LifeNews.com

Canada’s MAID Program is Euthanizing People Who are Not Even Dying

Alex Schadenberg — Thu, 29 Oct 2026 19:27:46 +0000

Canada’s euthanasia law allows people to be killed by euthanasia:

Even when they do not have a terminal condition,
If they have a terminal condition they can be approved and killed on the same day,
It permits euthanasia for people who have a treatable condition but are refusing treatment,
It permits people who are motivated to die, based on a mental illness (disorder) if they have another medical condition,
It permits euthanasia of people who are incompetent, if the person had previously been approved to be killed by euthanasia.
and more.

At a recent presentation, a woman challenged the information that was provided. She insisted that “she had done her research” and that MAiD (euthanasia) was only being done to people with terminal illnesses, that there is a 10-day waiting period, and that euthanasia was prohibited for people with mental illnesses.

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

She insisted that the facts were being exaggerated.

EPC opposes all euthanasia and assisted suicide. We oppose killing people. But my response to this person is – “I wish you were right.”

If euthanasia were limited to terminally ill people, or if there was still a 10-day waiting period or if mental health concerns prevented a person from being killed by euthanasia, at least there would be fewer deaths.

Canadian euthanasia facts.

The Supreme Court of Canada ordered Canada’s parliament to legalize a limited form of euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Carter decision (2015). The Carter decision was an activist decision that used imprecise language to allow medical professionals in Canada to kill people. At that time I stated:

Will abuse of the law occur? How could it not? The Supreme Court states that the person must have “a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability).” This is an incredibly subjective statement. Many people have a grievous and irremediable medical condition. Indeed, under this definition people with a significant disability may now feel pressured, by friends or the medical system to “choose” euthanasia.

Sometimes I wish that I was wrong. In this case history has proved me to be right.

Bill C-14 became law on June 17, 2016 legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide. Bill C-14 created an exception in the Criminal Code for medical and nurse practitioners. The original euthanasia law, more accurately described as medical homicide, permitted physicians and nurse practitioners to kill a person, if the person was competent adult who was capable of consenting, who asked to be killed, was over the age of 18 and “suffering” in a manner that the person found to be unacceptable and their natural death was reasonably foreseeable. The law did not define the phrase “natural death is reasonably foreseeable“. Bill C-14 did include a 10-day waiting period but the doctor or nurse practitioner could waive the 10-day waiting period

In June 2016 I was very concerned about the fact that Bill C-14 provided full legal immunity to physicians and nurse practitioners who participate in euthanasia. There was and is no possible way to prosecute a doctor, even in the most egregious circumstances.

Soon after legalization there were court cases launched, the first in British Columbia and the second one in Québec to challenge the requirement that a person’s natural death must be reasonably foreseeable.

In September 2019, during the federal election, The Quebec Superior Court Justice Christine Baudouin struck down the requirement that a person be terminally ill before they qualify for euthanasia in Canada in the Truchon decision. The federal and Québec governments did not appeal the Truchon lower court decision therefore enabling the decision to become a precedent in Québec.

It must be noted that Justice Baudouin who promulgated the Truchon decision, should have recused herself from the case since she was intimitely connected to the euthanasia lobby. Remember, Truchon is a Québec lower court decision and is technically only a precedent in Québec.

The Truchon decision led to the federal government passing Bill C-7 on March 17, 2021. Bill C-7 went beyond the requirements set-out in the Truchon decision in several ways.

Bill C-7 removed the requirement in the law that a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable to qualify for euthanasia enabling people who are not terminally ill to be killed by euthanasia. The Truchon decision only required this amendment to the law.
Bill C-7 permitted a doctor or nurse practitioner to lethally inject a person who is incapable of consenting, if that person was previously approved for euthanasia. This contravened the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision which
Bill C-7 removed the ten-day waiting period when a person’s natural death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable enabling a person to die a same day euthanasia death on a “bad day.”
Bill C-7 created a two track law. A person whose natural death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable has no waiting period while a person whose natural death is not deemed to be reasonably foreseeable has a 90 day waiting period before being killed by lethal injection.
Bill C-7 (originally) falsely claimed to prevent euthanasia for people with mental illness. After Canada’s Senate demanded that euthanasia for mental illness be added to the law, parliament specifically approved euthanasia for mental illness but added a two-year moratorium (March 17, 2023) to enable parliament to create “rules” concerning euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria.

Later, euthanasia for mental illness, as a sole criteria, was delayed by parliament until March 17, 2024 and then it was delayed again until March 17, 2027.

Euthanasia based on mental illness is happening in Canada, but the law requires that the person must also have another medical condition.

