Early voting begins on September 18th.

Every single vote matters because a simple majority will defeat the Unlimited Abortion amendment. No one who cares about protecting vulnerable lives can skip this vote. Not only are unborn children’s lives at risk but also the women we love.

The dangerous and vague language of the actual amendment will create an environment of grave risk for minor girls because it threatens Virginia’s Parental consent law.  It places every pregnant woman in harm’s way by removing requirements ensuring that only licensed Virginia doctors perform abortions or dispense abortion drugs.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

No matter what we think about legal abortion, no one should be comfortable with that sort of risk. It also removes any way to hold accountable those who cause injury, coerce, or harm a woman in the process. Mothers and babies both need protection under the law. Voting No is the only way we can ensure that.

Ballot question 1 is an example of how pro-abortion officials are hoping to successfully deceive the public. The wording is sly and deceptive.  It is written in  a manner to hide the actual intention of the amendment that was passed in the General Assembly. The sole purpose of the language of the resolution is to allow unregulated abortion up to birth. It is not about maternal health, post partum care, or any other female health concern.

So, make a plan to be a part of making history,  Gather your family, your friends and your co-workers. Get out and vote. Vote Early and take no chances that you might miss this moment!

LifeNews Note: Olivia Gans is the director of the Virginia Society for Human Life.

The post Virginia Should Vote No on Question1, Oppose Abortions Up to Birth appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The women are being represented by the nonprofit A Better Balance and the law firm Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel. A Better Balance was the chief organization advocating for the passage of the PWFA.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

The group drew attention to the widespread problem of pregnant workers, particularly low-wage ones, being pushed out of employment after requesting accommodations such as being able to sit during work, having time off to attend prenatal appointments, and being exempted from tasks involving physical activities that could put them or their babies at risk.

Details of the Lawsuit

According to the lawsuit:

All four [women] asked Amazon for basic pregnancy-related accommodations so they could keep doing their jobs. Amazon denied them basic modifications the law recognizes pregnant workers regularly need, even in uncomplicated pregnancies: Bathroom breaks. An extra 15-minute break. Sitting instead of standing…

Amazon applied its unlawful policy of demanding medical paperwork for every pregnancy-related accommodation request, no matter how basic. This is no small ask: In early pregnancy, it can take weeks to schedule a doctor’s visit or obtain a medical note…

Then, when Plaintiffs took medically-necessary breaks or absences to get off their feet, visit the doctor, or go to the emergency room, they were punished. Amzon deducted their limited bank of unpaid time off. Soon enough, they had depleted that limited bank of “unpaid time off,” and Amazon threatened to terminate them.

Amazon went on to fire all four plaintiffs.

Pregnant Employees’ Experiences “Not Unique”

According to the lawsuit, the four women’s experiences at Amazon were “not unique.” The lawsuit claims that in 2025 alone, A Better Balance received dozens of calls from other pregnant Amazon employees saying they were being denied accommodations such as breaks, chairs, and time off for doctor’s appointments.

Inimai Chettiar, president of A Better Balance, said, “Denying a pregnant worker a stool, a lighter workload, or a bathroom break is a violation of federal law — it’s that simple.”

According to Debbie Greenberger, a partner at ECBAWM who is representing the workers:

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act became law years ago. Amazon should have well-established policies to comply with federal law. Under its policies, pregnant workers are not protected, and they face retaliation for exercising their rights. Too often, pregnant women working at Amazon warehouses have to risk their health or their pregnancy just to do their jobs.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and took effect in 2023. During the pro-abortion Biden administration, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, then under Democratic control, passed regulations requiring the PWFA to apply to abortion, birth control, and in vitro fertilization as well.

This led to lawsuits from pro-life states seeking to block these changes. In 2025, a federal judge ruled against the abortion provision, striking it down. So, the PWFA no longer requires employers to accommodate abortion requests.

However, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, now running for Senate, filed a lawsuit to strike down the PWFA entirely on the grounds that some members of Congress voted for its passage remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Trump administration is continuing this lawsuit. This may be an attempt to set a precedent for striking down other laws passed during the pandemic.

