Santangelo’s late-term Washington Surgi-Center is one of about a dozen abortion clinics across the nation that offers abortions into the third trimester, and for any reason.

Despite overwhelming evidence of egregious activities and medical neglect over many years, Santangleo has avoided any real punishment or discipline, left to continue killing viable children — and at least one woman — at will.

In 2010, his late-term abortion clinic killed Rebecca Carey Charland. Instead of being referred to a specialist after pregnancy complications that resulted in the death of her unborn child, she was tragically referred to Santangelo. According to the lawsuit later filed by the family, Santanglo not only ignored Charland’s complicated medical condition, he also failed to call 911 in a timely manner when she began to deteriorate.

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

In August 2022, pro-lifers secured the remains of 115 babies that had been killed at Santangelo’s clinic. At least five of those babies, later known as the “D.C. Five,” appeared to have been nearly full-term when they were killed.

More recently, Santangelo was forced to shutter his clinic in September 2025 amid a lapsed facility license. At the time, the nearly 70-year-old abortionist was also reportedly experiencing severe health problems.

The clinic never seemed to recover. At the writing of this article, a list of licensed DC ambulatory centers found on the DC Health website and updated on June 25, 2026, still does not include the Washington Surgi-Center. The clinic website is also defunct.

Now the DC Health website also shows Santangelo’s license has been expired for nearly a week.

“We can only hope that Santangelo is done killing in DC. Failing health, recent complaints and disciplines, and maybe even the guilt of brutally dismembering innocent children may all be weighing on him — as it should,” says Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “You can’t spend your life devoted to destroying innocent human life and expect to never feel the weight of it. Abortionists who have repented and left the industry can attest to this truth.”

Public records show that Santangelo is still licensed in Maryland, and it’s entirely possible that he may try to relocate his business. His DC license is also eligible for renewal, but it seems his infamous clinic has remained a defunct operation, and public scrutiny of his dark deeds has only grown in the last several years.

“We pray he quits abortion altogether,” adds Newman. “Perhaps a break from such a vile industry would create space for Santangelo to finally seek forgiveness in Christ. In the meantime, we will certainly celebrate one of the most abortionists in this country no longer holding a license in DC — even if only temporarily. Every day he isn’t killing is a win for the babies.”

LifeNews Note: This article was originally published by Operation Rescue, a leading pro-life, Christian activist organization dedicated to exposing abortion abuses, demanding enforcement, saving innocent lives, and building an abortion-free America. The author, Sarah Neely, is Chief Operating Officer for Operation Rescue.

The post Late-Term Abortionist’s Medical License Expires, Might be Done Killing Babies appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The state leaders, all Democrats, are all committed to killing every possible unborn baby. They pretend—their fingers are always crossed behind their backs—that they don’t support abortion for any reason (or no reason) throughout pregnancy yet will never allow any legal protection at any stage of an unborn baby’s life. (Indeed, they have their eyes set on passing a bill to embed abortion further by adding an amendment to the state Constitution. More about that below.)

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

And, being Democrats, they will make believe they kind of, sort of, in a way, maybe support giving some tiny medical assistance to abortion survivors. But, being Democrats, they never back their vague assurances with any concrete proposals but rather fight protections tooth and nail.

But there is hope. The legislature is as evenly divided between Democrats and Republican as you could possibly imagine. The Democrats hold a one-seat margin the Senate. How about the House?

In the 2024 elections, “Pro-life candidates gained just enough seats to create a tie in the state House—after one pro-life candidate won her race by a mere 160 votes!” according to Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL).  “That tie has blocked abortion supporters (for the time being) from passing additional extreme measures, including a constitutional amendment bill aiming to enshrine unlimited abortion in the Minnesota Constitution.”

So, when MCCL asked the question “Does your vote really matter?” the evidence should be superabundantly obvious.

Alas, “The problem: 30 percent of pro-lifers don’t vote!”

