewhere have largely defeated pro-life laws. They claim abortions continue rising because their money, political influence, and new delivery systems have kept the abortion industry thriving.

And there are even some, claiming to be part of the pro-life community, who agree. They say that abortion advocates have demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the new pro-life measures being put in place. They go so far as to insist that anything less than a full punitive ban prosecuting women as well as abortionists will not save lives.

These claims of abortion increases, however, rely heavily on questionable counting methods and estimates and assumptions that abortions occurred simply because abortion pills were sold or shipped.

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

Evidence from multiple studies—including abortion-sympathetic sources—shows births increasing in states that enacted strong pro-life protections.

So, despite what you may have heard, pro-life laws are saving lives.

Replacing direct counts with uncertain estimates

Before the 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe, two primary organizations tracked abortions in America: the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute. The CDC relied on yearly state health department reports, while Guttmacher regularly surveyed abortion providers directly.

Guttmacher’s figures were generally considered more careful and far more complete. Its data showed abortions peaking at 1.6 million annually in 1990 before falling over the next two decades to 862,320 in 2017. The trend reversed at that point as more and more abortions were done with mifepristone, the abortifacient pill approved in 2000. The numbers again approached one million annually by the time of Dobbs.

After Dobbs, however, counting methods changed dramatically.

The Society of Family Planning (SFP), sampling its own membership, launched its own monthly “We Count” survey to measure abortion activity after the leak and release of the Dobbs decision. Extrapolating from these samples, SFP reported abortions falling in the months immediately after Dobbs but then rebounding. Their estimates attempted to count women traveling across state lines and used sales data on chemical abortions shipped to women into pro-life states to project abortion pill usage.

Facing pressure from SFP’s numbers, Guttmacher abandoned its older comprehensive provider survey. Instead, they began estimating monthly abortion totals using samples of abortionists they had worked with before, extrapolating from historical caseloads.

Using these less precise methods, Guttmacher estimated 1,053,650 abortions in 2023, 1,123,920 in 2024, and 1,126,470 in 2025–well above its last pre-Dobbs estimate of 930,160 abortions in 2020.

But these figures rely heavily on unproven assumptions.

In adopting this new methodology, Guttmacher was ignoring how Dobbs fundamentally altered the abortion landscape. Clinics closed, providers retired, some moved to different states. Others joined high volume mega-clinics with multiple abortionists or shifted to “telemedicine” or online abortion-pill operations. In such radically changed circumstances, historical caseloads become unreliable predictors.

As investment firms warn, “past performance is no guarantee of future results.”

The problem with abortion pill estimates

A major weakness in current abortion estimates involves mailed abortion pills.

Both Guttmacher and SFP use sales and shipment data from abortion-pill providers in “Shield Law” states to estimate abortions occurring in pro-life states. (“Shield Laws” supposedly “shield” abortionists in abortion-friendly states from prosecution for shipping abortion pills to women in states where these are not legal.)

But abortion pills sold are not necessarily abortion pills used or abortions completed.

For example, a woman may order pills but never use them. She may miscarry naturally before taking them. She may take the drugs but fail to abort, later undergoing another abortion procedure (potentially leading to double-counting). Some women, following the advice of some sellers, may purchase multiple pills simply to store for possible future use.

Others begin chemical abortions and then seek abortion-pill reversal (APR) treatment after regretting their decision. In those cases, the same pregnancy could be counted simultaneously as both an abortion and a live birth.

These situations clearly occur, but no one currently knows how often. Yet abortion advocates frequently treat pill sales and completed abortions as interchangeable, thereby inflating the counts.

Why higher numbers matter politically

Abortion advocates have strong political incentives to produce and promote rising abortion numbers.

Their message is that even strong pro-life laws cannot stop them because they have found clever ways around these legal restrictions. Their clearly intended message is these laws don’t work and that pro-lifers should stop trying.

Unfortunately, some pro-lifers seem to have accepted and repeated the pro-abortion narrative. As noted above, they claim any measures short of an absolute ban and the full prosecution of both women and their abortionists will be ineffective.

Beyond being extremely unpopular and impossible to pass or enforce, this would represent a dramatic break from the historic pro-life position. Pro-lifers historically have generally viewed women as abortion’s second victims and emphasized compassion, grace, and support rather than punishment. We believe this will save more lives in the long run.

Prosecuting women would also create enormous legal and practical problems. Distinguishing induced abortions from miscarriages would be extraordinarily difficult, while aggressive investigations would likely increase public sympathy for aborting women, the abortion industry and hostility toward the pro-life movement.

