Parents and campaigners are urging schools to stop using books that promote ‘sex changes’ and gender ideology to kids.

Hundreds of primary schools are still promoting controversial books provided by the pro-LGBT No Outsiders organisation as resources for compulsory Relationships Education lessons.

A recent report by Sex Equality and Equity Network (SEEN) in Publishing identified 60 books featuring trans and non-binary characters targeted at young children.

A mother from London explained that she contacted her daughter’s Church of England primary school when she discovered that it was using No Outsiders resources, which included books where characters change their ‘gender identity’.

She explained: “I raised my concerns with the school immediately, as did other parents, but they simply didn’t seem to understand why we were worried”.

“My only option was to withdraw my child from No Outsiders sessions. Other parents did the same. The following year, we heard the children had had an assembly about pronouns. Shortly afterwards, two children ‘came out’ as non-binary.”

The SEEN in Publishing report, ‘Through the Looking Glass’, highlighted several of the controversial books.

The ABC Of Gender Identity, for children as young as five, “teaches ‘A is for Agender, B is for Bigender and C is for Cisgender’. K is for ‘Kynigender – Someone who is unable to pinpoint their gender due to stress of the questioning process’.”

Princess Pete, which was published earlier this year, is described as an “LGBTQIA+ positive picture book of self-expression and gender freedom, perfect for Pride” for kids as young as three, where the titular character is referred to as “they”.

In Ollie In Between, a book for ten year olds, a “nonbinary middle-schooler must choose between pretending to be the girl everyone expects them to be and forging their own path
forward”.

Transgender Trend, a gender-critical organisation which contributed to ‘Through the Looking Glass’, said: “Lobbyists have taken over children’s publishing to serve a trans activist agenda. Books now play an active role in the social conditioning of the youngest children.”

Author Anne Fine OBE, who endorsed the report, called the highlighted books a “dismal betrayal of young readers” and an “unthinking capitulation to a biologically unfounded ideology whose false and troubling messages have damaged so many families.”

The report concluded: “Children’s publishing must turn its focus back to regaining parents’ and young readers’ trust: publishing excellent fiction books that are absent of didacticism and political activism; publishing non-fiction containing verifiable and scientifically correct facts.”

Canada's euthanasia system is riddled with shocking errors which make a mockery of the so-called 'safeguards' against abuse. Over 350 reporting errors and “compliance concerns” for euthanasia and assisted suicide in British Columbia in 2024 required practitioners to receive “education” on the criminal law and professional standards regarding the administration of death, raising serious safety concerns.

The data, contained within a confidential annual report prepared by the official MAID [Medical Assistance in Dying] Oversight Unit of British Columbia’s Ministry of Health and obtained by a freedom of information request, revealed of the almost 4,200 people who ended their lives by euthanasia or assisted suicide in B.C. in 2024, over half (51.9%) required follow-up by the oversight unit, “with a total of 2,807 errors across those cases”. 

353 of these errors – 12.5% – were severe enough to warrant practitioners and pharmacists receiving additional “education” over concerns about compliance with legal requirements and professional standards.

TThe Ministry of Health said that such errors only amounted to “a deviation from a mandated MAID process that, on its own, has a limited impact on the integrity of the assessment”.

Some of the most common errors consisted of practitioners not reviewing the relationship between the person who requested euthanasia or assisted suicide and the person who acted as their witness to the request. 

There were also errors so serious that they had “a significant impact on the integrity of the MAID process, appropriateness of care, and/or public safety”. These cases subsequently required a formal notice to the practitioner from the director of MAID, in addition to referrals to regulatory colleges and/or referrals to law enforcement. 

The three-day wait between requesting an abortion and it being carried out was designed to overcome “resistance” to liberalising Ireland’s abortion laws, an architect of the measure has confirmed.

Last month, deputies backed a Sinn Féin Bill to remove this three-day reflection period by 86 votes to 70. The proposal will now be considered by an Oireachtas committee.

And now Fianna Fáil MEP Billy Kelleher, who was the party’s health spokesman during the campaign to repeal the Eighth Amendment in 2018, has admitted the safeguard was only added to placate those on the fence, and said he would vote in favour of ditching it were he still in the Dáil.

