Emergency personnel responded to a 911 call at his Capitol Hill home in Washington, D.C., reporting cardiac arrest or chest pains. CPR was initiated on scene, and he was transported to George Washington University Hospital, where he died.

Graham, who represented South Carolina in the Senate since 2003 and was running for reelection, had recently returned from a trip to Ukraine.

His office said he died from a “brief and sudden illness,” without providing further details.

Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.

Throughout his career, Graham fought hard against abortion, consistently championing legislation to protect unborn children, particularly those capable of feeling pain. He repeatedly introduced the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which sought to ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy — and later advanced a national 15-week limit — arguing that such measures aligned America with most developed nations and reflected scientific reality.

“The science is clear – a child at fifteen weeks is well-developed and is capable of feeling pain,” Graham stated in April 2024 while pushing back against efforts to leave abortion policy solely to the states. “I will continue to advocate that there should be a national minimum standard limiting abortion at fifteen weeks because the child is capable of feeling pain, with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.”

Graham emphasized that the pro-life cause transcended geography.

“I respectfully disagree with President Trump’s statement that abortion is a states’ rights issue,” he said. “Dobbs does not require that conclusion legally and the pro-life movement has always been about the wellbeing of the unborn child – not geography. … A child at 15 weeks sucks his thumb, feels pain in California and New York as much as South Carolina.”

He strongly opposed what he described as extreme Democrat positions allowing abortion with few restrictions.

In a 2023 statement criticizing Democratic legislation, Graham declared: “Like most Americans, and the rest of the civilized world, I oppose late-term abortion. I opposed it before Dobbs and I oppose it after.”

He continued: “Senate Democrats have introduced and voted in support of legislation that would allow taxpayer-funded abortion, on demand, up to the moment of birth. This is an extreme position and one that would put the United States in line with the policies of China and North Korea rather than the rest of the civilized world. … America does not need, and the unborn cannot afford, to have two major parties who support no restrictions on abortion up to the moment of birth. The unborn need a voice in Washington. It is up to us to provide it.”

When reintroducing the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in 2021, Graham said: “There are only seven countries that allow wholesale abortions at the 20-week period, including China and North Korea. The United States should not be in that club. I don’t believe abortion, five months into pregnancy, makes us a better nation. America is at her best when she’s standing up for the least among us, and the sooner we pass this legislation into law, the better. We are on the right side of history.”

Pro-life advocates praised his consistency in defending the unborn, even as the issue shifted after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision returned greater authority to the states.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement following his death:

“Lindsey Graham was a true leader. Lindsey did the hard, often unseen work of accomplishing what has lasting value,” he said. “Lindsey Graham was not just a vote; he was a voice, a voice for the defenseless. He used his influence to advance the cause of life. When others grew quiet, Lindsey stepped forward and gave his colleagues a way to speak – clearly, courageously, and compassionately about the dignity of every human life.”

The post Pro-Life Senator Lindsey Graham Dies at 71, He Fought Hard Against Abortion appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Reading the Bible

Not everyone sees living and growing children in the womb as “human beings.” In addition, some individuals who attend church on a regular basis claim to be unsure of the status of the unborn/pre-born because they have been taught, or are under the belief, that the Bible does not mention nor make reference to the topic of “abortion” (note that this is an extremely literal interpretation, which assumes that every act not specifically mentioned as prohibited is necessarily allowed).

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!

Both Protestants and Catholics have been known to make these arguments, although because the language of the Catechism of the Catholic Church provides an answer that is unquestionably clear (see, for example, CCC 2270-2275), for Catholics this argument necessarily falls completely flat. Nevertheless, if we are focused only on the language found in the Bible, and whether you are Catholic or Protestant, we as Christians are all fully aware that each and every word was carefully chosen (by God) for our instruction, and that the language which was intentionally selected by Our Creator is not arbitrary.

