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

 

The post One surprising drug kills more Americans than fentanyl. We need Senator Cassidy’s leadership appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The Democrats’ power grab came under heavy criticism from pro-life groups, who warned it would have eliminated pro-life votes in Congress by creating a 10-1 pro-abortion Democratic supermajority.

The justices turned aside without comment an emergency request from Attorney General Jay Jones, with no justices signaling dissent.

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

The decision upholds the Virginia Supreme Court’s May 8 ruling that struck down the results of a redistricting referendum narrowly approved by voters 51% to 48% in a special election on April 21 that cost the state $5.2 million.

The state high court ruled that Democratic lawmakers violated the Virginia Constitution by rushing the measure onto the ballot in an accelerated special session. Referendums proposing constitutional amendments must pass the legislature twice, with an intervening election, before going to voters.

“This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void,” the Virginia Supreme Court said. “For this reason, the congressional district maps issued by this Court in 2021 pursuant to Article II, Section 6-A of the Constitution of Virginia remain the governing maps for the upcoming 2026 congressional elections.”

Under those 2021 maps, Democrats hold six of Virginia’s 11 U.S. House seats — a 6-5 pro-abortion advantage. The rejected maps would have spread slivers of heavily Democratic Northern Virginia across the state, leaving only one safely Republican district in the southwestern part of the state.

Republicans, who sued to stop the redistricting push, had called it “extreme, illegal and hyperpartisan.”

Leading pro-life groups had strongly opposed the Democrat-led effort as a power grab designed to entrench pro-abortion majorities in Virginia’s congressional delegation.

Jones had argued to the U.S. Supreme Court justices that the Virginia court had stretched the definition of Election Day too far. But the federal appeal faced significant hurdles, including the principle that the matter involved state law and the tight election calendar. Election officials had said final maps needed to be in place earlier this week.

Even under the preserved maps, Democrats remain hopeful of winning eight of the 11 seats.

Some Virginia Democrats had floated a separate proposal to force the retirement of the state’s justices and install a more favorable court, but that idea has lost momentum in recent days.

The Supreme Court’s action ensures the 2021 court-drawn maps will govern Virginia’s congressional elections this fall, preserving the current balance that includes five Republican-held districts viewed as pro-life strongholds.

The post Supreme Court Rejects Virginia Democrats’ Gerrymandered Map appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Kyle Diamantas, FDA deputy commissioner for food, is serving as acting FDA commissioner in the wake of Dr. Marty Makary’s departure.

Though the Trump administration is reportedly soon picking a permanent commissioner to lead the agency, Diamantas promised he will be the “most pro-life FDA commissioner that the FDA has ever had” while in the role, Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins told The Daily Signal.

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

Within hours of Diamantas’ appointment, he called pro-life leaders including Live Action President Lila Rose, Hawkins, and March for Life President Jennie Lichter.

His engagement with the pro-life movement comes amid widespread conservative disillusionment with the agency. Makary was under fire for allegedly slow-walking a safety review of the abortion pill mifepristone and for a lack of transparency in the process. Much of the pro-life movement demanded his firing as a result.

Makary and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged to do a review of the safety of mifepristone following a study from the Ethics and Public Policy Center that showed 11% of women experience adverse effects after taking the pill regimen.

Hawkins told The Daily Signal that Diamantis admitted the agency needed to be more transparent about the abortion pill review. He said that the FDA would soon provide the pro-life movement with more information about the status of the review.

Similarly, Diamantis told Lila Rose that “reviewing the abortion pill is a top priority for him and the administration,” Rose said on X.

Immediately after Diamantis’ promotion was announced, the pro-life movement raised concerns that he represented Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando in one court case as a young lawyer. Diamantis told Rose he regrets that work, she said.

“He shared that he was assigned to the case by his law firm, performed work on it, and ultimately regretted his involvement because of his moral opposition to abortion,” Rose wrote. “He then asked his superiors to remove him from the case. He said that he is pro-life and cares deeply about the pro-life cause.”

Lichter said she’s optimistic that Diamantis will take the mifepristone safety study seriously in the role.

“@US_FDA, looking forward to working with you in this new era to make sure abortion drug companies can’t continue to lie to women about their drugs that are NOT ‘safer than Tylenol’ and that abusive men are stopped from ordering these dangerous drugs on the internet and force-feeding them to pregnant women,” Lichter said.

LifeNews Note: Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell writes for Daily Signal, where this article originally appeared.

The post Acting FDA Commissioner Promises Faster Safety Review of Dangerous Abortion Pill appeared first on LifeNews.com.

