Professional pro-life dissatisfaction with the state of the national Republican Party hit a possible turning point over the weekend, with one prominent movement leader going so far as to declare, “Trump is the problem.”

The fight over the interstate mail distribution of abortion pills intensified last week when the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Louisiana and temporarily blocked a Biden-era rule change, defended by the Trump administration, that allows mifepristone to be prescribed and dispensed without an in-person appointment. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently put a stay on that order while the justices consider the matter, allowing the pills to resume.

It was against this backdrop that the Wall Street Journal published a report on May 3 with the provocative headline, “The Antiabortion Movement Is Turning on Trump,” primarily concerning the Trump administration’s refusal so far to restore the in-person dispensing requirement or enforce a federal law banning distribution of abortifacients via the postal service.

“Trump is the problem. The president is the problem,” Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America president Marjorie Dannenfelser told WSJ. “It’s shameful that the Trump administration’s inaction has forced pro-life states to take their battle to the federal courts,” she went on. “It’s very clear that the issue is perceived as the third rail, and you just have to stay away from it. You cannot utter the A-word.”

A psychiatrist has warned of a social contagion of death as Canada considers euthanasia for mental health conditions.

Giving evidence to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), Dr John Maher explained that social contagion for suicide is a “well-established phenomenon”, and raised concerns that if MAID is expanded for mental health conditions it will legitimise suicide as an option.

In Canada, euthanasia is the sixth leading cause of death. The Government is expected to expand MAID provisions to include those suffering only from mental illness in 2027.

Maher, who is also the editor of the Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, told the committee how earlier that day he had seen a patient with schizophrenia “very, very cavalierly saying, if he didn’t get a job and a girlfriend, he’s going to request MAID”.

He warned that MAID has already had a profound impact on the mental health sector, despite it still being restricted to those with physical ailments, and that, if made available, patients whose conditions are treatable “will doctor-shop until dead”.

The doctor accused MAID providers of being “happy to assist with suicides while people are on wait lists for effective treatment,” and said that MAID was “undermining our efforts to maintain hope and to provide treatment for recovery. It gives people the message we’ve given up.”

He accused some providers of murder by illegally approving people with mental health conditions for euthanasia: “People are getting MAID for psychiatric reasons under the guise of flimsy medical excuses.”

Last week, a healthy 56-year-old mother from the UK died by assisted suicide at a Swiss clinic.

Wendy Duffy from the West Midlands tragically lost her son four years ago and had struggled to come to terms with his death. She paid £10,000 for help to kill herself.

The slippery slope starts with the hardest of tragic cases, but - just as prolofe advocates have always warned - it's all downhill from there. A Canadian woman has been offered state assistance to end her own life after presenting to the emergency room with back pain, before she was offered any other treatment. 

84-year-old Miriam Lancaster explained that, in April last year, she woke up one day in excruciating pain. Her daughter called for an ambulance, and Miriam was taken to Vancouver General Hospital. 

Moments after Miriam was brought into the emergency ward, a doctor offered to aid her in ending her life under Canada’s euthanasia and assisted suicide regime, known as Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID). 

“Moments after they wheeled me into the emergency ward, a young female doctor approached my bed”, Miriam said. “After running through the usual questions about what was hurting and how much, she said, as casually as one might offer a cup of tea: ‘Do you want MAID?’”

“I was stunned. No one had even told me what was wrong with me. All I knew was that I was in tremendous pain and that a stranger had just suggested I might want to end my life”, she said.

“I was taken aback. That was the last thing on my mind, I just wanted to find out why I was in pain — I did not want to die”, Miriam stated. 

After Miriam had declined to consent to the ending of her life, she was then diagnosed with a fractured pelvis, in an area that cannot be operated on and which must be allowed to heal on its own. She was transferred to the University of British Columbia’s hospital, where she remained for three weeks while she recovered. 

Almost immediately after leaving the hospital, Miriam packed her bags again to set off on an adventure holiday to Cuba.

“It’s funny to think that not so long ago, a doctor stood over my hospital bed and offered me a way out. It scares me to think what might have happened. In another version of events, perhaps I would have been alone, or more frightened, or more exhausted. Perhaps I would have paused to consider it”, she said. 

Unborn babies in Ireland face an even more dangerous future if the leader of the Social Democrats gets her way and further liberalises Ireland’s abortion law amid “skyrocketing” figures.

Deputy Holly Cairns has introduced the Reproductive Rights (Amendment) Bill 2026 into Dáil Éireann, aiming to abolish the mandatory three-day reflection period and allow all babies deemed to have a “fatal condition” to be aborted. Presently, it must be certain that they would die within 28 days of birth.

Taoiseach Micheál Martin said that the Government will “engage constructively with the legislation”, but Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín urged TDs to oppose the Bill.

Tóibín highlighted to his colleagues that there were 10,850 abortions in 2024, the “highest on record, since the legislation was changed”.