The evidence that lives are being saved

The strongest evidence that pro-life laws work comes not from industry abortion counts but from birth data.

Texas first showed increased births after early pro-life protections took effect before Dobbs. Since then, national studies have reinforced the same conclusion.

A major study published 4/15/25 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), authored by researchers generally sympathetic to abortion, found more than 22,000 “excess births” (births “above expectation”) in 2023 in states enforcing pro-life protections.

Other studies, such as one from the 3/11/26 issue of Economic Inquiry, obtained similar results. They showed a 1.6% increase in the overall birth rate in states with full protective laws.

This is critical. Abortions missing from these states totals do not merely reflect women traveling elsewhere for abortions or hidden chemical abortions “off the grid.” These are children being born who likely would have been aborted had legal conditions remained unchanged.

Even researchers critical of pro-life laws acknowledge that these policies resulted in thousands of additional births annually.

That means lives are being saved.

Challenges remain

In conclusion, abortion advocates continue working aggressively to undermine pro-life protections through interstate travel, telemedicine, and abortion-pill distribution. These efforts subvert state efforts to protect the unborn, but do not limit their effectiveness completely.

The answer, though, is not prosecuting women or making enforcement increasingly punitive. Such policies would almost surely backfire politically and morally.

More effective approaches target abortion providers directly. Measures such as the Abortion Pill Provider Liability Education (APPLE) Act would allow women harmed by abortion pills—or their families—to sue providers for damages involving physical injury, emotional trauma, or death.

Such policies place responsibility where it belongs: on abortion providers who promote and profit from these dangerous drugs and often minimize their risks.

The abortion industry will continue seeking ways around laws protecting unborn children. But even imperfect laws do make a difference. The evidence increasingly shows that pro-life protections save lives.

The numbers saved are smaller than we’d like, but there are thousands of babies alive today because of these laws. That is no small achievement.

LifeNews.com Note: Randall O’Bannon, Ph.D., is the director of education and research for the National Right to Life Committee.

The post Despite What You May Have Heard, Pro-Life Laws Are Saving Lives appeared first on LifeNews.com.

“We suspected this was happening, but it was very interesting to see that the drug companies advertising are willing to blatantly advertise that they are breaking the FDA’s regulations. So they’re not shy about it,” said Dr. Ingrid Skop, CLI vice president and director of medical affairs, on “Washington Watch.” “Instead of ‘safe, legal and rare,’ the abortion industry has now become [about] ‘abortion access over safety.’ They don’t care if the women become collateral damage.”

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

To compile the damning information, Steupert did not even need to engage in any risky, undercover operations. She “just went online, as any woman in crisis might do. And she easily was able to find companies that would sell these drugs,” shared Skop. “Many of them are outside of the formal U.S. medical system. That means these are unvetted drugs being sent in from international distributors. That is against the law.”

“Federal law prohibits the mailing of abortion drugs within the formal U.S. healthcare system and the importation of unapproved abortion drugs outside of the formal healthcare system,” stated the CLI report. “However, the federal government hasn’t enforced these laws.”

Skop argued the FDA is failing to enforce even the extremely relaxed guidelines it adopted during the Biden administration. “Really, the American public ha[s] been given a bait and switch by the FDA,” she said. “The FDA … continues to require prescribers of mifepristone to have the, quote, ‘ability’ to rule out an ectopic [pregnancy], to accurately determine gestational age, to provide surgery when these drugs fail — and they fail frequently. And yet the fact that they have the ability, it doesn’t mean that the FDA is holding them accountable.”

For example, the CLI report “demonstrated that … there’s very little screening … going on,” added Skop. “There is no confirmation of who is ordering the drugs. So, none of the companies required an ID to determine whether the person who said they were a woman seeking an abortion was actually that woman.”

One consequence of the lack of screening is that men are able to obtain the abortion drugs and force them upon women, whether as abusers or traffickers.

A recent report by Family Research Council compiles numerous resulting cases of abuse. “We have instances of men sprinkling the abortion drugs on their girlfriends’ pancakes,” listed Mary Szoch, director of FRC’s Center for Human Dignity, on “Washington Watch.” “We have instances of men holding a gun to their girlfriend and telling her she’ll have to take the pills. We have … men who are slipping it into women’s hot chocolate, others who have put it in their water bottles.”

“These are situations that are 100% enabled by the current way that the laws surrounding the mailing of abortion drugs are not enforced,” she added, “The FDA regulations surrounding abortion drugs are not anywhere near safe — for anyone, certainly not safe for the unborn child, but also not safe for the mother.”