On May 8, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals preliminarily ruled that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must reinstate the in-person requirement for dispensing Mifepristone. The Fifth Circuit’s decision temporarily blocked the 2023 FDA rule change that allowed Mifepristone to be distributed through the mail without an in-person medical visit. The three-judge panel ruled unanimously that the state of Louisiana was likely to prevail on the merits in its challenge to the pill’s 2023 deregulation adopted by Biden’s administration, and the Fifth Circuit will now proceed toward a permanent decision by fully examining those merits.

Justice Samuel Alito, who handles emergency requests from the Fifth Circuit, issued a temporary administrative stay within days of the Fifth Circuit ruling to allow all the Supreme Court Justices to fully consider an emergency request from Mifepristone’s manufacturers to stay the ruling.

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

Both Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the ruling to extend the stay.

Justice Thomas stated that the Comstock Act bans using the mail to ship any “drug…for producing abortion.”

“[Drug companies] are not entitled to a stay of an adverse court order based on lost profits from their criminal enterprise,” wrote Justice Thomas. “They cannot, in any legally relevant sense, be irreparably harmed by a court order that makes it more difficult for them to commit crimes.”

Justice Alito’s dissent notes that the 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade has prompted some states like Louisiana to make abortion illegal except in narrow circumstances. Yet, Louisiana’s abortion laws are being circumvented by “medical providers, private organizations, and states that abhor” these laws and “seek to undermine their enforcement,” and now “more abortions now occur each month in Louisiana than they did before Dobbs,” reads his dissent.

“The Court’s unreasoned order granting stays in this case is remarkable,” wrote Justice Alito. “What is at stake is the perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which restored the right of each State to decide how to regulate abortions within its borders.”

Justice Alito stated that Mifepristone’s manufacturers, which include Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, “are obviously aware of what is going on yet nevertheless supply the drug and reap profits from its felonious use in Louisiana.” Even if the loss of mail-order access reduced profits in pro-abortion states, the companies have not established those “lost profits” would “constitute irreparable injury,” he concluded.

Louisiana challenged the mail-order regulation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing that the FDA’s justifications for remotely dispensing Mifepristone were based on flawed or nonexistent data. The lawsuit, filed in October 2025, argues that the FDA acted unlawfully under the APA by loosening Mifepristone’s safeguards without adequate scientific justification. Louisiana sought a stay of the regulation while the litigation proceeded. In response, the FDA conceded it had failed to adequately study whether remotely prescribing the abortion drug is safe. Yet the FDA resisted changing the regulation as it argued it is reviewing the drug’s protocols.

An April 2025 study from the Ethics and Public Policy Center found that nearly 11 percent of women who take Mifepristone experience serious adverse health events, including “sepsis, infection, hemorrhage, need for blood transfusion, hospitalization, emergency room visits related to the abortion, need for a surgical abortion due to incomplete abortion, and other abortion-specific complications.”

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “This U.S. Supreme Court ruling is deeply disappointing because it keeps dangerous chemical abortion drugs available. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rightly concluded that the FDA’s mail order rule was unlawful and undermines state abortion laws. The FDA’s deregulatory actions have failed the American public by continuing to allow abortion drugs to destroy innocent children and harm women. The FDA should no longer be allowed to violate federal law and circumvent state abortion laws by facilitating abortion pill trafficking nationwide through the mail. Chemical abortions are never safe and harm women and kill children.”

The post Justice Clarence Thomas Confirms Comstock Act Bans Mail-Order Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Lord Moylan’s Complications from Abortions (Annual Report) Bill will be introduced to the House of Lords after it was drawn in fourteenth place in the House of Lords’ Private Members’ Bill ballot and will receive a First Reading on Tuesday 9 June.

Baroness O’Loan’s Infant (Born Alive) Protection Bill was drawn at number seventeen and will receive a First Reading on Thursday 11 June.

No Bill to introduce assisted suicide was drawn in the ballot. Nor were any pro-abortion bills drawn.

How House of Lords Private Members’ Bills work

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

At the beginning of each session of Parliament, two days after the State Opening of Parliament, a ballot is held to allocate the order in which the first 25 Private Members’ Bills will be introduced in the House of Lords. Usually, a large number of Peers enter the ballot, providing a short and long title of their bill for the Legislation Office. The order of the ballot determines the order in which the bills receive their First Reading in the House.

Private Members’ Bills in the Lords do not generally get enough time allocated to progress through all stages in the House of Lords, but if they do, they can then be supported by an MP and continue in the Commons.

