Abortion Watch

Most observers of the abortion debate would likely agree that it is primarily a matter of ethics, a contest between the Hippocratic standard of respect for human life and various forms of humanistic pragmatism that allow abortion as a way to address personal and social problems. Resolving that debate has engaged philosophers of medicine, religious leaders, and the few political figures who seriously address it, for decades, with shifts in public policy and law back and forth. The debate also necessarily involves the matter of real-world consequences, making data collection and analysis a crucial part of the discussion, even if they are not ultimately the primary drivers of convictions on so profound a set of questions.

This fact has led to a range of skirmishes and debates all their own. One example is the decision of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the Obama administration to drop the requirement that abortion pill (mifepristone) manufacturers report non-fatal events to the FDA involving the drug. Only deaths were, and still are under the Trump administration, subject to mandatory reporting.

As fresh controversy swirls around the FDA’s promise to review the safety of mifepristone, the status of future injury reporting remains in doubt, although it would be a welcome restoration of a policy with virtually no downside, especially as other FDA policy changes have increased risks to women who are taking the abortion drug regimen later in pregnancy, without a doctor’s visit, and no tests to rule out ectopic pregnancy and other serious health concerns.

Next year, the Virginia legislature will promote a state amendment so radical that it should shock most people.

There is a constitutional amendment that is an extreme, radical, and deadly measure that would enshrine virtually unlimited abortions at any stage of pregnancy, including up to birth, stripping away longstanding protections for the unborn.

The amendment, dubbed the “Unlimited Abortion up to Birth Amendment” by opponents and formally known as the Reproductive Freedom Act, cleared both chambers of the Democrat-controlled General Assembly in the 2025 legislative session.

It establishes a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” that essentially allows abortions up to birth with only flimsy limits on late-term abortions.

The Supreme Court heard a case today involving First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a pro-life Christian ministry in New Jersey that has spent four decades serving women facing unplanned pregnancies.

In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, the state’s attorney general tried to force First Choice to disclose how it applies its statement of faith to employees and volunteers, trains its staff to interact with expectant mothers consistent with its religious mission, collaborates with churches to support its ministry, relates to other pro-life organizations, and how it explains what God is doing in its ministry—without a single complaint or any evidence of wrongdoing.

What’s more, New Jersey insists that First Choice has no right to federal court review before being forced to expose its mission to state scrutiny. Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the Justices to protect religious ministries like First Choice from invasive government efforts to interrogate them because of their religiously inspired ministries. Read more about the cases Becket is watching at the Court this term here.

At 9:00 PM on Wednesday, November 12, legislators in South Australia voted against banning abortion after the child in the womb reaches 22 weeks and six days gestation, the point at which babies can routinely survive outside the womb. The youngest preemie to survive is Nash Keen, who was born at 21 weeks in Iowa on June 4, 2025.

ABC News reported that hundreds of pro-lifers gathered outside Parliament House Wednesday night to support the bill; an opposing rally hosted by abortion activists the previous week had attracted only “dozens of attendees.”

Eleven members voted of the state Parliament’s Upper House voted against the bill, and eight members voted for it. The bill had been put forward by Upper House MLC Sarah Game in September. Game is an independent MP formerly a member of the One Nation party.

“A lot of healthy babies are being denied a choice at life,” Game told the Legislative Council. She also warned her colleagues that late-term abortions were not a “rare event.”

A horrific story out of Ohio illustrates what we should all be able to agree is common sense – that prescription drugs meant to cause an abortion should not be freely available to anyone and everyone online.

The State Medical Board of Ohio recently suspended a doctor’s license after an investigation revealed he administered abortion pills that he obtained online to his pregnant girlfriend after she declined to have an abortion.

Much is made every election year about the abortion issue.

The debate usually devolves into a black and white confrontation over whether you support abortion rights or if you are opposed.

The complexity of the NJ abortion debate

The Left has done a better job marketing and messaging as “Pro-Choice” simply sounds American. It’s no surprise given the strong left leaning of most news outlets.

I have said for years that there are actually three sides to the debate: Those of us who are pro-Life, counting babies as a blessing and wanting to protect the unborn, those who simply don’t want the government involved, who could actually be referred to as ‘pro-choice’ and then there are those who are absolutely pro-abortion.

I know next to nothing about South Australia other than it is the fourth largest state in Australia by area and is located in the southern central part of the country. That and the establishment newspapers have no use for pro-lifers or for even the slightest rollback of their ultra-liberal abortion laws.

In 2023,  abortion was “decriminalized” nationwide in Australia.

The headline to Barbara Baird and Prudence Flower’s story is typical: “South Australia is now the battleground for the forced-birth movement.” The subhead is “Conservative forces both inside and outside of state parliament want to make abortion a key issue in 2026.”

So what was the proposal just voted down by the Legislative Council (upper house) 11-8? “To limit terminations after 23 weeks.” This modest proposal was described by Anna Stewart as “controversial”.

‘The employee has since apologized for the choice of words and acknowledged that the sign is not an example of hate speech,’ according to a university statement

A Christian university in Texas is apologizing for a recent situation in which a pro-life student group was forced to remove its “abortion is murder” sign.

Abilene Christian University’s ACU for Life group last month was tabling in the campus center with a sign that read: “Abortion is Murder. Disagree? Let’s talk.”

The abortion industry’s ugliest secret is that babies are regularly born alive after attempted abortions and left to die by the medical professionals who had just tried to kill them. There are frequent and documented examples of this in just the past several years in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and in Ireland, where abortion has only been legal since 2019.

Now government data has confirmed that in New Zealand, babies are being born alive after attempted abortions at least once a month and, as is standard practice, are dying without being provided medical care. Abortion is legal on demand until 20 weeks of pregnancy and is frequently perpetrated afterwards if a doctor signs off that it is necessary for “health” reasons.

“Family First New Zealand reported they were able to obtain government data after filing an official request, and discovered preborn children survive attempted abortions on a regular basis,” Live Action News reported. “Since 2020, 80 attempted abortions have resulted in live births, though the real number may be even higher, as some districts did not provide the information. The abortion survivors were between 20 and 30 weeks gestation, and received no life-saving care.”

Several years ago, I traveled to Amsterdam as part of the National Right to Life delegation for a multi-issue pro-family conference. The event brought together representatives from dozens of countries and organizations working in maternal health, children’s welfare, family policy, and religious freedom. Over the course of four days, the conference addressed a spectrum of bioethical concerns: euthanasia, adoption, trafficking, and the global expansion of abortion access under the guise of reproductive health.

Our delegation included Dr. Wanda Franz, then president of National Right to Life, and her husband, Dr. Gunter Franz, as well as Olivia Gans. We installed NRLC’s large exhibit booth in the main convention hall. It featured fetal development models, scientific literature, fact sheets, and multilingual brochures explaining the consequences of legalized abortion. The aim was to present abortion not as a theoretical concept but as a physical reality, one that leaves lasting scars on families and societies.