Unfortunately, if the Trump/Texas lawsuit against the PWFA is successful, it will be much harder for pregnant workers to hold corporations accountable for refusing them accommodations, discriminating against them, or firing them.

Not the First Lawsuit for Amazon

This isn’t the first time Amazon has been accused of failing to comply with federal labor laws regarding accommodations. In November 2025, A Better Balance filed a separate class action suit alleging that Amazon unlawfully penalized disabled warehouse workers who requested accommodations.

LifeNews Note: Sarah Terzo covered the abortion issue for over 13 years as a professional journalist. In this capacity, she has written nearly a thousand articles about abortion and read over 850 books on the topic. She has been researching and writing about abortion since attending The College of New Jersey (class of 1997) where she minored in Women’s Studies. This article originally appeared on Sarah Terzo’s Substack. You can read more of her articles here.

The post Amazon Refused Accommodations, Fired Pregnant Workers appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The Safe Haven for Abandoned Newborn Infants Act, commonly known as Daniel’s Law, allows a person to safely surrender a newborn less than 60 days old without prosecution for abandonment when the baby is taken to an approved safe-haven location while staff members are on duty.

Safe-haven locations include hospitals, law enforcement agencies, fire stations, emergency medical services stations, and houses of worship.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

South Carolina Citizens for Life strongly supported passage of Daniel’s Law, which became the fifth effective pro-life law enacted by the General Assembly since 1990. Today, South Carolina has 16 laws protecting unborn children and medically fragile members of our human family from premature death by abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.

According to a South Carolina Department of Social Services press release issued September 9, officials at McLeod Regional Medical Center in Florence County accepted the infant after he was safely surrendered under Daniel’s Law.

“The African American baby boy was born on September 7, 2026, and weighed 6 pounds, 12 ounces, and was 21 inches long at the time of birth,” DSS reported. “The infant was safely surrendered at McLeod Regional Medical Center in Florence County. Under the Safe Haven for Abandoned Babies Act, a medical evaluation was completed, and the infant has been placed in a licensed DSS foster home.”

Daniel’s Law provides a safe, confidential alternative for parents who believe they cannot care for a newborn while protecting the life and well-being of the child.

LifeNews Note: File photo.

The post South Carolina Safe Haven Law Saves 87th Baby From Infanticide appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Statistics compiled by the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) revealed that there were 30.4 million single men aged 18 to 39 in 2025 in the U.S., amounting to almost 10 million more bachelors than there were in 2000 (20.7 million). IFS further estimated that there were 15 million more single men than husbands in this age group in 2025. In 2000, there was only a 2.6 million difference.

This rise in male singleness has translated to fewer married men. Over the last 25 years, the number of wedded men has plunged from 18.1 million to 15.4 million, a 15% drop.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Experts say the sinking numbers are extremely troubling for the future prospects of the country in a host of ways. Sociologists like IFS Fellow Brad Wilcox point out that single men are “more likely to be lonely, prone to deaths of despair and unhappy,” adding that “it’s never good for a society to have large numbers of unattached, dispirited and unhappy young men.” Data shows that unhappiness is rising among single men, from 16% in 1980 to 23% in 2020. Comparatively, the rate of unhappiness among married men has stayed steady, hovering between 8-7% over the same time span.

A large part of this is likely due to the fact that the number of men attending college and remaining in the job force are dropping. Data from 2024 showed that one million fewer men were in college compared to 2011. As for employment, Gen Z men aged 16-24 are particularly exiting the labor market, with data from July showing a 13% drop compared to numbers from 2000. This has led to many young men being less likely to attract a spouse through stable employment, owning a car, and other signs of financial steadiness.

High rates of male unemployment are closely tied to the decline in recent years of high-paying blue-collar jobs in the manufacturing sector, which are traditionally dominated by men. Over the last four years, job openings in manufacturing have nosedived, causing many men to settle for low-paying gig jobs or exit the workforce altogether.

