Deaths from assisted suicide and euthanasia have increased by 63.82% in a single year in Western Australia, as 480 people, representing 2.6% of all deaths in the region, ended their lives in this way.

Reporting on data from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025, the recently released annual report shows a sharp rise in the number of people ending their lives by euthanasia and assisted suicide in Western Australia, increasing from 293 in 2023-24 to 480 in 2024-25. The number of deaths from euthanasia and assisted suicide as a proportion of all deaths also increased from 1.6% in 2023-24 to 2.6% in 2024-25.

Since July 2021, when euthanasia and assisted suicide were made available, a total of 1,219 people have ended their lives by assisted suicide and euthanasia in Western Australia, and the number of people who have ended their lives in this way has increased by 151.31% from its first year in 2021-22 until 2024-25.

Of the 480 deaths in 2024-25, 29 (6%) were instances of assisted suicide, where the person who wishes to die ingests or otherwise takes the lethal substance themselves, and 451 (94%) were instances of euthanasia, where a medical practitioner administers the lethal substance to the patient to end their lives.

Since assisted dying was made available in Western Australia in July 2021, 33% of those who gave a reason for ending their lives in this way did so because they believed they were a “burden on family, friends/caregivers”, or were concerned about being a burden; 68.8% said they were ended their lives because they were “less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable”; and 55.9% cited “loss of dignity, or concern about it”.

The annual report also reveals that, in 2024-25, the median number of days between First Request for assisted dying and death, following administration of the lethal substance, was 24 days, and following euthanasia by oral ingestion or assisted ingestion via PEG or NG tube, death took up to 4 hours 44 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE2H_WU_mKQ&t=3481s

Ann Furedi (picrured above) is Britain's most ntorious pro-abortionist. Born Ann Marie Bradley, she started her career as working for the National Council for Civil Liberties as its Gay Rights Officer. Involved with the Marxist cult Revolutionary Communist Party, she married its founder Frank Furedi, in 1982.

Her main career was as Chief Executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), the UK's largest independent abortion provider. As such, she has been involved in the murder of more British people than anyone else in human history, Field Marshal Douglas Haig and Adolf Hitler included.

She was also involved with the magazine Living Marxism, which grew out of the RCP, and then its successor Spiked. The team from Spiked now regularly appear on UK TV, having reinvented themselves as pro-traditional conservatives.

But what sort of 'conservative', or 'traditionalist', takes the murderous line of advocating the murder of babies up until birth? Here is Ann Furedi, doing just that.

Hardcore abortionists are quietly pushing Scotland towards legalising sex-selective abortion, but the revolting plan is meeting fierce resistance.

The murders could be legalised in Scotland under recommendations from a review of abortion law in Scotland commissioned by the Scottish Government, and undertaken by a group chaired by a former trustee of the UK’s largest abortion provider. 

The report, commissioned by Humza Yousaf when he was Scottish First Minister,  states “that no specific reference is made to sex-selective abortion within any updated abortion legislation”, preventing provisions from being added to legislation to prevent sex-selective abortion.

Sex-selective abortion usually targets baby girls due to a preference among certain parents and some cultures for having sons.

The report recommends that there be no specified grounds for abortion up to 24 weeks (page 9, point 3), making abortion lawful for any reason, which means that sex-selective abortions would become legal.

The report also recommends that “There should be no offences for anyone ending their own pregnancy and any common law offences should be repealed” (page 11, point 28). This would remove offences that make it illegal for a woman to perform her own abortion. It would no longer be an offence for a woman to perform her own abortion for any reason, including for sex-selective purposes, and the changes to the law would apply throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

The report was commissioned by the Scottish Government and undertaken by the Abortion Law Review Expert Group, which was chaired by a former trustee of the UK’s largest abortion provider. The group consisted of 13 individuals, the majority of whom have either been on the board or worked for the UK’s largest abortion provider, BPAS, or have a history of pro-abortion campaigning, including BPAS’ current Head of Advocacy.

The proposed changes to the abortion law in Scotland have prompted a considerable backlash from politicians in both Westminster and Scotland.