Bill C-7 went much further than the Quebec Superior Court Truchon decision and now that parliament has approved euthanasia for mental illness alone, Bill C-7 is much worse.

Parliament introduced Bill C-41 on October 27, 2026 to prevent euthanasia based on mental illness as a sole criteria but it also approves euthanasia based on advance request.

LifeNews.com Note: Alex Schadenberg is the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and you can read his blog here.

The post Canada’s MAID Program is Euthanizing People Who are Not Even Dying appeared first on LifeNews.com.

100,000 Signatures Gathered to Repeal Abortions Up to Birth in Massachusetts

Steven Ertelt — Thu, 29 Oct 2026 17:32:56 +0000

A citizen-led coalition said Wednesday it has collected nearly 100,000 signatures to suspend and potentially repeal a new Massachusetts law permitting abortions through all nine months of pregnancy.

The Compassionate Care Coalition announced at the Massachusetts Citizens for Life Truth About Choice memorial on the State House grounds that it submitted 99,962 signatures to city and town clerks, well above the 49,716 required to suspend the law.

Final certification by the secretary of the commonwealth is pending and due by Nov. 8. Once certified, the law would be suspended pending a November 2028 statewide vote on full repeal.

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

The memorial represents the 49,450 babies who lost their lives to abortion in Massachusetts in 2024. Speakers shared personal stories of hardship during pregnancy and the support that helped them choose life for their children.

Gov. Maura Healey signed abortion up to birth into law on August 10. The measure allows elective abortion up to birth on healthy women and healthy, viable infants. It removes the longstanding safeguard requiring that complex, potentially dangerous late-term abortions take place in hospitals.

Under the new law, the Department of Public Health will no longer be required to report late-term abortion data, even though abortions after 24 weeks rose from 41 in 2022 to 84 in 2023 and 99 in 2024. Massachusetts taxpayers are currently forced to fund abortions through the state’s Medicaid program.

“When it seems impossible to reach and serve vulnerable, hurting women, remember that truth paves the road of possibility,” said Myrna Maloney Flynn, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life and vice chair of the Compassionate Care Coalition. “If you ever think you’re powerless when it comes to protecting the unborn, think again.”

The coalition includes Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Massachusetts Family Action, Massachusetts Family Institute, Democrats for Life of America and the Cape Cod Pro-Life Alliance. It launched the veto referendum under the state constitution’s process allowing voters to challenge a newly enacted law. The effort received support from the state’s four Catholic bishops, parishes that hosted signature-gathering events, and Protestant churches across the Commonwealth.

“The people of Massachusetts did not ask for abortion through all nine months, and in a matter of weeks they made that clear,” said Sam Miele, chairman of the Compassionate Care Coalition and director of Massachusetts Family Action. “We are grateful to every volunteer, pastor and parish staffer who carried a clipboard. Because of them, voters will have the final say.”

Michael King, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said, “Every human life, born and unborn, is sacred and worthy of protection. Chapter 188 strips away the most basic protections for the most vulnerable among us. Thanks to more than 99,000 signatures from across the Commonwealth, Massachusetts voters will now weigh in on this law at the ballot box in 2028. We’re proud to stand with the Compassionate Care Coalition, and we’re grateful to every person who values the sanctity of life and helped us reach the finish line.”

Coalition volunteers stepped forward because they believe viable unborn children deserve legal protection and women facing difficult pregnancies deserve compassionate support and life-affirming alternatives, not pressure to endure the violence and emotional scar of abortion.

Leaders urged Healey not to attach an emergency preamble, which could prevent the law’s suspension while the referendum proceeds and keep it in force until the 2028 vote.

With the signature drive reaching this milestone, the coalition’s focus now turns to educating voters ahead of the November 2028 election.

The post 100,000 Signatures Gathered to Repeal Abortions Up to Birth in Massachusetts appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Jon Ossoff Voted for Infanticide, Georgia Should Vote for Mike Collins

Carol Tobias — Thu, 29 Oct 2026 16:53:52 +0000

In the U.S. Senate, Jon Ossoff voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, legislation that would have required appropriate medical care for babies born alive after failed abortion attempts.

No matter how you feel about the issue of abortion, the vast majority of Americans believe that a baby should not be left to die on a cold, steel table. This is cruel and not who we are.

Yet, too few people in Georgia know of Ossoff’s extreme record on this topic.

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

On the other hand, Congressman Mike Collins voted for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would ensure that babies born alive after failed abortions receive appropriate medical care. Mike Collins is endorsed by National Right to Life.