Because lawyers are trained to read laws and regulations and to consider language very carefully, and given that as a result of their training they tend to attach significance to every word that is used (and also to appreciate words that could have been used, but were not), their background can be helpful in conducting a careful reading of the Bible. In order to address the Bible’s position on abortion, and with the help of his legal education, Mr. Green shared the following instructive and enlightening points which are summarized below.

Food for Thought

In Luke 1:36, when the archangel Gabriel is speaking to the Virgin Mary, it was announced to her that Mary’s relative (Elizabeth) had also “conceived a son” (i.e., John the Baptist). It is important to note that it was a “son” that was conceived, and not a future son, a potential son, or soon-to-be son.

Later, in Luke 1:43, when the Virgin Mary visits her relative Elizabeth, Elizabeth refers to Mary as “the mother of my Lord.” Here it is important to observe that the reference is to the “mother” of her Lord, as opposed to the future mother of her Lord.

In Genesis 25:22, the Bible says in reference to the brothers Jacob and Esau (who were the sons of Isaac and Rebekah and the grandsons of Abraham) that “…the children in her womb jostled each other…” The reference to the not-yet-born Jacob and Esau struggling as “children” against one another could not be any clearer. Moreover, Genesis 25:24 also clarifies that “there were twins in her womb,” and not potential twins, future twins, or soon-to-be twins.

In the Book of Judges it is noted that Sampson, a legendary Israelite warrior, became a Nazarite (i.e., an individual set apart for divine service) even before he was born. Specifically, in Judges 13:5 it says “…for this boy is to be consecrated to God from the womb.”

This passage without question indicates Sampson to be a person from the womb, and that he was a “boy” (i.e., a person) prior to his birth. This fact cannot be dismissed as mere poetry or hyperbole, as Sampson’s mother was commanded (in Judges 13:4) to follow the dietary rules of the Nazarites so that Sampson would be permitted to follow these same rules while in utero.

It’s All Greek to Me

With regards to the New Testament, the original language was written in Koine Greek (the common dialect that was spoken across the Eastern Mediterranean from roughly 300 BC to 300 AD). When analyzing translations into English (or any other language), it must be acknowledged that there is more to it than just vocabulary alone, as sometimes words can be used in either uncommon or common ways. Words can often mean the same thing, but the context and the mindset of the speaker/writer must also be taken into consideration.

In his presentation, Mr. Green found the original Greek wording from which the English translation to be both relevant and instructive, for as it turns out, when considering the language used to describe pre-born/unborn and newborn infants in its original text, its intended meaning becomes quite clear.

As used in the original version of the New Testament, the Greek word βρέφος (brephos) denotes a human being at the earliest stages of life, and the term includes both prenatal life (i.e., the pre-born/unborn) and postnatal life (i.e., newborns and very young infants).

Because this word speaks to: 1) life in the womb; and 2) life in the cradle without distinction, when used in Luke chapters 1 and 2 (Luke 1 references the unborn child and Luke 2 references the child in the manger), it confirms one continuous human reality from conception to infancy. The point to be made here is that the original language used in the Bible is consistently clear in the above instance and does not leave any room for doubt.

More Food for Thought

Given time constraints, only a limited amount of time was available for Mr. Green to provide illustrative examples in his presentation. Had there been more time, the discussion might also have referenced the Gospel of Matthew, which is also instructive. Specifically, in 1:18 the Virgin Mary is found with “child,” in 1:20 it is noted that this “child” has been conceived in her, and in 1:23 the language indicates that she shall be with “child.”

It should also be appreciated that our own Declaration of Independence follows the same logic as the Bible. It clarifies that people are not “born” equal, but rather are “created” equal (i.e., equal from conception, or possibly earlier from God’s unique perspective). Furthermore, even the U.S. Supreme Court—in the original Roe v. Wade decision—acknowledged that if personhood for the unborn were to be legally established under the laws of the United States “…the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed…”

The Bible’s Absence of a Reference to Abortion: An Explanation

From a logical, as well as a legal perspective, the above examples thus explain why there is no need for the Bible to specifically reference the practice of abortion. That is, since we are all considered as children, babies, sons/daughters, and/or persons while in the womb, then there is no need to impose a separate and unique law that instructs mothers and fathers not to end our lives during our temporary period of dependency.

