A baby who was born alive following a failed abortion procedure at 16 weeks, was left to die sucking his thumb, according to information from a whistleblower at the hospital in Queensland, Australia, 

A photograph of the baby, known as Samuel, was shared on the Instagram account of Dr Joanna Howe, a Professor of Law at the University of Adelaide. Dr Howe stated that the photograph and

other relevant information were passed on to her by Queensland health workers. 

“He survived his abortion and was born alive and then left in a room by himself, sucking his little thumb, until he died”, Dr Howe said. 

“We need to stand up for these little babies who are being killed right up until birth, and if by some miracle they survive their abortion, they’re being left to die”, she added.

In another video, Dr Howe stated that the circumstances in which baby Samuel died are “not an isolated case. It happened to 50 Queensland babies in 2022 who survived their abortion and were left to die”. 

Dr Howe revealed shortly thereafter that an additional whistleblower who works in the Queensland health service had given her a photograph of the administration book where births are recorded. 

Dr Howe stated that the book reveals that one unborn baby named Amira was “injected in the heart with poison at 25 weeks. She suffered a cardiac arrest, going into excruciating pain. Her mother was given labour-inducing drugs and baby Amira was born intact”, adding that the baby was delivered dead. 

The birth book reveals that baby Amira weighed 726 grams when born, which Dr Howe notes is approximately “the size of a pineapple”. It also revealed that the abortion was a “social termination”, meaning “there was nothing wrong Amira, there was nothing wrong with the mother”, according to Dr Howe. 

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.

Moves are afoot to provide even more protection for unborn babies in one of the most advanced states of the USA.  Legislation that would specifically criminalise actions to import or distribute abortion pills in West Virginia is making its way through the state legislature, in order to stop the abortion lobby’s mail-order business from undermining the state’s preborn protections.

Senate Bill 173 would forbid abortifacient drugs or chemicals from being “sen[t] by by courier, delivery, or mail service … to a person in the state of West Virginia”; placed “into the stream of commerce”; prescribed “regardless of whether the prescriber was in the state of West Virginia”; or otherwise disseminated “without a lawfully valid prescription.” 

Physicians who break the law would lose their medical licences, while non-physicians would face anywhere from three months to ten years in prison. Pregnant women themselves could not be prosecuted, but those fed abortion drugs against their will would also be able to bring civil actions against those responsible, as could her family members.

European liberals and feminists howled with rage when a group of pro-life conservatives displayed a simple, gentle, banner advocatig life. 

The banner showed an unborn baby and the slogan “It’s a life, not a choice.”

During the Plenary Session of the Parliament on Thursday in Strasbourg, two MEPs raised the issue of a pro-life banner erected by members of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR).

French parliamentarian from The Left in the European Parliament group, Manon Aubry, gave a hysterical speech, calling the killing of the unborn in the womb a “right” that the “far right” wants to take away from women.

”This morning, the ECR group, only men, of course, showed the banner with a fetus and an anti-abortion slogan on it,” Aubry said.

“ The far right shows again today their true face. You want to return to a society in which women cannot decide on their bodies. It’s a clear attack against abortion rights.”

“Whether you like it or not, our Parliament, the majority of this Parliament has [voted in favor of the] ‘My Voice, My Choice’ initiative less than two months ago. Because in countries where abortion is banned, like in Poland, women still die. Because our mothers, our grandmothers have been fighting for this right,” she shouted.

“So, Madam President, this is not acceptable. And the right to abortion is not just a choice, it’s a right and we’ll never leave the far right to take it away from us,” she concluded.

Individuals planning assisted suicide are being targetted for spare-parts 'harvesting', something which raises a very serious prosepct of conflicts of interest in the medical profession.

The issue has been highlighted by a case of assisted suicide in Spain, in which the dead woman's face was transplanted onto a woman who suffered from a flesh-eating infection. This leads to concerns that organ donation creates pressure to end life.

The donor, who had a “life-limiting medical condition”, had chosen that upon her death by assisted suicide, she would donate her organs and tissues, including her face. According to reports, in the case of individuals whose lives are ended by euthanasia or assisted suicide, organs are harvested immediately after death.