In contrast to Cairns’ claim that the reflection period is “patronising”, the Aontú leader emphasised that abortion is “often one of the biggest decisions that any woman could make in her life. It is an irreversible decision.

“We believe it is compassionate to provide a period of time for a woman to reflect in relation to proceeding to an abortion or not.”

Eilís Mulroy of the Pro Life Campaign added: “It is not only sad but disgraceful that Holly Cairns is introducing a bill today to do away with the life-saving three-day wait before an abortion and that would expand the grounds for late-term abortions even more.”

“Micheál Martin and Simon Harris have a huge responsibility in all of this too. They were the driving force behind the repeal campaign in 2018 which promised voters that abortion would be ‘rare’ if they voted for it. Now they’re adopting a ‘nothing to see here’ approach to Ireland’s skyrocketing abortion numbers and are doing nothing to push back against making the law even more extreme.”

The Bill is based on barrister Marie O’Shea’s review of Ireland’s abortion legislation, but Mulroy noted that O’Shea “publicly admitted that before making her recommendation she never consulted any of the thousands of women who attended an initial abortion appointment but chose not to proceed after the three-day waiting period.

“For the Chair of the Review to make such a radical proposal without engaging those it affects most is, frankly, an astonishing omission that completely discredits the recommendation she made.”

The proposals, which will be debated at Second Stage during Private Members’ Time, would decriminalise doctors if they “intentionally end the life of a foetus otherwise than in accordance” with the abortion law.

In addition, medics’ right to “conscientious objection” would be undermined by a “legal duty to provide prompt and appropriate medical assistance to any person in a medical emergency”.

A 75-year-old woman has been acquitted after a judge dismissed charges against her for offering conversation within an abortion censorship zone.

Rose Docherty, who is a Roman Catholic, was arrested last year for holding the sign: “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want” outside Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow. She did not approach anyone, or speak about abortion.

Sheriff Stuart Reid ruled that the prosecution “failed to disclose an offence known to the law of Scotland”, but noted that the case can be brought back if the prosecution provides evidence that she had ‘influenced’ any person within the 200-metre zone.

Responding to the ruling, Docherty stated: “I was arrested, charged and prosecuted for nothing more than peacefully inviting consensual conversation in a public space that I was permitted to be in. When I was arrested, I was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police van and placed in a police cell for over two hours, without a chair to sit on.

“Simply for being available for the lonely, the afraid and the coerced, I have been treated like a violent criminal. But thankfully, today the charges have been dismissed. The judge ruled that the charges were irrelevant and that they were a breach of my Article 10 free speech rights.”

Jeremiah Igunnubole of Alliance Defending Freedom International, which supported the case, added: “No one should ever be criminalised for peaceful speech, least of all for making a peaceful and consensual offer to speak.

“It is bad enough to be prosecuted for exercising a fundamental right; it is far worse that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service brought these charges without conducting even the most basic investigative inquiries, such as establishing whether anyone had been criminally influenced by Rose’s conduct within the ‘buffer zone’.”

Under the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Act, people risk an unlimited fine for handing out pro-life literature, speaking to anyone about abortion or praying silently within 200m of an abortion centre.

Growing public unease about assisted suicide in Britain is matched not only by the Fierce resistance of the house of Lords, but also now by increasing concern among MPs.   

New polling has suggested that more MPs would oppose the assisted suicide Bill than could be relied upon to back it if the Bill were revived in the next parliamentary session.

The polling, which was carried out by Whitestone Insight, found that only 41% of MPs surveyed can definitely be relied upon to vote “Aye” again, while 45% said they would continue to vote no, suggesting that if the legislation were put to a vote today, it would likely be rejected by the House of Commons.

Only 12 MPs need to change from supporting the previous Bill to opposing the new Bill for the new Bill to fail, and the poll suggests that any MP considering bringing back the assisted suicide Bill after the King’s Speech would likely be destined to fail.

In addition, a majority of MPs surveyed, approximately 61%, recognise the authority of the House of Lords to amend, block or reject the legislation if safeguards are deemed inadequate. Only 28% of MPs do not recognise this. 

According to the polling, 47% of MPs believe that such a rejection of the assisted suicide Bill by the House of Lords would not trigger a “constitutional crisis”, while only 41% believe that it might. 

The polling also revealed that many MPs have serious concerns about the safety of the assisted suicide Bill. Almost half (49%) of MPs polled expressed a fear that the assisted suicide Bill, if legalised, would lead to systemic pressure on elderly people and people with disabilities to opt for assisted suicide, when they otherwise would not have considered it. 

Only 43% of MPs surveyed believe that the current safeguards in the assisted suicide Bill are sufficient, while a majority of them, 52%, are not certain that the legislation would prevent coercion or error from occurring. Additionally, 43% of MPs stated that they knew of someone who voted in favour of the assisted suicide Bill with the expectation that the House of Lords would work to “make it safe”. 