Conservative equalities spokesperson Claire Coutinho said, “Killing babies because they are the ‘wrong’ sex is a dystopian nightmare”. 

“Sex-selective abortion has no place in Britain, and adopting it would be the very opposite of progress. Time and again, this version of equality seems to leave women at the bottom of the pile to protect other cultural sensitivities”, she continued. 

Former Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, said, “The idea that this barbaric practice could be put into place to appease certain minority groups that prefer boys over girls is morally repugnant. Scotland slides further into the moral abyss”.

Shadow Scotland Secretary, Andrew Bowie, said, “This is an extremely sinister move by a government that is in hock to the radical elements driving social change in our country. This cannot be allowed to take place”.

Former Chairman of the Conservative Party, Richard Holden, said, “We all know what sex-selective abortion means. It should have no place in any society and should never be allowed in Britain”.

Jeremy Balfour, independent Member of the Scottish Parliament, said, “These proposals are deeply alarming. They would allow sex-selective abortion right up to birth: an extreme departure from European norms that puts women at risk and leaves unborn children with no protections at all”.

“Scotland should be supporting women, not creating a system where a baby’s fate can be decided solely on whether they are the ‘right’ sex”.

Leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Russell Findlay MSP, said, “Sex-Selective Abortions (SSAs) are disgusting, morally repugnant, sinister and barbaric. They cannot be allowed in Scotland”. 

Annie Wells MSP said, “Too many women already face pressure from partners or relatives about pregnancy decisions. We should be tackling coercion and safeguarding vulnerable women, not creating loopholes that could make that pressure even harder to resist”. 

Reform UK have also criticised the proposals.

Many figures in the media have voiced their opposition to recommendations to legalise sex-selective abortion.

Sonia Sodha, columnist and broadcaster, said, “This is so worrying, and given the SNP’s attitudes to women and girls in other areas, I wouldn’t trust them not to do it”. 

Kathleen Stock, contributing editor of Unherd, said, “Aborting a baby because it’s a baby = silence. Aborting a baby because it’s a girl = howls of outrage. From baby’s perspective, there isn’t much difference though”. 

Patrick Christys, presenter at GB News, said, “This is terrifying. Women could abort babies based on their sex”.

Columnist Allison Pearson said, “Civilization is dismantling itself brick by brick”.

“[The chair of the review] claims it is ‘potentially harmful’ to prohibit sex-selective abortion. Because murdering baby girls – what this amounts to – is fine obviously”, she continued.

In Scotland, 98% of the 18,710 abortions performed in 2024 were done so under section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act, which is interpreted by abortion providers to allow abortions to happen for social reasons.

There is currently a 24-week limit on section (1)(1)(a), which means that abortions for social reasons cannot happen after 24 weeks. The report recommends that this 24-week limit be scrapped, and abortions be allowed right through to birth on social grounds, including for sex-selective reasons.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “It is extremely worrying that sex-selective abortion could be legalised in Scotland as part of these harmful recommendations”.

“This report is one of the most extreme in UK parliamentary history, drawn up by radical activists whose views do not align with public opinion and who stand to gain from their proposals. What is being suggested is an extreme and inhumane change to the law, which polling shows is widely opposed by women”.

Peers must protect the unborn by overturning an attempt to decriminalise abortion, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool has said.

Archbishop John Sherrington is Lead Bishop for Life Issues for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference. He issued a statement urging the House of Lords to back moves to scrap the amendment and restore in-person appointments.

The Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently being debated in the House of Lords, includes an amendment (Clause 191) that would allow women to have abortions at any stage of pregnancy without sanction.

Archbishop Sherrington reported that Bishops “remain deeply distressed” by the amendment, which puts “women at greater risk as well as placing them at risk of coercion, as more women may use abortion pills to perform late-term, ‘DIY’ abortions. The amendment also threatens the lives of many more children, who could be aborted after the current 24-week limit.”

“This is a dramatic proposed change in the law which surveys suggest is strongly opposed by the British public. It also weakens protections for women and children even further.”