National Right to Life and our affiliate, Georgia Life Alliance, have long worked to educate Americans about the need to protect both women and babies. But we need your help to get the word out.

Will you forward this video to at least one of your friends or neighbors who needs to see this? This simple step will make a world of difference and can impact countless lives.

Thank you so much for your commitment to protecting innocent human life. Also, thank you in advance for voting on or before Election Day!

LifeNews Note: Carol Tobias is the president of the National Right to Life Committee.

The post Jon Ossoff Voted for Infanticide, Georgia Should Vote for Mike Collins appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Missouri Amendment 3 Will Save Babies From Abortion

Steven Ertelt — Thu, 29 Oct 2026 15:59:19 +0000

Missouri voters will decide Nov. 3 whether to restore strong protections for unborn children by approving Amendment 3.

The pro-life amendment would reverse a 2024 constitutional amendment that legalized abortion and remove nearly all safeguards for mothers and babies.

Amendment 3 would strike down the pro-abortion 2024 measure and reinstate a near-total ban on abortion. Abortions would be allowed only in cases of medical emergency, rape, or incest prior to 12 weeks of pregnancy.

It would also require parental consent for minors, prohibit fetal organ harvesting, and allow the Legislature to enact even more pro-life health and safety standards. The measure would additionally enshrine a ban on child-mutilating procedures for minors in the state constitution.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway said the 2024 amendment “made abortion legal right up until the moment of birth” with “absolutely no safeguards for the health of the mother, and certainly not for the safety of the baby.” She noted that after passage, abortion supporters “litigated successfully all the previous safety measures that were in place.”

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

Hanaway said the current proposal “is not a total ban” but includes exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, while allowing lawmakers to protect both the unborn and women.

“I know a lot of people would like to have a total ban, but this will save millions of babies of lives if we can get it passed.”

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the 2024 amendment put the issue “beyond the reach of the legislature.” Amendment 3 “protects the unborn to a very large degree, but it allows the legislature to continue to address this issue.”

The Catholic bishops of Missouri urged support in a letter, writing: “We cannot be indifferent when our own state constitution fails to safeguard those who most need its protection.”

They called on Missourians to “stand with the unborn child who cannot speak for himself or herself” and “stand with the woman who deserves accompaniment and care, not an unregulated abortion at an unsafe clinic.”

Polling shows a tight contest.

An August Saint Louis University/YouGov poll found 44% opposed, 43% in support, and 13% undecided. An October Remington poll of likely voters showed 43% in favor and 43% opposed.

In 2024, Missouri became the first state to overturn a near-total abortion ban through the ballot, with nearly 52% supporting the measure that clinics later used to eliminate earlier safety regulations after the pro-abortion side spent millions lying to voters.

Amendment 3 offers voters a chance to reverse that outcome and restore protections for the unborn.

The post Missouri Amendment 3 Will Save Babies From Abortion appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Kansas Senator Roger Marshall Stands Firm on Pro-Life Values

Steven Ertelt — Thu, 29 Oct 2026 15:33:12 +0000

Senator Roger Marshall, a former OB-GYN, has emphasized his longstanding opposition to abortion as he seeks reelection against Democrat Adam Hamilton, a radical abortion activist.

Marshall, a Republican, spoke at a Sunday faith-based gathering in Wichita alongside pro-life activists as he closed his campaign.

He told the crowd, “I don’t know what I would put ahead of the sanctity of life,” and added that “the people of Kansas have told me that the most important thing for them is to protect our traditional Kansas values.”

The senator, who previously delivered thousands of babies in his medical practice, received an A+ rating on the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America National Pro-Life Scorecard.

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

Marilyn Musgrave, the group’s vice president of government affairs, said Marshall “has stood strong against taxpayer-funded abortion and fought tenaciously to stop the Big Abortion industry from fraudulently pocketing millions in small business aid.” She called him “a true champion of the ‘least among us.’”

Kansas for Life has also endorsed Marshall.

In contrast, Hamilton has said there is a “moral tension” with abortion but believes killing babies should remain legal. He has not stated any limits he would support and voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in the last two presidential elections.

He is backed by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, who has advocated eliminating the Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal taxpayer funding of abortion and has saved more than 2.6 million lives since its enactment nearly 50 years ago.

Musgrave described Hamilton as “another woke preacher who supports taxpayer-funded late-term abortions and opposes letting Kansans pass any laws whatsoever to protect babies in the womb—even when science shows they feel excruciating pain.”

Poll shows a close race and a vote for Marshall is needed to ensure Democrats don’t win the Senate and pass abortions up to birth.