The idea of state sanctioned killing is falling out of favour. There is no longer a consensus in favour of legalislation on assisted suicide in Britain, a polling expert has said.

Writing in The Daily Telegraph, James Johnson — Co-Founder of pollsters JL Partners — says he believes the shift in public opinion can be attributed to disquiet over safeguarding deficiencies in MP Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill.

Conducted between 14 and 22 March, JL Partners canvassed voters’ attitudes towards assisted suicide among 2,048 adults living in England and Wales.

Support for Baroness Meacher’s assisted suicide Bill five years ago, Johnson recalls, was evident in focus group conversations and research conducted by his own company.

Having previously believed that assisted suicide legislation “had the support of the British public to become law”, he now takes “the opposite view” on Leadbeater’s Bill. He observed: “As the proposal stands in 2026, there is not public consent for its passage.”

Recent polling, he argued, reveals that voters have “deep reservations” when they learn more about the Bill and want “nothing to do with it”.

In his analysis of the findings, Johnson reported that among the 63 per cent of people who currently back assisted suicide in principle, two in three “want to see more safeguards for terminally ill people. Three in four (72 per cent) say it is more important to strictly define the eligibility of assisted dying than to continue with the changes.”

He continued: “Nearly eight in ten – 78 per cent – say someone must explicitly be offered other options like hospice or palliative care before proceeding.”

Referring to all respondents, he added: “By overwhelming margins, people think a vast array of people currently eligible under the Bill should not be: pregnant women (82 points), people with eating disorders (74 points), people with mental health issues (74 points), people expressing suicidal thoughts (74 points), and homeless people (72 points).”

“A man who was convicted for abusing children. He sent me messages. Letters where he threatened my children.”

A Finnish Member of Parliament and medical doctor, Päivi Räsänen, has paid a high price she for defending Scripture. In addition to a paedophile threatening her children, a bomb bomb went off in her mailbox and leftist thugs have attempted to gain entrance into her home.

Räsänen, a mother of five and grandmother of 12, has battled “hate speech” charges for many years. It began with her 2004 pamphlet Male and Female He Created Them, which simply restated the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality. The case exploded when she tweeted a photo of Romans 1 criticizing her own Lutheran church’s support for Pride events.

After multiple acquittals in lower courts, Finland’s Supreme Court has convicted her on “hate crime” charges for the 2004 pamphlet just last month. She rejects the ruling saying emphatically: “I think that what Bible teaches it is love speech…”

She warns Christians around the world:

“You should be very careful when there are proposals of so-called hate crime laws… They are vague, they are so unpredictable. They can be used against almost anyone.” To Christians facing the same storm, her warning is clear and urgent:

“Now is the time to speak. It is not the time to be silent or practice self-censorship… You should boldly preach and speak about these teachings and about Jesus — not be silent.”

Persecuted Pastor Clive Johnston must wait to discover the outcome of his legal case, after the judge in his 'Safe Zone' censorship case announced he was reserving his judgment until Thursday 7 May.

The retired pastor is being prosecuted for preaching the Gospel during an open-air Sunday service in one of Northern Ireland’s controversial abortion ‘Safe Access Zones’, and has been charged with attempting to ‘influence’ anyone seeking to access Coleraine’s Causeway Hospital’s abortion services.

This is despite the clinic being closed on Sundays, and there also being no mention of abortion during the preaching and no banners or placards.

After today’s hearing before a District Judge at Coleraine Magistrates’ Court, Pastor Clive Johnston said: “I’m glad the judge has decided to go away and have a think about this case before issuing his ruling because there is a lot at stake.

“We held a small, open-air Sunday service near a hospital. We made no reference whatsoever to the issue of abortion. And yet prosecutors say the buffer-zones law is so broad that holding our Sunday service was a criminal offence.

“As we now await a ruling, my wife Sheila and I want to take this opportunity to thank the many people who have supported us, especially my legal team, Colin Dougan, Aaron Thompson and John Larkin, and also our brothers and sisters at The Christian Institute whose personal support has been invaluable.

“It’s a difficult thing to go through but we are upheld by the prayers of God’s people and we have drawn near to Christ for help and strength. Christ is the most precious thing in the world to us and that is why we are so keen to talk about him in the highways and byways of this land that we love.”

Last week, the US State Department revealed that it is “monitoring” the “concerning” prosecution of Pastor Clive Johnston.

A US spokesman told The Daily Telegraph: “The United States is still monitoring many buffer zone cases in the UK, as well as other acts of censorship throughout Europe.”

Referring to the case of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, the spokesman added: “The UK’s persecution of silent prayer represents not only an egregious violation of the fundamental right to free speech and religious liberty, but also a concerning departure from the shared values that ought to underpin US-UK relations.”