Donna Turner, an educational psychologist in Indiana, told The Washington Times that economic instability is “playing a major role” in why so many men are remaining single. “When wages are unstable, and housing feels out of reach, many men feel they cannot qualify as husbands. Women are understandably reluctant to tie their futures to economic precarity.”

Economists say that a significant factor in seeing a revival in marriage and birth rates will depend on working-class men recovering financial stability. This can be encouraged through more public investment in skilled trades, experts say. “Not every young man needs to go for a four-year college degree,” Siri Terjesen, an associate business dean at Florida Atlantic University, emphasized. “America can make investments in apprenticeship and skilled trades programs that will lead to good economic outcomes.”

Another crucial factor in rejuvenating marriage among young men will also likely hinge on their increasing religiosity in recent years. In April, Gallup reported a sharp rise in men aged 18-29 who reported that religion was “very important” to them, climbing from 28% in 2022 to 42% in 2025. Data shows that religious men marry at higher rates than non-religious men.

Still, experts like David Closson, who serves as director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council, say that a turnaround in the prospects for men will depend on deep cultural renewal centered on biblical principles.

“At the deepest level, the rise in single men reflects a culture that has rejected God’s design for marriage, sex, and family,” he told The Washington Stand. “Scripture presents marriage as a good gift from God and calls men to mature into sacrificial responsibility, becoming the kind of husbands who love, provide for, and lead their families faithfully. Our culture has increasingly detached sex from covenant, delayed adulthood, and taught men to prioritize autonomy over obligation, all of which work against marriage.”

Closson added that churches will serve a central role in renewing a culture of marriage and discipling single men. “The most important thing churches can do is recover a robust biblical vision of manhood and marriage and intentionally disciple young men toward holiness, courage, work, self-denial, and readiness for family life. Churches should not idolize marriage, but they should once again speak clearly about it as a normative and deeply good calling for most Christians.”

LifeNews Note: Dan Hart writes for the Family Research Council. He is the senior editor of The Washington Stand.

The post Number of Single Men in U.S. Reaches Record High appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Paula Devlin made the comments in a CBS Saturday Morning interview clip.

Devlin explains how she viewed the trial as a chance to strike out for social justice.

“We knew this would be a turning point … that could change something to make it better for other women,” Devlin said in the clip.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Lindsay Clancy juror Paula Devlin, auditioning here for the role of the village idiot, explains how she viewed the trial as a chance to strike out for social justice.

“We knew this would be a turning point…that could change something to make it better for other women.” pic.twitter.com/tR2BD2qwUU

— Dinesh D’Souza (@DineshDSouza) September 13, 2026

Devlin was among the jurors who favored finding Clancy not criminally responsible after Clancy was tried in the deaths of her three children. The case ended in a mistrial when the panel could not reach a unanimous verdict.

According to many who views the clip on social media, Devlin’s words come across as an admission that the jury box had been used for a social-justice project.

The quoted statement does not mention the children who were brutally murdered, it describes the trial as a chance to change conditions for “other women.”

That is the inversion at the center of the case. A murder trial is supposed to decide whether a defendant is guilty of killing specific human beings. It is not a vehicle to send a political message.

Devlin’s language treats the verdict as a precedent for mothers, not an accounting for the children who died. Jurors are instructed to apply the law to the evidence. They are not instructed to create a turning point.

If Devlin “knew” the case “could change something to make it better for other women,” she was describing a political hope, not a finding about whether Clancy was criminally responsible.

Three children are still dead. No juror’s theory of social justice restores them. A system that hears a triple killing and asks first what the outcome will do for “other women” has already moved the children to the edge of their own story.

The post Lindsay Clancy Juror Admits Using Vote to Push Social Justice for Women appeared first on LifeNews.com.

While many Americans are horrified that Clancy used a postpartum depression defense and wasn’t held accountable for killing her three children, America’s biggest killer of children is fundraising off of exactly that.

Planned Parenthood of Northern California is raising money with a concert about postpartum depression days after a Massachusetts jury deadlocked in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the mother charged with killing her three children while her defense cited postpartum psychosis.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

The event, “Night-Time in the Fourth Trimester: Planned Parenthood Benefit Concert,” is set for Oct. 24 at the Unity Center of Walnut Creek, California. Organizers describe it as the world premiere of a song cycle by Jodi Goble and Caitlin Vincent “about the postpartum experiences that have gone unsung … until now.”