Moreover, it is also true that God, who views us from outside of both time and space (which were concepts that He created exclusively for us), would not be expected to differentiate people from a timing perspective, but rather would necessarily be expected to view both the born and the pre-born as complete human beings and/or persons.

In all cases, we can appreciate that God has applied His will and taken the affirmative action to form a soul and to create a unique life, with His own intentional and specific (albeit mysterious) purpose in mind.

I wish to thank Samuel Green for collecting and sharing his enlightening and eye-opening thoughts on the true status of the pre-born/unborn from a Biblical perspective. His organization, Reason for Life, encourages church leaders to recognize the importance of sharing the truth, provide resources, and deliver persuasive messages that use the Bible, science, and logic to show that we must value and protect pre-born/unborn children.

For those who might be interested, please click here to access various resources, including Pro-life sermons, flyers for pastors, and other Pro-life training materials.

The post The Bible Doesn’t Endorse Abortion, Christians Must be Pro-Life appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The United Nations established World Population Day in 1989 after the publicity surrounding the “Day of Five Billion,” observed on July 11, 1987. The stated purpose was to draw attention to the “urgency and importance” of population issues.

But the population establishment had already spent decades defining the birth of children as a global problem to manage.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!

Now the nations that embraced that message face a crisis that no slogan can conceal. They do not have too many children. They have too few. There are fewer people.

Schools are closing. Rural communities are disappearing. Workforces are contracting. Pension systems strain under the weight of aging populations. Governments that once financed campaigns to reduce births now offer money, housing, tax relief, subsidized fertility treatment, and parental benefits in desperate attempts to persuade their citizens to have children.

Now, the demographic winter has arrived.

The United Nations did not begin with a worldwide population-policy apparatus. Its early work centered largely on collecting census information, studying mortality and migration, and producing demographic estimates.

That changed during the 1960s and was largely propelled by Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, and the lingering Malthusian mindset among UN elites. The solution was fewer people.

Political leaders, wealthy foundations, population-control organizations, and international bureaucracies increasingly portrayed population growth, especially in poorer nations, as a threat to economic development, food supplies, political stability, and the environment.

In 1965, the United Nations Economic and Social Council called for the expansion of the UN’s population work. In 1967, the UN created the United Nations Trust Fund for Population Activities. It began operations in 1969 and later became the United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA.

UNFPA itself says the fund arose from “growing global concern about demographic change” and the development of new family-planning technologies. Its officers visited 84 developing countries within the fund’s first two years. You know, the countries where all the black and brown people live. The plan was to have fewer people.

And this marked a fundamental shift. Population questions no longer remained a matter of observation. They became the subject of programs, financing, political pressure, national planning, and international intervention.

When the United Nations began facing pushback to its population-control agenda, it adopted a new tactic. It softened the language without abandoning the goal.

At the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, explicit demographic targets gave way to phrases such as “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” women’s empowerment, and individual choice. The new vocabulary sounded less coercive and more humane. The machinery, however, grew larger. Cairo preserved and expanded the global network of family-planning programs, reproductive-health initiatives, international financing, data collection, and political oversight first built under the 1974 population plan.

The language grew softer, but its reach and intensity widened. The goal remained fewer people.

The United Nations now insists that population policy concerns individual rights rather than population control. Yet the institutions, funding streams, measurements, and advocacy networks grew from an era when powerful actors openly sought lower fertility.

The goal remained fewer births; they just gave it a more digestible turn of phrase.

The results now surround us.

Across the developed world, fertility has fallen far below the replacement level of roughly 2.1 children per woman.

The European Union recorded a fertility rate of only 1.34 in 2024, the lowest in its history. EU nations recorded 3.55 million births that year, compared with 6.8 million in 1964. In six decades, the annual number of babies born in the European Union has nearly fallen by half.

