Have you seen our Protect Our Children Campaign?

NHS in Shock Sanity Outbreak

A rare outbreak of sanity has struck the Health Service. New guidance from NHS England has stated that patients should be accommodated according to their biological sex and not their claimed 'gender identity',

The health service’s previous code of practice allowed ‘transgender’ and ‘non-binary’ patients to choose for themselves whether they stayed on a male or female-only ward.

But now, to comply with the UK Supreme Court ruling that the definition of a woman is determined by biology not ideology under the Equality Act, all NHS healthcare settings in England must provide services on the basis of biological sex.

The updated guidance sets out “how NHS organisations should ensure privacy, dignity and safety for all patients in hospital accommodation”, in line with last year’s judgement, and the organisation’s own pledge to eliminate mixed-sex accommodation.

Operational breaches, such as women having to share wards or toilet facilities with men, must now be reported nationally. The NHS also requires providers to ensure that “all patients, relatives and carers who should be aware of the guidance are aware of it”.

In order to maintain hospital accommodation as single-sex, the guidance makes clear that “trans people and others with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment should be accommodated in line with their biological sex”.

Lawfare Attack on ProLifers

In a calculated and cynical lawfare attack, a Texas woman is attempting to sue Students for Life of America (SFLA), its president Kristan Hawkins, and three staffers, over the organisation’s support of pro-life laws that she says prevented her from aborting her two children.

The vast majority of abortions are illegal in Texas, but the state is still dealing with the problem of out-of-state actors using pills to circumvent Texas law, facilitating abortions that take place completely in private. In May 2025, the Texas Senate passed the Woman and Child Protection Act, which makes it broadly illegal to “manufacture, possess, or distribute an abortion-inducing drug in this state,” as well as to help facilitate their acquisition. The Texas House did not take up the bill before the legislative session ended in June; it was later taken up in special session and signed in September 2025.

The suit, filed in Harris County, represents a woman under the pseudonym “Maria Puerto,” who alleges that Texas law forced her to become a parent “long before she was ready” in 2022, then again in 2024, with “no obvious recourse” to “seek financial support from the state.”

It goes on to argue that, because back in March SFLA made a video about their ordering abortion pills undercover to demonstrate the ease of importing them into pro-life states, they can be sued for violating the Women and Child Protection Act.

“With nowhere else to turn for assistance, Ms. Puerto is seeking financial compensation from Ms. Hawkins, Ms. [Lydia] Davis, Ms. [Jamie] Curry, Ms. [Megan] Roos, and Students for Life under H.B. 7 in the amount of $459,782—the average cost of raising two children from birth to age 18 in the state of Texas.”

However, as Live Action notes, the law explicitly states that it “does not apply to and a civil action under this chapter may not be brought against” purchases made for a “purpose that does not include performing, inducing, attempting, or assisting an abortion,” which would include journalistic exercises.

Further, Abortion in America’s Amplify Legal, which is representing Puerto, admits that their client would only be “entitled to the first $10,000 of the penalties, with the remainder going to a charity of her choosing,” which would be the pro-abortion group Jane’s Due Process.

“So this is an interesting day. It’s not everyday that you get sued for saving babies, so I guess I’m honored to say, ‘Yes. Students for Life and my life’s mission is working and we’re saving babies.’ And by the way, incremental pro-life legislation saves babies,” Hawkins responded in Instagram, adding that she felt sorry for the plaintiff’s children one day discovering written proof that their mother considered them unwanted.