Kelleher, a member of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment and a proponent of abortion up to 12 weeks, said: “There was always a view that the three days was something to look at and discuss again, because it was put in to maybe get people to look at the 12 weeks as a reasonable proposal.

“Three days was introduced to bring more people on to the side of supporting a referendum to remove the Eighth Amendment.”

The Pro Life Campaign commented: “Even if the three-day waiting period was introduced for cynical political reasons, you might have expected Kelleher and others to recognise its value by now, given the lives it has unquestionably saved. Instead, they want it removed.”

The Labour party is making another ill-concealed effort to bring back euthanasia. Lauren Edwards MP has published her assisted suicide Bill in near-identical form to the much criticised Leadbeater Bill from the previous parliamentary session, retaining dozens of serious flaws identified by Royal Colleges, professional bodies, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and disability, mental health and domestic abuse charities. 

By publishing a near-identical Bill to the much-criticised version that failed in the previous parliamentary session, the Bill’s supporters have made clear their intention to use the Parliament Acts to bypass the House of Lords to force the Bill into law should the Lords fail to pass the Bill again. 

The ability to use the Parliament Acts not only requires the Bill to be brought back in a near-identical form, but also means that it could not be amended in the House of Commons, making it impossible for MPs to amend the Bill in the House of Commons to fix the dozens of widely-publicised flaws in the Bill.

The Second Reading vote on the revived Bill on 11 September will now be a referendum on the use of the Parliament Acts for a controversial Private Members’ Bill, as well as on the assisted suicide Bill to which MPs will not be able to make amendments. This means September’s vote will be a very different proposition to the previous Second Reading vote on Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill.

As only 12 MPs need to change their minds for the new assisted suicide Bill to fall, and since seven MPs from Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats who had backed the previous Bill at Third Reading have already said they do not support plans to force it into law via the Parliament Acts / bringing back the Bill in this new Parliamentary session, Lauren Edwards now faces an uphill battle to pass the Second Reading vote on 11 September.  

Patients approved for euthanasia should be allowed to ask doctors to kill them by removing their organs, a group of North American academics have argued.

In an article published by The New England Journal of Medicine, bioethicists Dr Robert D Truog and Dr Carter Winberg of Harvard Medical School, and Dr Ian Ball of Western University of Canada, said organs would be in a better condition if removed while a patient was still alive.

The authors called for jurisdictions where organ donation after euthanasia is legal — Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and Canada — to consider allowing euthanasia by organ donation.

Truog, Winberg and Ball expressed frustration that current safeguards prevented “‘heart-beating’ euthanasia”, where death is “caused directly by removal of vital organs before cardiorespiratory function ceases”.

Truog told US media outlet NPR: “Why would it not be OK for patients to say, ‘I’ve chosen to die by a lethal injection. Isn’t there some way I can help others?’ They should be able to donate organs”.

He added: “I would say a more appropriate framework is that for patients who are choosing to die from euthanasia they could also choose to have euthanasia linked with organ donation.”

Have you ever seen a more slippery slope?

A shockling new video from pro-life group 4MyCanada has highlighted the devastating impact of abortion on the country since 1969. 

The video, released by 4MyCanada on its YouTube channel, is entitled “Just the Facts -Did Canada Commit Suicide by Abortion? Birth Rate Dips Below Extinction Rate.”

“Abortion was not good for Canada. It’s killing us,” says the narrator in the video, going on to add that the reality is, it is one of the “most uncomfortable issues in our national conversation.”

“Many Canadians hold deeply held pro-life convictions because of our faith. Others don’t. So rather than debating the procedure itself, the impacts on women and families, or the moral positions surrounding it, let’s simply look at the facts and the math.”

The video noted that since abortion became legal in Canada in 1969, “Canada has no nationwide criminal law restricting abortion at any stage of pregnancy.”

“We are the only Western nation with no laws on abortion. Based on Government of Canada statistics, an estimated 4.8 million abortions have taken place since legalization. However, statisticians widely acknowledge that these figures are incomplete.”

Abortion was decriminalized in Canada in 1969 when then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (Justin Trudeau’s father) passed a heavily criticized omnibus bill that amended the Criminal Code to allow abortions to be done in hospitals under permissive circumstances.