Indeed, disregard for women’s safety seems to characterize the entire process. “It’s been demonstrated on a number of occasions, [when] women with obvious risk factors ordering these drugs, that the companies are still willing to send them the drugs without verifying that they’re not at risk for a catastrophic complication,” said Skop. “Even the screening that should be done to rule out an ectopic pregnancy … which can be potentially deadly — this is not being done.”

Furthermore, Skop described “active ways” in which abortion drug manufacturers were “suppressing the detection of complications.” Complications from mifepristone include severe bleeding, retained tissue, and infection — conditions which could send a woman to the emergency room. “They tell women, if they should seek care at an emergency room, not to say that they took the drugs, to pretend like they’re having a miscarriage,” Skop explained. “The abortion industry tries to create fear, implying that they’ll be prosecuted, which of course they won’t. But, of course, that ties the doctor’s hands. He doesn’t even know what he’s dealing with.”

As if any further proof were needed that abortion drug manufacturers cared little for the safety of women, Szoch described what happened when federal courts briefly halted the practice of sending abortion pills through the mail to pro-life states like Louisiana. “We saw the abortion industry say … if that goes into effect … they would instead mail misoprostol,” she said.

Misoprostol is used as the second dose in the abortion pill regimen, to expel the dead baby after mifepristone takes its life, although misoprostol has other legitimate uses. “The problem there is,” when used for abortion, “the complications for mothers go through the roof when misoprostol is used alone,” Szoch continued. “There’s an increased risk of hemorrhaging, of uterine rupture, and an increased risk of the unborn baby being born alive and dying very sadly, shortly thereafter.”

Abortion drug manufacturers also deviate from the FDA guidelines on the proper gestational age. The FDA has only approved mifepristone for use up to 70 days’ gestation. However, CLI found that only 19% of suppliers followed the FDA guidelines, while some 64 sellers “were willing to go past the FDA’s recommended use of these drugs … even months higher,” said Skop. “When a woman is further in the pregnancy, failures are much, much higher,” and many have “retained tissue that often requires surgery in emergency conditions.”

And “this was merely looking at the websites. This didn’t really demonstrate whether they even hold themselves to the standards that they say they do,” Skop qualified. “For example, if Aid Access says they’ll mail the pills out up until 14 weeks … if a woman who knew she was 20 weeks pregnant lied and said she was 14 weeks along, there’s no demonstration that they’ll verify” the gestational age.

“The abortion industry loves to claim that abortion is health care,” observed FRC Senior Fellow Jody Hice. “But is it being treated in reality as anything remotely resembling health care?”

Not even close, Skop answered. “This study particularly demonstrates that abortion is occurring absolutely outside of the health care system,” she said. When women used to walk into brick-and-mortar facilities, abortion retained many of the trappings of health care, even though “many women did not receive an adequate informed consent.”

“But that’s gone by the wayside,” said Skop. Now, the abortion drug manufacturers are dispensing pills without any medical evaluation — without even an identity check. In fact, “they are actually promoting to women to get the drugs in advance of pregnancy.”

Sadly, “many of these women do take those drugs immediately, and they regret it almost immediately,” Skop continued. With the current lack of safeguards, “they’re not even giving themselves a chance to think about, what do they really want to do? I think all of us can see how evil this ideology is.”

“It’s not especially surprising to me that operators online who are designed to be what the late Pope Francis often called ‘hitmen,’ who provide a drug that kills an innocent unborn child — it’s not surprising to me that those people don’t care about the mother, either,” Szoch reflected. “What is surprising, though, is that the American people have stood idly by and watched while this happens, allowing our legislators and our administration to not actively step in and do something to put an end to this.”

“I think largely the American people are in the dark there. I mean, there’s groups like us trying to get the word out, but most people are not aware that this is taking place,” Hice hypothesized. “Certainly, this is an area … the administration could step in.”

“We would love to see the enforcement of the Comstock Act,” Szoch suggested. “The Comstock Act prohibits the mailing of any drug that is intended to cause an abortion. And this is a long-standing federal law. It’s obviously being violated all over the country, but where it’s most egregious … is when it’s [vendors in] pro-abortion states who are mailing abortion causing drugs into pro-life states.”

Secondly, she added, pro-lifers want “the FDA to revoke the approval of mifepristone altogether.”

“Obviously, we are working for the day when no unborn child is killed through abortion,” declared Szoch. “That is obviously our ultimate goal. And we will do whatever we can to save lives along the way.”

LifeNews Note: Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand, contributing both news and commentary from a biblical worldview. Originally published by The Washington Stand.

The post Abortion Pill Sellers are Putting Women’s Lives at Risk With Dangerous Drugs appeared first on LifeNews.com.