Due to the donor’s death being a planned assisted suicide, surgeons were able to match the donor’s blood type with the recipient’s and plan out the procedure in advance, allowing doctors to optimise the reconstruction of facial bone structures. 

Hospital officials said that only 54 face transplants have been performed worldwide, and that this was the first time the donor had ended her life by assisted suicide.

However, some have argued that vulnerable people may be coerced or incentivised to end their lives through assisted suicide or euthanasia if they believe that other people might be waiting on their organs. 

According to a 2023 review by Canadian medical authors of the legal and ethical concerns of organ harvesting following euthanasia, organ donation organisations in some Canadian provinces like Ontario and British Columbia “recommend that all patients who request [euthanasia or assisted suicide] are approached and informed about the possibility of organ donation”. 

The authors of the review “expressed concerns that the conversation about the possibility of organ donation may pressure vulnerable patients to proceed with [euthanasia or assisted suicide]”, stating that this can “cause a breach of trust with the health care professionals”.

They stated that “informing them of this possibility may cause undue societal pressure for donation, and the desire to become a donor may be a driver for the [euthanasia or assisted suicide] request”.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “Organ donation following assisted suicide and euthanasia is a worrying concept”.

“Offering organ donation after assisted suicide and euthanasia creates a perverse incentive for people who want to end their lives, in the sense that they could be led to believe that their death will do some good for someone else. It may not be the only concern, but it is undeniable that this will likely become a factor influencing the decision to opt for euthanasia”.

The British public are rightly sceptical of state-sanctioned murder of vulnerable adults. A new poll published by More In Common, the organisation formerly chaired by Kim Leadbeater, shows that the majority of the public does not support bypassing the House of Lords to force through the assisted suicide Bill. This would occur if the Parliament Acts were invoked in relation to the Bill in the next parliamentary session, as Lord Falconer has threatened.

Despite the polling including leading questions in favour of the Bill, 54% of the public polled thought the Bill should either not return or should have to pass both Houses again, whereas only 46% of those polled thought the Bill should bypass the House of Lords.

The polling showed that majorities do not support the bypassing of the House of Lords among both men and women, and among voters of every major political party.

The polling also showed that those who strongly support legalising assisted suicide remains low at just 28% of the public, a drop compared to the 32% of those polled who strongly supported legalising assisted suicide in November 2024.

Future abortionists are being given hands-on abortion training using dragon fruit to simulate the unborn babies they will be paid to murder.

“Abortion Care Skills Day” at the University of Illinois Chicago’s College of Nursing, seesthe  training of nursing students by using the fruit to simulate future preborn victims.

Sponsored by the “Reproductive Advocacy & Diversity in Advanced Nursing Training (RADIANT) Fellowship,” the event at UIC’s College of Nursing Simulation Lab was billed as “to give future generations of nurse practitioners at UIC an immersive experience led by UIC faculty clinician-experts to understand the importance of providing comprehensive and accurate [so-called] reproductive health-related guidance to their patients, as well as to learn the foundations of [so-called] abortion care.”

“The very people that are meant to save lives are taught how to intentionally end them by starving, vacuuming, dismembering, and poisoning the most vulnerable in our society,” lamented Students for Life Student Spokesperson Kyra Kishore. “As a woman who would like to have a baby in the future, it’s quite scary thinking about how my future doctor or nurse may not value my child’s life.”

Using fruit as a stand-in for vulnerable fetuses is a stark reminder that the technical knowledge required to commit abortions leaves abortionists acutely aware of what it is they destroy. Long-settled biological criteria and mainstream medical textbooks affirm that a living human being, structurally and genetically distinct from his or her mother, is created upon fertilization and is present throughout the entirety of pregnancy – regardless of whether that embryonic human is being artificially sustained outside of the womb.

Planned Parenthood has thrown in the towel on its efforts to preserve its primary federal funding, voluntarily dismissing its lawsuit against the defunding provision of the Trump administration’s signature legislation.