This law remained in effect until the Supreme Court of Canada struck it down and labeled it unconstitutional in the 1988 Morgentaler decision. The law was removed on a technicality, with the court ruling that it violated a woman’s right to “security of the person” because it could not be applied equally across the country.

After the decision was issued, the court encouraged Parliament to produce replacement abortion legislation. This effort failed when then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s draft law was dismissed in a Senate tie vote on May 30, 1990, as referenced in Wilkinson’s video. The law, known as Bill C-43 (An Act respecting abortion), satisfied “neither pro-life nor abortion advocates,” according to Campaign Life Coalition.

Since the 1990 Senate vote, Canada has had no abortion law at all, allowing the deadly practice through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason.

The video by 4MyCanada noted that, as abortion clinics are not “required to report their data,” as it is “voluntary,” the true number of deaths from the procedure is more. “National totals do not include abortions carried out using the abortion pill.”

“When we examine Canadian demographic trends over the past 5 1/2 decades, a clear picture emerges of the impact. Many of the children aborted in those early decades would now be parents and some even grandparents,” the narrator stated in the video.

Broken down, this means that when one considers “lost children and grandchildren” and using “conservative demographic modeling,” it’s estimated that more “than 6.13 million Canadians are missing from our population today because of abortion.”

“This figure is almost certainly understated,” the group noted.

The video observed that if these Canadians had been allowed to be born, they would have represented a minimum of “nine percent of today’s Canadian workforce, or approximately 2.1 million workers.”

“That workforce would include an estimated 840 surgeons, 3,800 lawyers, 5,000 pastors and ministers, more than 5,000 inventors and innovators, 6,300 doctors, 21,000 engineers, 24,000 law enforcement professionals, more than 31,000 agricultural workers, nearly 40,000 registered nurses, almost 59,000 teachers, and well over 200,000 skilled tradespeople, 231,000 entrepreneurs,” the video explained.

The video narrator for 4MyCanada noted that these numbers are not just “statistics” but represent people who “could have helped meet many of Canada’s growing labour shortages and populations’ health care and security needs.”

“For decades, governments have attempted to offset demographic decline through immigration. Immigration is valuable and has contributed greatly to Canada, but from a demographic standpoint, it cannot fully replace the population structure lost through abortion,” the video stated.

According to 4MyCanada, if 100,000 babies are not born in “a given year, replenishing that exact age group would require 100,000 babies to immigrate, not adults.”

“When families immigrate, they naturally arrive with parents and relatives of different ages, changing the demographic structure rather than replenishing it. The demographic which is lost no longer exists to undergird the aging population. The mathematics simply are not identical,” the group said.

When it comes to lost revenue in taxes, the group estimates that the total “federal tax revenue not collected because of the aborted Canadians totaled approximately $1.3 trillion at the end of 2024.”

“Ironically, Canada’s federal debt at March 31, 2024, stood at approximately $1.236 trillion,” the group highlighted in the video.

The video also raised concerns about Canada’s low birth rate. It has plunged to an all-time low for the second year in a row and shows no signs of improving anytime soon.

According to Statistics Canada’s latest births and still births data from 2024, the nation’s official fertility rate is 1.25 children per woman, lower than in 2023, which was 1.26 children per woman.

“What kind of financial burden are we leaving to our children and to our grandchildren? But the issue extends beyond economics. A healthy civilization requires a birth rate of approximately 2.1 children per woman simply to replace itself,” the video asked.

“Before abortion was legalized, Canada’s fertility rate was well above replacement. Within a few years after that, it had fallen below the replacement rate of 2.1. Apart from a modest recovery during the years when more family-supportive public policies were in place, the long-term trend has continued downward. In 2019, the abortion pill became publicly funded across every province and territory, expanding access nationwide.”

After being legalized in 2016 by the government of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, euthanasia in Canada has become rampant and commonplace.

Likewise, current Prime Minister Mark Carney has worked to expand euthanasia 13-fold since it was legalized in 2016. Canada now has the fastest-growing assisted suicide program in the world. Meanwhile, Health Canada has released a series of studies on advanced requests for assisted suicide.

A legal victory for Pro-Life campaigners in Michigan could echo even to the UK.  A federal judge has just blocked a Michigan law that could require pro-life groups to hire pro-abortion employees. The law could also require pro-life groups to cover the killing of preborn babies through its health insurance plans.