Japan has warned the United Nations repeatedly about the consequences. Its population has declined for years. Nearly three in ten Japanese citizens are 65 or older. The country confronts labor shortages, abandoned communities, shrinking schools, pension pressures, and rising health-care costs.

Japanese representatives have urged the international community to pay greater attention to low fertility after decades in which UN institutions concentrated on population growth.

South Korea presents an even more severe warning. They report a fertility rate of 0.72 in 2023. At that level, a generation of 200 people would produce roughly 70 children and only about 20 grandchildren. That does not describe a temporary fluctuation. It describes demographic disappearance and future financial collapse.

China offers the most bitter example. For decades, its government enforced a brutal one-child policy through coercive birth restrictions, forced abortions, sterilizations, fines, and surveillance. Now China faces population decline, rapid aging, a shrinking workforce, and too few young people to support its elderly population.

A government cannot spend decades teaching its people that children constitute an economic liability and then reverse the damage with a new slogan.

Nations across Europe and Asia now scramble to reverse the collapse.

South Korea has spent enormous sums on cash grants, parental leave, childcare, housing assistance, fertility treatment, and monthly child allowances.

Hungary offers subsidized family loans, mortgage assistance, tax exemptions, and debt forgiveness linked to the birth of children. Poland created large monthly child benefits. Italy has expanded family allowances and childcare assistance. Japan funds childcare, parental leave, education assistance, and programs intended to make marriage and family life more attainable.

China has moved from punishing larger families to promoting them.

These new policies may ease the burden on parents, and governments should support mothers, fathers, and children. But financial incentives alone cannot repair a culture that has spent generations treating fertility as a danger, motherhood as an obstacle, fatherhood as optional, and abortion as a social solution.

The population crisis did not begin when birth rates appeared on a multinational spreadsheet. It began when societies stopped seeing children as gifts. And a nation cannot eliminate millions of its children and then express surprise when its population ages out.

The unborn child represents more than future economic output. His value does not depend on whether a government needs another worker, taxpayer, soldier, or caregiver. He possesses value because he is human.

World Population Day should no longer glorify the management of human numbers. It should stand as an indictment of the ideology that taught nations to fear their own children.

The world’s gravest demographic error was not that too many people were born. It was that too many societies forgot that every child is a gift, every birth is a promise, and no civilization can survive once it loses the will to welcome life.

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 On World Population Day, the World Faces an Underpopulation Crisis appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The legislation, Assembly Bill 2540, would mandate that community colleges with student health centers in the Golden State provide access to abortion pills beginning in 2029 if the state Legislature appropriates funds, according to CalMatters.

While proponents claim the bill could bolster access for community college students grappling with transportation, cost, privacy or insurance barriers to obtaining off-campus abortion care, campus health center directors argue that many California community colleges simply lack the necessary resources, staffing or clinical capacity to provide the service, the outlet reported.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!

“Existing law requires, on and after January 1, 2023, a student health center on a California State University or University of California campus to offer abortion by medication techniques, as specified,” according to the bill’s summary. “Existing law establishes the College Student Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund to be administered by the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls and continuously appropriates the moneys in that fund to the commission for specified activities related to providing abortion by medication techniques at student health centers.”

The legislation would “require a student health center on a California State University or University of California campus, on or before January 1, 2028, to promote awareness of the services for abortion by medication techniques that the student health center offers, provide information on those services to students, and post the availability of those services on its internet website.”

This bill would also mandate California community colleges with student health centers, “upon appropriation by the Legislature, to, on and after January 1, 2029, offer access to abortion by medication techniques, promote awareness of those services, provide information on those services to students” and also post about the availability of those services on their websites.

“Medication abortion readiness includes, but is not limited to, assessment of each individual clinic to determine facility and training needs before beginning to provide abortion by medication techniques, purchasing equipment, making facility improvements, establishing clinical protocols, creating patient educational materials, and training staff,” per the bill text. “Medication abortion readiness does not include the provision of abortion by medication techniques.”