In the Commons, Lords Private Members’ Bills do not have priority over bills introduced in the Commons, so unless the Government chooses to give them time, they rarely become law.

Peers usually use Private Members’ Bills as an opportunity to raise the profile of an important issue by having it debated in the Lords, and the campaigning and media opportunities that come with that can help them further raise the profile of that issue.

Following the profile-raising of the issue and the momentum for reform that is generated through introducing the bill in the House of Lords, a law change may then be introduced at a later date through another mechanism, such as a Private Members’ Bill in the Commons or an amendment to a Government Bill.

Peers will be finalising the contents of their Bills with the Public Bill Office, so only the title of each Bill is currently available. In the meantime, we have provided background information on the current gaps in abortion complication reporting and the strong case for making major changes to reporting, along with information on babies being born alive after abortions.

Government review shows abortion complication rates likely much higher than being reported by abortion providers

A Government review published in November 2023 revealed that abortion complication rates are likely much higher than has been previously reported in the annual abortion statistics, which are based on reporting from abortion providers.

The review, undertaken by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID), analysed Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) for England from the years 2017 to 2021. They compared the complication rate derived from this analysis to the currently reported complication rate derived from the Abortion Notification System (ANS) based on data provided by abortion providers, which are reported in the annual abortion statistics.

The review found the ANS-derived data shows an average complication rate over the 5 years from 2017-2021 of 1.52 per 1,000 abortions, whereas their analysis of HES data over the same period showed a complication rate of 4.06, over 2.6 times higher than the ANS data that is reported in the annual abortion statistics.

When their HES data analysis also included incomplete abortions, the complication rate over the same period was 18.16, which is over 11.9 times higher than the ANS-derived complication rate that does not include incomplete abortions.

The difference in reported complication rate was much higher for women under 20 than for the general population. For women under 20, the HES-derived complication rate was 4.43 times higher than the ANS-derived complication rate, compared to 2.67 times higher for the general population. When the HES data analysis also included incomplete abortion, for under-20s the HES-derived complication rate was 17.43 times higher than the ANS-derived complication rate, compared to 11.95 times for the general population.

The review also identified that abortion providers were not recording complications that happened after discharge or after the form that they were recorded on was sent to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The OHID noted that there was “no evidence” when the review was undertaken in 2022 that abortion providers were informing the (DHSC) to ensure the data was updated when a woman informed the abortion provider about a complication that occurred after the form had been sent.

The review also noted that complications may be less likely to be recorded for terminations where either both or one of the abortion medications is administered at home, because it is unlikely that the person filling in the HSA4 form will know if the woman experienced a complication following an abortion.

Babies born alive after abortion

Following a change in the law during the last parliament so that it is no longer illegal for women to perform their own abortions for any reason, including sex-selective purposes, and at any point up to and during birth, Baroness O’Loan’s Infant (Born Alive) Protection Bill aims to ensure that the law is clear regarding the protections due to babies born alive following an abortion.

The change to the law introduced earlier this year through the Crime and Policing Act 2026 will likely lead to a significant increase in the number of women performing dangerous late-term abortions at home, endangering the lives of many more women.

It will also likely lead to an increased number of viable babies’ lives being ended well beyond the 24-week abortion time limit and beyond the point at which they would be able to survive outside the womb.

Tonia Antoniazzi MP said in an interview that she was comfortable with women being able to abort a viable baby at 37 weeks.

91% of 28,000 respondents to a poll run by The Telegraph said they were opposed to the extreme law change that was subsequently made.

High numbers of babies born alive after abortions in Australian states after abortion “decriminalised”

Following law changes to “decriminalise” abortion, starting with Victoria in 2008, abortion is now allowed up to birth in all states of Australia.

State laws in Australia allow for abortion right through to birth on physical, psychological and social grounds when approved by two doctors; this can be the abortion operating surgeon and anaesthetist.

This has, in practice, allowed for de facto abortion on demand, for any reason, right through to birth in Australia.

In the state of Victoria, of 310 late-term abortions (after 20 weeks), 33 babies were born alive and subsequently died. These deaths were recorded as “neonatal deaths” rather than deaths by abortion.

In 2008, a UK report found that 66 infants were born alive after NHS terminations in one year. The majority of those 66 babies took over an hour to die.

In the state of Victoria, scores of babies have been left to die after being removed alive during a number of ‘failed’ terminations, according to one official review.

The review reported that in 2011 there were 40 ‘terminations of pregnancy’ after 20 weeks ‘resulting in live birth’. While these figures are comparable in scale, Victoria’s population of 5.5 million is just a tenth of Britain’s.