Federal District Judge Robert Jonker ruled on July 10 in favor of Right to Life of Michigan and its challenge to the “Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act.” Due to a regulatory change in 2023, Michigan now requires employers to respect an employee’s so-called “right to the termination of a pregnancy.”

The requirement sets up logically absurd conclusions, as highlighted in Jonker’s decision.

He wrote:

What if Weight Watchers—an organization devoted to helping people lose weight by changing their habits—were forced to provide weight loss drugs like Ozempic? Would that benefit not compromise the organization’s mission?

What if Christian Scientists—a group that believes in spiritual healing over medical treatment—were forced to provide health insurance? Would that also not comprise the group’s anti-healthcare mission? Or what if Not Dead Yet—an advocacy group that opposes assisted suicide and euthanasia—were eventually forced to provide euthanasia or assisted suicide services as part of its health care packages? Would that also not compromise the group’s anti-euthanasia mission?

The decision sides with the pro-life groups, which also include an organization called Pregnancy Resource Center, and establishes a temporary injunction. The Michigan Supreme Court must first address certain questions before the case can return to the federal judiciary.

Both Right to Life of Michigan and its attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom praised the ruling.

“The court’s decision is a welcome reprieve and reaffirms our fundamental right to hire employees who agree with our life-affirming mission. Any attempt by state officials to force organizations like Right to Life of Michigan to employ staff who do not agree with our fundamental mission is a wild misuse of power and defies common sense,” Amber Roseboom, Right to Life of Michigan’s president, stated in comments shared with LifeSiteNews.

She criticized “the radical abortion-only response to unplanned pregnancy that Democrats in our state continue to push.”

“Seeking to undermine organizations that offer life-saving choices is counterintuitive,” Roseboom said. “For choice to truly exist, every woman must have the opportunity to make a choice for life if she would like to do so.”

US judicial rulings do not automatically enter English common law, but they are classified as 'obiter dicta', so they can be quoted in legal arguments and carry weight which pushes an English court towards the same conclusion.

Britain's top doctors' body has wieghed in on the euthanasia debate. The British Medical Association (BMA) has affirmed that “assisted dying is not a medical treatment”, highlighting many of the issues with legislating in this area that will be of concern for MPs.

The BMA, the professional association and trade union representing and negotiating on behalf of all doctors in the UK, agreed at its Annual Representative Meeting last month that any legislation around assisted suicide should specify that “assisted dying is not a medical treatment”, and that it “must not alter the fundamental principles of the NHS”. 

Motions passed at the Meeting also agreed that any assisted suicide legislation must be opt-in, to ensure that “no doctor would be required to have any involvement” with assisted suicide. The organisation affirmed that any assisted suicide legislation must explicitly protect the rights of medical students and doctors to not be forced to participate in any aspect of assisted suicide.

With regard to funding, the BMA agreed that any assisted suicide regime should be required to be funded separately from core NHS practices, and “must not result in any de-prioritisation or reduction of funding for core general practice, mental health, or palliative care services”.

The large liberal body in the European Parliament are shocked by the forthright views of brave pro-life Cardinal Robert Sarah.  during a conference speech before the European Parliament on Wednesday, he denounced gender ideology and Islamic fundamentalism as “apocalyptic beasts” that threaten to destroy the family and humanity itself.

In the conference in the EU Parliament building entitled, “Europe and Africa: In Dialogue with Cardinal Robert Sarah,” which also included speeches delivered by European Parliament Vice-President Antonella Sburi and the apostolic nuncio to the European Union, Archbishop Bernardito Auza, the Guinean prelate slammed the evils of abortion, homosexual “marriage,” gender ideology, and Islamic fundamentalism and their impact on Africa, Europe, and all of society.

While decrying the fact that the UN, as well as European and other Western powers, have sought to impose gender ideology on African nations in exchange for financial aid, Cardinal Sarah echoed remarks that he made during the 2015 Synod on the Family that gender ideology, as well as Islamic fundamentalism, are “apocalyptic beasts.”

“In 2015, during the Synod on the Family, I said, and I do not take back a single word today, that ‘gender ideology and Islamic fundamentalism each represent, in their own way, two apocalyptic beasts that threaten to destroy not only the family, but humanity itself, the image of God,'” he said.