The listing says the concert benefits Planned Parenthood of Northern California and “its 90,000 annual patients, whose access to reproductive healthcare is currently at risk.”

The page says new mothers in the United States are “critically underserved” in the three months after childbirth, a period it calls the “fourth trimester.”

“One in 7 women reports suffering from postpartum depression, while as many as 3 in 4 experience milder symptoms, often called ‘the baby blues,’” the listing says. It calls the work “the first-ever song cycle written to give voice to the struggles of the postpartum period.”

The listing does not mention Clancy, but the timing of such an event is in extremely poor taste.

The timing still places a Planned Parenthood fundraiser built around a mother’s postpartum struggle in the same stretch of news as a case that has forced a national argument over whether postpartum depression is an excuse for killing one’s children.

Clancy, 36, a former labor and delivery nurse, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the Jan. 24, 2023, deaths of 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan in Duxbury, Massachusetts. She has not disputed that she killed the children.

Plymouth Superior Court Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial Sept. 4 after the jury deadlocked. Clancy remains charged while Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz decides whether to retry the case.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued that postpartum psychosis and prescribed medication left Clancy unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her behavior to the law. Prosecutors said she acted intentionally and with planning, cutting how she got her husband to leave the house sand Googled how much time she would have to kill the children.

In response to Reddington’s request for a pardon, President Donald Trump said Sunday the case is a “state situation” and called it “very sad.”

“There’s no winner there. There’s no win no matter what you do. Three children are dead,” Trump said.

A president cannot pardon state murder charges. A pardon would not restore Cora, Dawson and Callan.

Pro-life writers have called that reaction a moral inversion: compassion for a mother who killed her children, with far less public focus on Cora, Dawson and Callan themselves.

Journalist Caitlin Flanagan wrote that “what began as admirable compassion for a woman who says she was driven by mental illness to commit the world’s greatest form of evil has turned into something strange: an almost exultant, fan-like celebration of Lindsay Clancy.”

Paul Batura of Focus on the Family argued that a culture already trained to treat a child’s death as secondary to a mother’s distress — first in abortion, then in cases like this one — struggles to say plainly that killing children is wrong even when the mother is ill. Postpartum mental illness is real, he wrote, but “an individual can be mentally ill and still criminally responsible.”

Abby Johnson, CEO and founder of And Then There Were None and ProLove Ministries, who herself experienced postpartum psychosis after the birth of one of her children, said the intense identification with Clancy reveals a deeper moral distortion long cultivated by abortion advocacy.

“I am not arguing that compassion for Lindsay is wrong…What concerns me is something different. We have become extraordinarily practiced at looking at a dead child and asking first what his or her mother was going through. And abortion taught us how to do that. For decades, the defense of abortion has depended on shifting the moral center of the story away from the human being who dies and toward the human being experiencing the crisis. The mother’s suffering becomes the justification. But suffering does not make killing good,” Johnson wrote.

Johnson stressed that mental illness may affect legal culpability without changing the moral nature of the act.

“Mental illness may affect a person’s culpability for an act. It does not change the moral nature of the act itself,” she said. “Cora was five years old. Dawson was three. Callan was eight months old. Their mother killed them.”

Johnson argued that culture has spent more than 50 years training itself to begin with a mother’s fear, financial stress, lack of support or depression until the child’s humanity nearly disappears—first in abortion and now in cases like this one.

“We can demand better postpartum mental-health care in their names. We can acknowledge that their mother may have been gravely ill. We can pray for Lindsay,” Johnson wrote. “None of that requires us to forget where the greatest irreversible harm occurred. Three children went to bed on January 24, 2023, in the home where they were supposed to be safest. They will never get to grow up.”

Cora, Dawson and Callan cannot be allowed to become peripheral to their own story.

The post Planned Parenthood Fundraises on Postpartum Depression Days After Lindsay Clancy Trial appeared first on LifeNews.com.