He emphasised: “Pregnant women often choose abortion out of desperation and isolation. They need compassionate support and legal protection to be able to care for themselves and their children.

“Decriminalisation does not meet any of these needs, which need to be better addressed by society.”

The vile hatred of abortionist fanatics has just been exposed yet again. A leader in the Students for Life campus chapter at the University of Mary Washington recently spoke out about the abuse pro-life students receive from pro-abortion zealots for voicing their views, with anecdotes all too familiar to many across America.

Writing in The College Fix, Spencer Lombardo details recent experiences surrounding a campus visit by Students for Life of America spokesperson Lydia Taylor Davis. Conventional flyers posted around campus to advertise the event were repeatedly stolen, so the group attempted a more permanent solution: painting a message on the Spirit Rock, a boulder on campus that student clubs are permitted to decorate.

Unable to accept an opposing viewpoint being promoted on campus, pro-abortion students painted over the message at least twice, once using non-latex paint in violation of school rules.

“I’m not planning on being civil with people who want to take away what I perceive as a human right,” rationalized one vandal caught on video. Another declared, “If someone I care about wants to get an abortion, I will stick a coat hanger up them if they want me to.”

Lombardo also relayed several messages posted on anonymous social media platform Yik Yak, ranging from crude to dangerous. One threatened to “pee on the floor” during Davis’s speech (which ultimately did not happen), and another asked for others to “dox” the pro-life chapter, referring to publicizing the personal information of members, such as home addresses.

“Regardless of the hostility we experienced, UMW Students for Life will continue taking the high road until we reach our destination: A Fredericksburg where every person’s right to life is protected, born or unborn,” Lombardo declared.

Institutions of higher education, even many in the USA that are private and/or nominally religious, have long been recognised as breeding grounds for intolerance of conservative views, a problem taking on special alarm amid what conservatives call a rising trend of left-wing support for political violence.

That conversation has intensified since Charlie Kirk, the head of campus outreach group Turning Point USA (TPUSA), was fatally shot on September 10 while speaking at an outdoor event at Utah Valley University. Two days later, authorities apprehended and accused 22-year-old Tyler Robinson of the shooting and detailed how he was motivated by his view of Kirk’s conservative views as “hateful.” An alarming number of academics were among the left-wing extremists who publicly celebrated Kirk’s death.

The effort to force state-sanctioned murder into UK law is facing serious resistance in the House of Lords. An unprecedented number of changes for a Private Member’s Bill have been tabled by Peers seeking to amend Kim Leadbeater’s seriously flawed assisted suicide Bill.

Supporters of the Bill criticised the interventions as a delaying tactic. Its critics, however, insist the amendments are necessary given the unworkability of the Bill and that the Bill has not undergone “due diligence and proper pre-legislative scrutiny”. Only four days have currently been scheduled for the Committee of the Whole House to consider the more than 950 amendments put forward so far. On the first day, just seven were debated.

Over the last few weeks, a special Select Committee heard evidence from experts about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. During the hearings, key witnesses exposed gaps, flaws and weaknesses in the backbench MP’s plans. There are usually no votes in the House of Lords at Committee Stage.

Peers including Labour’s Lord Rook criticised the Bill for inadequate processes to measure capacity, with Lord Shinkwin echoing the concerns. He urged his colleagues to heed warnings from the Royal College of Psychiatrists about its doubts over using the Mental Capacity Act in assessing capacity of a patient to kill themselves.

Crossbench Peer Baroness Finlay raised a concern that the coordinating doctors approving people for an assisted suicide are not required to be specialists in the patient’s disease or condition – they “could be anyone”.

Peers spoke on an amendment to remove Wales from the scope of the Bill, with Lord Blencathra objecting to “English Law”, being imposed on Wales.

He said “it cannot be right” that politicians in Wales could be handed a Bill that will impact the 35,000 people who die there each year, “and they have no say over how their constituents die”.

Similarly, Lord Harper said he was “uncomfortable” with the Bill introducing assisted suicide in Wales, when the Senedd voted against it last year.