Last July, President Donald Trump signed into law his controversial “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (BBB), a wide-ranging policy package that includes a one-year ban on federal tax dollars going through Medicaid to any that provides abortions for reasons other than rape, incest, or supposed threats to the mother’s life. 

That and other cuts have significantly impacted the bottom line of Planned Parenthood, which is currently in court to try to stop the federal government from cutting it off. According to Operation Rescue, 54 abortion facilities shut their doors in 2024, 36 of which were Planned Parenthood locations.

Planned Parenthood sued, alleging that even though it was not specifically named in the BBB, it was effectively the only organization that qualified under the bill’s language and that losing that money would cause “devastating” layoffs and location closures. For several months, the defunding provision repeatedly cycled between temporary injunctions by District Judge Indira Talwani and reversal by other judges, with the First Circuit Court of Appeals reversing her yet again last month.

On January 30, Planned Parenthood filed a dismissal in the case, later explaining that the “goal of this lawsuit has always been to help Planned Parenthood patients get the care they deserve from their trusted provider. Based on the 1st Circuit’s decision, it is clear that this lawsuit is no longer the best way to accomplish that goal.”

A life-saving three-day refelction period before abortion is under attack in Eire. A Bill to dismantle the three-day reflection period before having an abortion has been launched in the Dáil.

Ruth Coppinger TD, the main sponsor of the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) (Amendment) Bill 2026, complains that no such rules existed “for other procedures”.

Based on an internal study, the Irish Family Planning Association recently admitted that between 2019 and 2024 eleven clients who attended a preliminary appointment with them decided to continue with their pregnancy after the three-day mandatory waiting period.

Introducing her Private Member’s Bill in the Dáil, Coppinger (pictured) argued: “This clause does not apply to any other medical procedure that we have in law.

“One can buy Viagra over the counter – I would love to have a debate about that in the House. One can have a rhinoplasty procedure performed and there is no mandatory wait. The regret rate for rhinoplasty is 40%.”

The People Before Profit-Solidarity Deputy added: “The right, the religious right and the far right are pushing back on rights we won in the 2000s and the 2010s. I ask that the Government consider this as being an absolutely necessary reform”.

Coppinger is seeking to revive part of a 2023 Bill, which TDs voted not to restore for further debate after it lapsed at the dissolution of the Dáil in 2024.

One in six babies in Ireland were killed by abortion in 2024, according to the Department of Health.

A total of 10,852 abortions took place the same year, bringing the number of abortions recorded by the Government since the 2019 law change to around 55,000.

Abortion is available on demand up to twelve weeks, with a three-day reflection period. Since the coronavirus pandemic, women have been allowed to take abortion pills to abort their babies at home.

Backstreet DIY abortion is poised to return to Britain. That will b the result if the House of Lords backs the new law to decriminalise abortion, which has alrady passed the Commons

The greatest danger comes from Antonia Antoniazzi MP’s Clause 191 — which allows a woman to kill her unborn baby at any stage of pregnancy without sanction.

MPs backed this radical and extreme proposal by 379 votes to 137, with only two hours of debate. They also rejected a proposal to reinstate in-person consultations under the pills-by-post scheme.

Spoeaking in the Lords, Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (pictured) noted: “a supreme irony that those who claim to support legal abortion on the basis that the alternative would be unsafe — illegal abortions — are now proposing that women can perform such illegal abortions, outside the terms of the Abortion Act, in an unsafe environment”.

She warned that a change in the law “would, in effect, reintroduce backstreet abortion”, opening up the way for women to abort their children “at home, on their own, without the prospect of any subsequent investigation, using pills not designed for use outside of a clinical context beyond 10 weeks”.

The Peer said the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill “was not designed, and is not an appropriate forum, to bring further widening of already highly permissive abortion laws. It is astonishing that the Committee is being asked to consider such a far-reaching law with so little prior scrutiny.”

Echoing Lady Monckton’s concerns, Baroness O’Loan feared that if the amendment passed it risked sending a message that DIY abortions are safe. Consequently, she added, despite being decriminalised, women “may die or face life-changing injuries”.