The bid to force state-sponsored murder on Britain looks set to suffer a massive setback.

Peers have declared that the House of Lords is now on course to reject the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill at Third Reading, after a strong majority of Peers spoke against the Bill at day one of Second Reading of the Bill today.

An analysis of the speeches today, completed by Right To Life UK’s Policy Team, shows that of the 86 peers who took a position on the Bill in their speeches, 58 (67%) spoke in opposition to the Bill and 28 (33%) spoke in favour. This represents more than double the number of Peers speaking in opposition to the Bill compared to those who supported it. A further three Peers did not take a position.

This is the opposite of Second Reading in the House of Commons, where a majority of MPs who spoke did so in favour of the Bill (25 spoke in favour, 21 spoke in opposition).

This indicates that the House of Lords is likely to be significantly more opposed than supportive of the Bill, and given that the House of Lords can reject the Bill, the Bill is increasingly looking like it will never become law.

Since the Bill is not a Government Bill and was not part of a manifesto promise, the Lords are constitutionally entitled to block or heavily amend the Bill.

In a piece for The Spectator, Former No.10 Director of Legislative Affairs, Nikki da Costa, explained that the House of Lords is under no duty to pass a Private Members’ Bill such as the assisted suicide Bill, particularly as it was not part of the Government’s manifesto.

Constitutional scholar Professor Mark Elliott also explained that for bills of this kind, the Lords can lawfully withhold consent or use the “ping-pong” process to prevent agreement between the Houses, meaning the Bill would fail. 

Further commentary in The Spectator stresses that blocking a controversial Private Members’ Bill is well within the Lords’ remit, given their constitutional role as a revising chamber. 

Sky Deputy Political Editor Sam Coates noted that even a senior Government figure who supports the Bill admitted that “the chances of it passing are worse than 50/50.”

A Canadian “death doula” is aiming to raise money to fund her personalised euthanasia and assisted suicide service in Ontario.

Founder and Executive Director of Journey Home for Empowered Living and Dying, Renee Moor, a so-called “death doula”, said her organisation is looking to raise $500,000 to move to a new place that can accommodate a “sanctuary”, where people can die by euthanasia or assisted suicide in “private, home-like rooms”.  A death doula is a person who acts in “a non-medical role and as a supporter/guide/advocate in end-of-life care”.

Moor explained that the sanctuary is “a place where death is not a medical event”, adding that hospitals are “a bit more institutionali[s]ed” and “not everyone wants [an assisted suicide or euthanasia] experience in their home”.

Moor wants to open her sanctuary in Ontario, a place that made headlines last year after members of a key assisted suicide and euthanasia review committee found that vulnerable people were facing “undue influence” and “potential coercion”. Some members of the committee said that discussing assisted suicide and euthanasia with socially vulnerable people may “confirm an impression that their life is not worth living”.

Earlier this year, Ontario GP Dr Ramona Coelho, a member of the committee, said Canada’s euthanasia and assisted suicide programme was “out of control”, adding “I wouldn’t even call it a slippery slope. Canada has fallen off a cliff”.

The bigotry of the woke left has been exposed again. A disabled boy has been rejected from an activity camp in Scotland after his mum objected to using ‘preferred pronouns’ on the booking form.

Over the Wall Camp (OTW), a Derby-based charity, rejected the boy’s application shortly after a phone call in which the mother insisted “biology cannot be changed” and refused to register her eight-year-old son’s ‘gender identity’.

In 2021, a judge ruled that believing someone cannot change sex is a protected belief under the Equality Act.

The charity claims that the child was rejected due to his mother being “aggressive” in expressing her views on the phone, not because of her beliefs about biological reality.

However, a Freedom of Information (FOI) request revealed an internal report which explained: “Based on the conversation, it is clear that [the mother’s] views on gender and inclusivity do not align with the values we uphold at Over The Wall Camp.

“We will be making the family unsuccessful for this year’s camp due to the lack of alignment with our inclusive environment.”

We expect the boy's mother to challenge this outrage through the courts - and win!

Canada’s euthanasia and assisted suicide programme has created “a system of structural abandonment” where loved ones are dying because of “unmet medical or social needs”, according to two members of the Chief Coroner of Ontario’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) Review Committee (MDRC).

Dr Ramona Coelho, a family medicine practitioner and adjunct research professor, and David Shannon, a Canadian lawyer and disability and human rights activist, published an expansive article criticising Canada’s euthanasia and assisted suicide programme based on their extensive experience as part of Ontario’s MDRC.