Democratic California State Assemblymember Catherine Stefani, who is leading the legislation, claimed during an April 7 Assembly Standing Committee on Health hearing that the bill aims to close a “critical gap” by “ensuring that community college students, one of the most diverse and economically vulnerable populations in our state, have the same access to care as their peers at four year institutions.”

“This legislation would allow services to be provided specifically on college campuses that have existing health centers via telehealth or through contracted providers,” Stefani continued.

Stefani also said in an April 6 statement that California “has led the nation in protecting reproductive rights, and this bill is the next step in making those rights a reality for all.”

Stefani’s office did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

“Healthcare is a basic need for any human,” Faculty Association of California Community Colleges Executive Director Stephanie Goldman told CalMatters. “And of course, abortion access and abortion is a healthcare issue.”

An estimated 185,700 total abortions were provided by California clinicians in 2025, according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute. Moreover, 71% of clinician-provided abortions in the state were conducted via medication during 2023, the study shows.

Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a Sept. 26, 2025 X post that “with abortion rights and reproductive freedom under assault by politicians across the country, California stands firmly by a woman’s right to choose.”

“Our defense of these fundamental rights is unshakeable,” Newsom added.

LifeNews Note: Ireland Owens writes for Daily Caller. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.

The post California Bill Could Force Community Colleges To Hand Out Abortion Pills appeared first on LifeNews.com.

A report from Lifesitenews said the Legislature’s SB5 proposed an amendment to the state constitution demanding that “every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management and infertility care.”

That “shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed,” the plan said.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!

Analysts said the plan was written to appear “moderate,” but actually probably would provide for abortionists to justify virtually any procedure.

But the report noted, “Legislatively amending the constitution in Delaware requires clearing supermajority votes in two successive general election cycles. The bill passed the Senate in March 2025, on a 15-6 supermajority vote. However, Live Action notes that the state’s 2025–2026 legislative session ended on June 30 without the bill receiving the necessary vote in the state House, requiring proponents to start over in the next session.”

Abortion already is effectively legal in the state up to birth.

The same issue likely will be pending before voters in multiple states this fall.

LifeNews Note: This column originally appeared at WorldNetDaily.

The post Delaware Measure for “Right” to Kill Babies in Abortions Fails appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Michigan amended its employment law to re-define “sex” discrimination to include “the termination of a pregnancy.” With the injunction, Right to Life of Michigan and Pregnancy Resource Center can recruit and hire employees who share these organizations’ pro-life views and who agree to refrain from engaging in conduct contrary to those views without the threat of severe penalties. These organizations will also not have to risk enforcement actions by Michigan for declining to offer abortion coverage in their insurance plans. This allows the organizations to continue to advocate for their pro-life views and to serve women and families in need consistent with their beliefs.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!

“The government can’t force pro-life organizations to sabotage their own beliefs by requiring them to employ staff who endorse abortion—a decision that harms women and ends innocent lives,” said ADF Senior Counsel Bryan Neihart, who argued before the court on behalf of the pro-life groups. “The First Amendment protects the right of these organizations to hire employees who can carry out and share the message of hope and joy associated with the gift of life. For these pro-life groups, the messenger matters. The court made the right decision by protecting their constitutional freedom to hire employees who share their views in word and deed so that they can express messages consistent with their beliefs.”

In its injunction ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan noted that the two pro-life organizations are likely to succeed in their challenge to the laws, but asked Michigan’s Supreme Court to determine how the law applies to the organizations. Once that court decides, the case will move forward again in federal court.

Right to Life of Michigan offers life-affirming education and advocates for pro-life policies across the state. Pregnancy Resource Center provides women with medical care, resources, and support structures to help them through their pregnancies. Both hire like-minded individuals who share their convictions about the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. They depend on their employees to promote their pro-life views to the public and to encourage other staff.

ADF attorneys note that both organizations have refrained from including their pro-life mission statements in job postings and have even received some applications from people who identified themselves as “pro-abortion.”

The post Court Stops Michigan From Making Pro-Life Group Hire Abortion Activists appeared first on LifeNews.com.