MCCL continues

A significant number of pro-life Minnesotans don’t consistently vote in elections. It’s enough to change the outcome in lots of races—and more than enough to determine the balance of power in St. Paul [the state capital]. If all pro-lifers voted, they would swing elections, defeat abortion extremism, and save many, many more unborn children. …

What’s at stake in Minnesota? If abortion advocates regain full control of the state legislature, they could advance the proposed abortion-up-to-birth constitutional amendment to (almost permanently) prevent protections for unborn babies at any stage of pregnancy. By contrast, if pro-life candidates win, they can begin restoring commonsense support for pregnant women, babies, and other innocent human lives.

The conclusion—” The reality: Life-or-death policies in Minnesota often hinge on a single legislative race decided by a small number of votes”—does pertain to one state.

But what doesn’t pertain just to Minnesota is the truth that there are races all over the nation that will be decided by razor-thin margins.

In just four months, we will go to the polls where the fate of unborn babies will rest in the hands of the 30% or 20% or 10% of pro-lifers who this time will pull the lever for life.

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. He frequently writes Today’s News and Views — an online opinion column on pro-life issues.

The post 30% of Pro-Life Americans Don’t Vote. This Must Change appeared first on LifeNews.com.

“This decision is an important affirmation that the government cannot force pro-life organizations to choose between remaining faithful to their deeply held convictions and providing for their employees,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “This liberty is not reserved for organizations the government happens to favor. The First Amendment protects every American’s right to live and work according to sincerely held beliefs.”

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

“We congratulate Oregon Right to Life, James Bopp, Jr., and his legal team for their steadfast defense of these fundamental constitutional principles,” Tobias continued. “This ruling strengthens protections not only for Oregon Right to Life, but also for other faith-based and pro-life organizations that should never be compelled by the government to violate their conscience.”

The ruling follows litigation brought by Oregon Right to Life challenging Oregon’s abortion insurance mandate. The organization was represented by James Bopp, Jr., National Right to Life’s General Counsel and lead counsel in the case. The court concluded that Oregon’s law violated the First Amendment by favoring certain religious organizations over others through its system of exemptions, relying in part on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission.

The post Court Rules Oregon Pro-Life Group Doesn’t Have to Pay for Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The Little Sisters have spent more than a decade defeating government efforts to force them to provide contraceptives in their healthcare plan or face tens of millions of dollars in fines. That winning streak features three Supreme Court victories, including a 2020 ruling in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, which upheld the federal conscience rule that protects the Sisters from the mandate. But Pennsylvania and New Jersey are still fighting to strip the Little Sisters of that hard-won protection. Last year, a federal district court sided with the states, teeing up the Little Sisters’ latest chance to beat the government in court.

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

“This is our God-given mission,” said Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor. “For nearly 200 years we have welcomed the elderly poor and dying into our homes, and with the population of seniors rapidly growing we cannot allow a government lawsuit to stop us from carrying out our mission. Pennsylvania and New Jersey can keep fighting if they want. All we want is to keep serving.”

Fifteen years ago, the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a federal mandate as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This mandate requires employers to provide contraceptives like the week-after pill in their health insurance plans, including some that can cause abortion. The original mandate exempted plans covering tens of millions of people for administrative convenience but did not provide a religious exemption for groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns who have served the elderly poor for nearly 200 years. After the Little Sisters won protection against the federal government at the Supreme Court in 2016 and in a new federal rule in 2017, Pennsylvania and New Jersey sued to take away that protection.

“For fifteen years, government officials have stepped into the ring with the Little Sisters and gotten pummeled every time,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and lead attorney for the Little Sisters. “You’d think Pennsylvania and New Jersey would know better by now—but some bureaucrats are just gluttons for punishment. We’re confident the court will deliver yet another victory protecting the Little Sisters’ ministry to the most vulnerable.”

In response to the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision protecting the Little Sisters, the federal government issued a rule in 2017 that exempted groups like the Little Sisters from the mandate. However, more than a dozen state governments in multiple cases immediately sued over the rule, attempting to strong-arm the Little Sisters into either providing contraceptives or paying tens of millions in fines. The Little Sisters once again took their case up to the Supreme Court, and in 2020 secured another victory in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania. But Pennsylvania and New Jersey have refused to drop their efforts to take away the Little Sisters’ protection in the lower courts. That case is now at the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ministries like the Little Sisters receive broad support from a majority of Americans. Recent data from Becket’s Religious Freedom Index shows that nearly 80% of Americans support the freedom for people to run their business or religious organization according to their religious beliefs.

