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”.

Medical technology has moved a step closer to allowing humans to usurp the power of God - if they've got the money, that is.

Couples are being invited to pick the embryo that best matches their idea of a perfect child by an American IVF business.

Nucleus Genomics boasts that its software allows parents pursuing IVF to “optimise their embryos” according to various genetic characteristics, including sex, health, intelligence, and appearance.

Its premium $9,999 (£7,300) service enables couples to have up to 20 embryos ‘screened’ for scores of diseases and traits. However, the company acknowledges that all its genetic predictions “are not guarantees”.

Company founder Kian Sadeghi told CBS News that its product Nucleus Embryo gives you “the full range of insights there is to know about your future child. We really think it’s the parents’ right to know.”

Parents, he said, want us to “play sports and they want us to go to the best school. They want us to be well educated. They want us to thrive. Life, I think, as a parent doesn’t just stop at ‘I want my child to be healthy'”.

He claimed that the technique ’empowered parents’ to give their children the best start in life. But, he added, “if you want 2 inches taller for your child, 3 inches taller, right, if you want a couple IQ-point difference, absolutely, by all means, do that”.

Speaking to The San Francisco Standard, Sadeghi said that he expected genetic optimisation to be seen as just another reproductive technology tool and that it would become commonplace for people to select children on the basis of predicted traits, such as IQ or eye colour.

Bioethicists Arthur Caplan and James Tabery advise prospective customers to be wary of the science behind ‘genetic optimisation’, pointing out that “there are no major genetic markers for many cancers or a truly definitive set for heart disease, let alone for intelligence, acne, body-mass index or longevity”.

Sadeghi says it would become commonplace for people to select children on the basis of predicted traits, such as IQ or eye colour.

If the claims were really true, they argued, “then there would be some deep ethical questions to ask about designer babies, the legacy of eugenics and the marketization of children”.

Assisted suicide is a slippery slope, and a new sad case from Australia illustrates this all too well. An Australian man with Motor Neurone Disease has decided to end his life by euthanasia despite not wanting to die, due to being unable to access sufficient care and support from the state.

Tony Lewis, 71, from Queensland, was diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease last year, but is unable to access Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) because he is over the age limit. 

Tony has to rely instead on the My Aged Care scheme, which can provide a maximum of $78,100 per year in funding for care. HelloCare, a media platform dedicated to ageing and care, describes the My Aged Care scheme as having “funding levels and response times” which “are widely acknowledged as inadequate for fast progressing neurological conditions”.

Having virtually lost the ability to speak, eat, and move, Tony requires 24/7 care, but the funding he receives from My Aged Care is not sufficient, paying for only four showers and an hour of cleaning per week, with his wife, Gill, carrying out the remainder of the caregiver duties.

HelloCare, an Australian care sector news organisation, reported that Tony “has been clear that the decision [to apply for euthanasia] is not driven by a lack of will to live, but by the absence of appropriate care options that would allow him to remain at home with dignity”. 

Gill said, “If he had appropriate care, and there was enough of it, he would be able to cope better”. Highlighting the financial difficulties of caring for her husband, she said “This month, I’m already over budget”. Gill added that the care system is slow to respond to her requests for reassessment, which are required due to her husband’s condition changing rapidly.   

Critics have pointed to the contrast between the availability of assisted suicide and euthanasia and Tony’s struggle to access adequate funding and care for his condition. Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, said “Lewis wants to go on living but believes his financial situation makes that impossible”.

He added, “This same kind of abandonment has happened in Canada, too. But euthanasia? Never a problem of access! Is it any wonder that disability rights activists oppose hastened death?”

Commenting on Tony’s story, former Associate Professor of Bioethics at St Mary’s University, London, Dr Trevor Stammers said “It will happen here [in the UK] if assisted suicide becomes legalised”.

The Peer leading attempts in the House of Lords to introduce euthenasia has conceded that the assisted suicide Bill will not become law this year, unless it can be forced through without the Lords’ consent using the Parliament Acts.

Lord Falconer, the sponsor of the assisted suicide Bill in the House of Lords, told the BBC that, as things stand, there is “absolutely no hope” that the Bill will become law before the end of the current parliamentary session in May. 

Lord Falconer has proposed a “fundamental change” in tactics in an attempt to ensure his assisted suicide Bill becomes law, by using the ‘Parliament Acts’ to force the Bill through without the consent of the House of Lords. However, the liberal elite may be relunctant to do this, since this would normalise the use of this constitutional bulldozer just a couple of years before a possible Reform government woulf find it a very useful tool.

The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide a rarely-used method of forcing legislation that has been agreed by the House of Commons through without the consent of the House of Lords. Only seven Bills have ever become law under the Parliament Acts, and they have never been used for a Private Members’ Bill – that is, a non-Government Bill – like the assisted suicide Bill. In practice, for the Parliament Acts to be used, it would likely require the Government to adopt the assisted suicide Bill as a Government Bill or to provide time for its passage. 

Supporters of the assisted suicide Bill have been pushing to rush the legislation through Parliament, limiting the opportunity for detailed scrutiny of its provisions. 

Previously, assisted suicide campaigners had encouraged the House of Commons to vote in favour of the Bill on the basis that more detailed scrutiny would come in the Lords. During the Bill’s progression through the Lower House, assisted suicide campaign organisation Dignity in Dying said “[t]he House of Lords is expected to bring high-quality scrutiny to the bill” through “meaningful second-chamber oversight”, while the Bill’s sponsor in the Commons, Kim Leadbeater, said the Lords would bring “robust debate and scrutiny” to the Bill. Now, supporters of the Bill are seemingly seeking to avoid this scrutiny by using the Parliament Acts to force the legislation through.

Rebecca Harris, a former Government Chief Whip who was in charge of Private Members’ Bills for seven years, said, “I can categorically state this system is not designed to deal with legislation of this importance and magnitude. This Bill alters the foundations of our NHS, the relationships between doctors, their patients and their families and would leave much of the actual practical implementation to Ministers, codes of practice and regulations years in the future with little Parliamentary oversight”.

Nikki da Costa, former Director of Legislative Affairs at 10 Downing Street, commented, “As predicted, Lord Falconer wants to bully the Lords and force this reckless PMB, which no Royal College will say is safe, on to the [statute] books. He wants to walk Labour MPs into a firestorm”.