Beween 2005 and 2015, 204 babies were born alive as a result of abortions in Queensland.

Responding to there being no bills to introduce assisted suicide or expand abortion laws in the ballot, Catherine Robinson, spokesperson for Right To Life UK, said:

“It’s great to see that no pro-abortion bills were drawn in the ballot for this session. While this is a positive development, there is still the serious risk that pro-abortion MPs, backed by the abortion lobby, will try to hijack a Government Bill during this parliamentary session to introduce further extreme changes to our abortion laws”.

“Likewise, it’s great to see no bill to introduce assisted suicide has been drawn in the ballot. While this is great news, the House of Commons ballot is this Thursday, and the assisted suicide lobby, led by Dignity in Dying, a multi-million-pound pressure group, has made it clear that it is going to attempt to bring back the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill in the next parliamentary session. It then plans to use the Parliament Acts to bypass the House of Lords and force the Bill into law”.

“It’s vital that pro-lifers around the country are ready to respond to this major threat should they be successful at persuading an MP to take forward the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill”.

Responding to Lord Moylan’s Complications from Abortions (Annual Report) Bill being drawn in the ballot, Catherine Robinson, spokesperson for Right To Life UK, said:

“A Government review in 2023 revealed that abortion complication rates are likely much higher than has been previously reported in the annual abortion statistics, which are based on reporting from abortion providers”.

“In this new parliamentary session, the Government needs to urgently introduce measures to ensure that abortion complications data is accurately collected and reliably reported moving forward”.

“While it is rare for Lords Private Members’ Bills to become law, this Bill will ensure that the issue of complication rate underreporting is put on the radar and debated extensively in Parliament, the media and wider society. This will help raise the profile of this major issue and put pressure on the Government to ensure that abortion complications data is accurately collected and reliably reported for years to come”.

Responding to Baroness O’Loan’s Infant (Born Alive) Protection Bill being drawn in the ballot, Catherine Robinson, spokesperson for Right To Life UK, said:

“Babies born alive following an abortion should receive the same standard of care as any other baby born at the same gestation. Sadly, the fact that it is no longer illegal for women to perform their own abortions for any reason, including sex-selective purposes, and at any point up to and during birth, means that late-term abortions outside a clinical setting are far more likely. Such babies need the full protection of the law”.

The post British Bill Would Protect Babies Born Alive After Botched Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The National Women’s Law Center and Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit on behalf of Minority Veterans of America, challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s restoration of a longstanding federal ban on abortions at VA facilities.

The policy reversed the Biden administration’s 2022 expansion that had turned VA hospitals into abortion centers despite federal prohibitions.

The VA halted abortions nationwide after the Justice Department under President Donald Trump confirmed that federal law bars the agency from ending the lives of unborn children. The change, which took effect immediately, restored the medical benefits package to its pre-2022 state.

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

“Prior to the Biden administration’s politically motivated change in 2022, federal law and longstanding precedent across Democrat and Republican administrations prevented VA from providing abortions and abortion counseling,” VA spokesperson Pete Kasperowicz said.

The lawsuit argues the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide a reasoned explanation for the policy change and relying on a flawed interpretation of governing law.

“This lawsuit is about protecting veterans’ access to comprehensive health care, including the full range of care and medical guidance they deserve through the VA,” said Lindsay Church, executive director of Minority Veterans of America.

At the time it was reversed, SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser praised the policy for restoring the rule of law.

“We thank President Trump and VA Secretary Collins for restoring the rule of law and ending the Biden Administration’s illegal policy that forced taxpayers to fund abortions through VA hospitals and violated state pro-life laws,” Dannenfelser said. “Instead of prioritizing the real and urgent needs of our veterans, the Biden-Harris Administration turned VA hospitals into abortion centers – violating longstanding law and betraying the will of the American people who strongly oppose forced taxpayer-funded abortions. Veterans deserve compassionate care and healing and should not be subjected to the violence of abortion. The American people should never have been made to bankroll it. Thankfully this injustice is now corrected.”

The Trump administration had proposed the rule change in August 2025 to reinstate the full exclusion on abortions and abortion counseling from the medical benefits package, which had been in place since 1999. The policy aligns with the 1992 Veterans Health Care Act and federal statutes that exclude abortions from VA-covered services except in narrow circumstances related to service-connected conditions. It ensures VA facilities no longer override state pro-life laws.

The post Leftist Group Sues Trump to Force VA to Kill Babies in Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.