The post Little Sisters of the Poor Fight in Court to Block Obamacare Abortion Mandate appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The BMA, the professional association and trade union representing and negotiating on behalf of all doctors in the UK, agreed at its Annual Representative Meeting last month that any legislation around assisted suicide should specify that “assisted dying is not a medical treatment”, and that it “must not alter the fundamental principles of the NHS”.

Motions passed at the Meeting also agreed that any assisted suicide legislation must be opt-in, to ensure that “no doctor would be required to have any involvement” with assisted suicide. The organisation affirmed that any assisted suicide legislation must explicitly protect the rights of medical students and doctors to not be forced to participate in any aspect of assisted suicide.

Click Follow below to like the LifeNews Facebook page!

With regard to funding, the BMA agreed that any assisted suicide regime should be required to be funded separately from core NHS practices, and “must not result in any de-prioritisation or reduction of funding for core general practice, mental health, or palliative care services”.

Support of assisted suicide Bill unlikely under Burnham’s leadership

The reallocation of funding from other services, especially palliative care, has also been a concern of the likely next Prime Minister, Andy Burnham.

The New Statesman reported on Tuesday 16 June that Andy Burnham may oppose a new assisted suicide Bill, and would not welcome its return.

The article stated that, should Burnham become Prime Minister, “it is hard to see a world in which he would welcome this Labour Party-dividing legislation”.

Burnham has said he supports the principle of assisted suicide, but has set a precondition that hospices must be “properly funded and sorted out” before any law change.

Burnham previously stated, “[In] terms of the implementation of it, I would say there should be a kind of requirement that the hospices of this country get properly funded and sorted out before that law change comes in”.

He added that palliative care is not “in the strong position it should be in”, stating that, “Consequently, you can’t have this law change with an underfunded hospice movement”.

Given the end-of-life care crisis in this country, Burnham’s precondition, that palliative care is properly funded before assisted suicide is introduced, has plainly not been met. It therefore seems unlikely he will support the revived assisted suicide Bill.

Burnham’s position is similar to that of Wes Streeting, the former Health Secretary who came out in support of Burnham’s bid for leadership. Streeting is also not opposed to the principle of assisted suicide, but has said that end-of-life care is not in a condition where people at the end of their life would have genuine freedom to choose an assisted death. On this basis, the former Health Secretary opposed the Leadbeater Bill at both Second and Third Readings.

However, the Minister for Care, Stephen Kinnock, who voted in favour of the Bill at Second and Third Readings, told the Lords Select Committee that, if the Bill passed, it would have “financial implications” and that there would need to be “some reprioritisation” of funding to accommodate this.

The BMA’s requirement that no funding for other services is de-prioritised, therefore, seems unlikely to be met under the returning assisted suicide Bill, which Lauren Edwards MP has suggested will be identical to the Leadbeater Bill, which failed to pass in the previous parliamentary session.

Dr Andrew Green, BMA medical ethics committee chair, said that the BMA, speaking on behalf of doctors who are advocates for their patients, “will not stay silent on an issue that will significantly impact the profession and those we care for”.

Green said there are “key issues that [the BMA] believe must be addressed if the law does change”, reiterating that more needs to be done to “ensure [doctors] are supported and protected alongside their patients” on the issue of assisted suicide.

Return of Bill will cause division in the Labour Party at the worst possible time

After Lauren Edwards announced she would bring the Bill back, several Labour MPs took to social media to point out that bringing back the assisted suicide Bill would fuel the flames of current tensions in the Labour Party, causing further division, at the worst possible time. These MPs include Adam Jogee, David Smith, Rupa Huq and Kirsteen Sullivan. Other MPs, including Ashley Dalton, Emma Lewell, Antonia Bance, Allison Gardner, Daniel Francis, Uma Kumaran, Ian Byrne, Scott Arthur and Andrew Pakes, alongside Labour Peers and former MPs Luciana Berger and Barbara Keeley, all also expressed serious concern about the return of the Bill.