The two insiders said that “Canada’s experience with MAiD has become a cautionary tale of how legali[s]ed euthanasia and assisted suicide can erode into a system of structural abandonment”, to the extent that it has become the “default response to unresolved suffering driven by poverty, disability, mental illness, and social isolation”.

Euthanasia was first legalised in Canada in 2016 for those who may have had a reasonably foreseeable natural death as a result of a medical condition. This legislation was expanded in 2021 so that an individual’s death did not have to be reasonably foreseeable to access MAiD, known as Track 2.

Criticising the expansion of the eligibility criteria, Coelho and Shannon said “[N]early half of Track 2 MAiD deaths involved suffering from loneliness or isolation, while almost half indicated that they felt like they were a burden”.

“Ontario’s MAiD Death Review Committee (MDRC) found most Track 2 recipients were low-income and 61 per cent were women, a group statistically more likely to attempt suicide yet recover with care. Less than half received mental health or disability supports and less than 10 per cent received housing or income assistance”.

They added “MAiD providers have described ending lives where suffering due to poverty, loneliness, or obesity was driving the request for MAiD”.

Coelho and Shannon are calling for the abolition of Track 2, to “[r]emove the pathway for persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, including those with physical disabilities and mental illness”.

Doctors in Ireland are wallowing in blood money for butchering babies. They are receiving an average of €21,029 extra per year in taxpayers’ money for providing abortions, according to new data from the Irish Parliament.

Based on responses to Parliamentary Questions submitted by Independent Ireland leader Michael Collins, it has been revealed that doctors who were reimbursed for abortion consultations received an average of almost €430,000 per month of taxpayers’ money for abortion consultations from January to May 2025. Since an average of 245 doctors consulted on abortions each month, this would mean that, according to the new data from Parliament, each doctor would receive €21,029 on average per year for their role in facilitating abortions.

Dr Dermot Kearney, an Irish cardiologist, responded by calling the situation “a national disgrace”, whilst Eilís Mulroy, spokesperson of Pro Life Campaign, said “Many people will find it unseemly that abortion has become such a profitable activity, particularly given it’s subsidised by our taxes”. 

“Many people in Ireland are making ends meet on an annual salary” of less than €21,029, she continued, whereas some doctors could receive this “as a top up on their regular income just for offering abortion pills. If there are negative consequences for the woman, the doctor simply refers them to a hospital”.

Mulroy reserved specific criticism for telemedicine home abortions, which were introduced during the pandemic “to allow for remote consultation”. 

She said “With the advent of telemedicine, a GP doesn’t even have to have an in-person consultation with the woman. Instead, they can have a short phone call with the woman, make basic provisions for her to collect the mifepristone and misoprostol pills, and claim for €450”.

“All the money that’s being poured into the Irish abortion regime, which racks up tens of millions of euro[s], would be better served providing women in unplanned pregnancies with genuine supports”.

“Well in excess of €50 million in taxpayers’ money has been spent on abortion provision in Ireland since the new law took effect in January 2019”, Mulroy said.

The subversion of Britain with taxpayers' money continues apace. The NHS has come under fire for providing almost £2 million towards staff events, some of which promoted LGBT causes.

Proposals for a drug consumption rooms in Edinburgh have been met with backlash, with MSPs calling it the ‘wrong approach’.

The sites, proposed by the city’s Integration Joint Board (IJB), are located in Edinburgh Old Town; on the Cowgate and on Spittal Street. They were chosen for their proximity to areas with a high concentration of drug-related deaths.

The first experimental drug consumption room, Glasgow’s The Thistle, is a Scottish Government-funded shooting gallery open seven days a week, and has effectively been declared a ‘prosecution-free drug zone’ by the Lord Advocate. It is still in its pilot stage.

A consultation will be held, likely early next year, for locals to have their say on the proposals. Christine Laverty, the IJB’s Chief Officer, noted: “Such a public consultation will attract substantial attention and raise both hopes and fears within different communities.”

Sue Webber, MSP for Lothian, wrote in the Edinburgh News criticising the proposals as “spending unknown amounts of public money on something to make it easier for addicts to stay hooked.”

She continued: “What they need is rehab to get them off drugs, not the means to keep them in a stupor.”

Annie Wells MSP posted on X: “State-sponsored drug use isn’t the answer. After Glasgow’s experience, another drug consumption room in Edinburgh is the wrong approach. SNP must focus on prevention at the source and back our Right to Recovery Bill.”