The post Kansas Senator Roger Marshall Stands Firm on Pro-Life Values appeared first on LifeNews.com.

James Talarico Spends More Than Any Democrat Against Pro-Life Ken Paxton

Mark Tapscott — Thu, 29 Oct 2026 14:54:57 +0000

Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico (D) is spending more in his campaign to defeat Republican Ken Paxton than any other contender for a seat in the upper chamber of Congress, while Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) has raised more contributions than any other candidate for the lower chamber, according to USAFacts.

With a week and a day left before voters go to the polls in all 50 states November 3, the 37-year-old member of the Texas House of Representatives “has raised and spent the most money of all candidates so far. As of recent [Federal Election Commission] FEC filings, Talarico has raised $128.8 million and spent around 89% of it: $114.2 million,” USAFacts reports.

Paxton, who is serving his third term as the Lone Star State’s attorney general, has only spent $14.6 million, but Republican and Trump-aligned political action committees are expected to pour up to $300 million into the race to keep Texas in the red column, according to Black Mesa Research Labs (BMRL). Talarico is expected to benefit from an estimated $80 million in spending on his behalf by outside groups.

Follow LifeNews on the MeWe social media network for the latest pro-life news free from Facebook’s censorship!

The most recent survey of Likely Texas voters was conducted between October 21-23 by Rasmussen Reports, which showed the race in a dead heat. Both major party candidates held steady at 45%, and 5% were undecided. A possible spoiler for Paxton’s hopes may be the 5% of respondents who told Rasmussen they plan to vote for Libertarian Party candidate Ted Brown.

When Paxton defeated his GOP primary opponent, incumbent Senator John Cornyn, it marked the end of the latter’s 24-year career in the Senate, the second longest tenure of any Texas senator ever. Cornyn was previously Texas attorney general before his first Senate victory in 2002.

Not since 1988, when Ronald Reagan was in the White House, has a Democrat been elected to the Senate from Texas. Senator Lloyd Bentsen was elected to his fourth term that year and would resign in 1993 to become Secretary of Treasury under newly-elected President Bill Clinton.

Talarico’s totals far outpace the second-most expensive Senate race, which is in Georgia, where incumbent Jon Ossoff appears to be having an easy time of it against Rep. Mike Collins, with Ossoff spending $33.1 million versus only $2.8 million for Collins, Axios reported, based on FEC data.

“FEC filings also show that the campaign of the late Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) is the highest-spending Republican campaign for the 2025?”2026 election cycle, at nearly $22.2 million. This data covers all candidates, including those who have lost primaries or caucuses, withdrawn their candidacies, or, in Senator Graham’s case, passed away during the campaign. Incumbent Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) is the second-highest spending Republican candidate, at nearly $18.6 million,” USAFacts said.

Looking at campaign advertising spending alone, it appears the total expenditure by all federal and nonfederal candidates will exceed $11.6 billion, making it at least 30% higher than the previous midterm contests in 2022. That compares to the $8.9 billion in campaign advertising bought in 2022 and just under $4 billion in 2018. Not included in those spending totals are candidate committee expenditures for staffing, travel, polling, fundraising, and field operations.

In House races, USAFacts points to Maryland’s 6th Congressional District as the race with the highest total, thanks to a heated and costly Democratic primary in which the incumbent, Rep. April McClain Delaney, defeated perennial Democratic congressional seeker David Trone. Trone won the same seat in 2018 and served three full terms in the House, but opted not to seek a fourth term.

“House candidates have spent a combined total of $1.83 billion. Maryland’s 6th District is where the most money is flowing. Candidates there have spent a combined $38.7 million. Most of that spending was by Democratic challenger David Trone ($25 million) and Democratic incumbent April McClain Delaney ($12.4 million),” USAFacts observed.

The intense Michigan Senate contest pitts Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed, who is backed by members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), against former Rep. Mike Rogers, who served seven terms from the state’s 8th congressional district before losing the 2024 Senate contest to Elisa Slotkin, who has also served in the House.

In the 2026 race, which has received media coverage comparable to that of the Texas contest, Rogers and El-Sayed have together spent more than $215 million, with nearly $145 million of that going for the GOPer and more than $75 million for El-Sayed.

The most recent Insider Advantage poll, conducted October 21-22 among 1,200 Likely Voters, showed the race in a dead heat, with El-Sayed at 47% and Rogers at 46%. The survey has a 2.83% margin of error.

LifeNews Note: Mark Tapscott is senior congressional analyst at The Washington Stand., where this originally appeared.

The post James Talarico Spends More Than Any Democrat Against Pro-Life Ken Paxton appeared first on LifeNews.com.