Grouse are safe on Scottish moors until August 12th, but it will be open season all year round on unborn children in Scotland if a group of blood-thristy "experts" get their way!

face On November 14, a report was published by the Abortion Law Review in Scotland. This group of “experts” is made up primarily of abortion providers. They have been meeting regularly over the last year to discuss potential changes to the abortion law in Scotland, culminating in a report making recommendations to the Scottish government. If taken, these recommendations would bring about the largest extension of access to abortion since 1967.

The worst significant proposals relate to legal grounds for abortion and gestational time limits. Proposals include:

• Prior to 24-weeks’ gestation (the current legal time limit), all grounds for abortion be removed and only one doctor’s signature should be required. This means on-demand abortion, for any reason, up to 24 weeks.
• Beyond 24 weeks, abortion be available if two doctors “decide abortion is appropriate.”
• Decriminalize abortion for women acting in relation to their own pregnancy at any gestation.

Taken together, these proposals will effectively legalise abortion up to birth.

Additional proposals include:

• Repeal of The Concealment of Birth (Scotland) Act, which would remove any offence for people concealing the disposal of the bodies of baby’s delivered following abortion at home
• Calls for the Scottish government to include “a duty to provide abortion services” – enshrining in law a “right to abortion.”

The proposal is wildly at odds with public opionion in Scotland and the wider UK. Only a tiny and shrinking minority still support late-term abortion, with widespread support for reduction of the age limit, not its abolition.

An NHS surgeon laughed as he was challenged over his past comments about 'sacrificing grannies' during a Parliamentary committee on assisted dying.

Consultant neurosurgeon Dr Henry Marsh chuckled as he said he 'didn't realise' the vile comments would end up in the public domain.

The pro-assisted dying doctor had previously said: 'Even if a few grannies get bullied into it, isn't that a price worth paying for all the people who could die with dignity?'

Dr Marsh also claimed the opposition to assisted dying is 'all bloody Christians' and added that during a Commons debate on the topic 'one bloody woman MP' had told a 'complete lie'.

He had been invited to take part in a Human Rights Committee session discussing the potential impact of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on the human rights of disabled people.

During the session on Wednesday, Tory Peer Lord Simon Murray asked him: 'I think you're on record saying… if there's some cases of coercion the greater public good is satisfied by having the system, is that fair?'

Dr Marsh, 75, responded: 'In principle, yes. I know I made a very crass comment about "sacrificing grannies", I greatly regret it and I wish I hadn't said it."

But he wasn't sorry he'd said, rather than about the fact his inhumanity became widely known, as his next comment made clear:

'It was very stupid of me and I didn't realise it was going to get into the public domain.'

Pro-Life ideas are surging in popularity among young Americans, and the entry rate in a pro-life competition provides the latest example. American Life League’s annual Pro-Life Essay Contest, hosted by its Culture of Life Studies Program, for 3rd–12th grade students has shattered records with an unprecedented 200% increase in participation, marking a historic milestone for the organization and the pro-life movement.

This year’s contest, which invites young people to articulate their pro-life convictions and share practical ways they embody these values in their daily lives, saw an extraordinary outpouring of entries from students across the nation. The dramatic rise in participation reflects a growing embrace of pro-life principles among America’s youth, signaling a powerful cultural shift.

Susan Ciancio, director and executive editor of the Culture of Life Studies Program, expressed her excitement: “We were thrilled to receive over three times as many submissions this year as in past years! This is a true testament to the fact that Catholic leaders are taking their vocation to teach pro-life values seriously.”

Ciancio highlighted the profound impact of the essays, stating, “In these essays, we have seen a true understanding of the sanctity of life, of a love for the vulnerable, and of a courageous spirit to live their faith.”

“This incredible turnout has filled us with immense hope,” said Katie Brown Xavios, national director of American Life League. “Each essay is a testament to the passion and influence of these young voices. From 3rd graders to high school seniors, these students are boldly proclaiming their commitment to life and demonstrating how they can become a force for good in their communities.”