Still more Labour MPs reposted the concerns of their colleagues, including Chi Onwurah, Jess Asato, Mary Glindon, Melanie Ward and Patrick Hurley, as well as former Labour rebel Karl Turner, who predicted defeat for a new Bill, making the division this Bill will cause pointless. Former Labour MPs Diane Abbott and Rosie Duffield also publicly opposed the return of the Bill.

Given the ongoing turmoil in the Labour Party and the fact that 42% of Labour MPs (160, including several Cabinet Ministers) voted against the Bill at Third Reading in 2025, many MPs will be dismayed at the return of a controversial Bill that will cause division and distract from other priorities, while also leading to a backlash from constituents, especially when it will likely fail.

A similar Bill has recently been rejected in Scotland, where, strikingly, 85% of Labour MSPs (17/20) opposed the Bill. Many new intake Labour MPs likely voted for the Westminster Bill previously because of the support of Keir Starmer early on in their parliamentary careers.

Given only 12 MPs would need to change their minds for the Bill to be defeated, and any new vote would likely become a referendum on the use of the Parliament Acts as well as on the flawed Bill itself, this strongly suggests that the Bill is on track to be defeated.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “The BMA are right to note that assisted suicide is not a medical treatment and that no doctor should be forced to assist a patient in ending his or her own life”.

“Many groups of experts, doctors, medical professionals, disability organisations, and Parliamentarians have all made clear that the Bill is unsafe. Forcing this unamended version of the Bill into law using the Parliament Acts, as some of its supporters intend, would create legislation that places lives at risk, directly against the recommendations of these experts”.

“MPs must vote against this Bill at Second Reading on 11 September”.

LifeNews Note: Republished with permission from Right to Life UK.

The post British Medical Association Agrees “Assisted Dying is Not a Medical Treatment” appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Taylor Plemmons faced severe complications throughout her pregnancy after already enduring three miscarriages following the birth of her first child, Scottie.

At 10 weeks, doctors discovered a large subchronic hematoma that caused hemorrhaging. She experienced three more hemorrhages.

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

At 19 weeks, the baby was diagnosed as severely growth restricted. The following week, measurements showed her below the 1st percentile.

Doctors warned Plemmons as she left appointments that her baby would probably die: “We’ll probably lose a heartbeat before you’re back at the next appointment.”

They continued telling her, “We were going to lose her, and that we would not get to have a child at our side again.”

But, Plemmons refused to accept the prognosis.

“I just kept telling my husband, ‘I don’t accept that. That’s not going to be our story,’” she said. “It sounds probably cuckoo, but I just I knew that she was going to be OK.”

She added, “I was absolutely terrified. I could not fathom losing another child.”

When preeclampsia progressed to the life-threatening HELLP syndrome, doctors determined delivery was necessary.

“They told me to save my life and baby’s life, I had to have her,” Plemmons said.

On Jan. 12, Plemmons gave birth at 29 weeks and 1 day gestation.

Baby Margot Louise Plemmons weighed just over 1.7 pounds. She was placed in the neonatal intensive care unit, where lung development was the primary concern.

Five days later, Plemmons held her daughter for the first time.

“When I finally got to hold her and just feel her body breathing, for the first time in a really long time I just breathed, I exhaled,” she said.

A video of that moment has gone semi-viral, receiving more than half a million likes.

Margot is doing well on the lowest settings of a CPAP machine for breathing support. NICU staff describe her as feisty with a developing personality. She faces a long stay while working to gain weight, as her body prioritizes brain and heart development after months in survival mode.

Through prayer and an unwavering refusal to give up on her child’s life, Plemmons has seen her daughter survive against the odds.

Margot’s fight for life continues as a powerful reminder of the strength found in a mother’s hope and commitment to her unborn child.

The post Doctors Said Her Baby Wouldn’t Survive, But This Mom Never Gave Up Hope appeared first on LifeNews.com.