Alliance

Study: FDA allowed mail-order abortion pills without ‘sufficient evidence’ of safety #Catholic A study by scholars at the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute found that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “lacked sufficient evidence” to remove the in-person abortion pill dispensing rule.Published in Issues in Law and Medicine, a journal of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, on Oct. 6, the report found that the FDA’s studies on the abortion pill didn’t reflect real-world conditions of abortion pill use.According to the article, the FDA relied on analysis from groups with political incentives. Additionally, the FDA used “inadequate” adverse event reporting, authors Zachery Sluzala and Ingrid Skop found. “When federal agencies remove regulations designed to safeguard patient health, those decisions should be grounded in evidence that reflects real-world practice,” Skop, an OB-GYN who works for the Lozier Institute, said in a statement. “Our analysis found that the FDA’s review fell well short of that standard. Safety decisions should reflect the conditions in which women are using the drugs, not tightly controlled study conditions that fail to mimic real-world use.”Pro-life groups criticize FDA abortion pill updateIn a court-ordered update of the agency’s highly anticipated report on the safety of the abortion pill, the FDA said that it will complete the safety review in March 2027, an announcement that led to backlash from pro-life groups.A federal judge in Louisiana ordered the status report on the safety review. According to its update, the FDA expects to have results by mid-December, with a final report in March 2027 — more than a year and a half after the group first promised the review.Pro-life leader Marjorie Dannenfelser, who heads Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, called the FDA’s update “alarming.”“The administration must correct course — and, more importantly, it must not wait for the study to conclude before acting,” said Dannenfelser. “Peer-reviewed evidence shows that the Biden administration relied on insufficient evidence and flawed assumptions when it removed the in-person dispensing requirement.“Action is long overdue,” Dannenfelser said.Students for Life of America leader Kristan Hawkins also criticized the timeline.“It shouldn’t take a judge to pry some answers from the FDA on the dangers of chemical abortion pills, nor should it take this long to get them,” said Hawkins. “While we are glad to see the FDA giving attention to deadly drugs, this is not enough to address the harms that recklessly approving mifepristone in 2000 did to public health and fertility.”Alliance Defending Freedom spokeswoman Erin Hawley observed that “every month of additional delay puts nearly 15,000 additional babies at risk in states where mail-order abortion drugs are unlawful.”Mail-order abortions “don’t empower women — they facilitate the abuse, coercion, and poisoning of women by making high-risk drugs accessible to bad actors at the click of a button,” said Hawley.Study: Colleges ‘fail’ pregnant and parenting studentsA recent study found that hundreds of state colleges and universities are failing to provide resources to help pregnant and parenting students stay in school.The study by Students for Life of America’s Demetree Institute found that the average state college campus in the survey offered “barely half the recommended support” for student parents.The study looked at more than 500 state colleges and universities, examining the housing policies, on-campus resources, financial assistance, medical attention, and accommodations and policy transparency they offer to student-parents.The three lowest-ranked schools were Dalton State College in Georgia, Dakota State University in South Dakota, and Concord University in West Virginia.About 98% of schools in the study were missing at least two recommended accommodations for pregnant and parenting students. On-campus housing for families was unavailable at more than 70% of schools. About 85% of schools did not offer scholarships targeted for pregnant or parenting students.Men’s march for life to be held in BostonMen will gather in Boston on Nov. 1 for a national men’s march for life.The National Men’s March to Abolish Abortion and Rally for Personhood first began in 2021. In the event, men march about three miles to a rally point where they meet up with their families, pray, and listen to speakers.In an interview on EWTN’s “At Home With Jim and Joy,” the march’s president, Jim Havens, said the march is focused on “getting men off the sidelines in the fight for equal protection of the preborn — of all human life.”“We’re going to do it in authentic love; we’re going to do it in a peaceful manner, the right way, standing up in public,” he continued. “It really is powerful when we gather together and do this with Christ at the center.”Scottish bishops warn against proposal to expand abortionThe Scottish bishops are warning against a proposal that they say would allow abortion up to birth for any reason.The proposal would decriminalize abortion in Scotland and remove existing legal safeguards protecting unborn children. The Bishops’ Conference of Scotland expressed opposition to the proposal in a statement by Bishop John Keenan, who heads the bishops’ Marriage, Family and Life Commission.“There is a better way than abortion,” Keenan said in the statement.“Every human life possesses inherent dignity and worth; a dignity that does not depend upon age, size, ability, dependency or stage of development,” Keenan said. “It begins at conception and continues until natural death. A just and compassionate society should recognize and protect the lives of both mother and child, especially when either is vulnerable.”Las Vegas archbishop urges vote against abortion measureLas Vegas Archbishop George Leo Thomas called on Catholics in Nevada to vote “no” on a ballot measure that would roll back protections for unborn children, minors, and women and expand abortion up to birth.The Nevada measure would expand the right to abortion, which is already legal in the state up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. The letter opposing the Nevada abortion ballot measure was read at Masses across the archdiocese Oct. 3-4.“This question is not whether abortion is legal in Nevada; it already is under a law approved by Nevada voters in 1990,” said Thomas. “The Legislature cannot amend or repeal that law; only a direct vote of the people can do so. This question is whether Nevada voters should expand the right to abortion in ways that can harm the health, safety, and welfare of women and minors. Moreover, this measure will have grave and lasting consequences for vulnerable unborn lives.”“Unborn children have no voice and cannot defend themselves,” Thomas said. “As Catholics, our faith requires us to protect the inherent dignity of every human life and to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.”
Read More

Study: FDA allowed mail-order abortion pills without ‘sufficient evidence’ of safety #Catholic A study by scholars at the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute found that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “lacked sufficient evidence” to remove the in-person abortion pill dispensing rule.Published in Issues in Law and Medicine, a journal of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, on Oct. 6, the report found that the FDA’s studies on the abortion pill didn’t reflect real-world conditions of abortion pill use.According to the article, the FDA relied on analysis from groups with political incentives. Additionally, the FDA used “inadequate” adverse event reporting, authors Zachery Sluzala and Ingrid Skop found. “When federal agencies remove regulations designed to safeguard patient health, those decisions should be grounded in evidence that reflects real-world practice,” Skop, an OB-GYN who works for the Lozier Institute, said in a statement. “Our analysis found that the FDA’s review fell well short of that standard. Safety decisions should reflect the conditions in which women are using the drugs, not tightly controlled study conditions that fail to mimic real-world use.”Pro-life groups criticize FDA abortion pill updateIn a court-ordered update of the agency’s highly anticipated report on the safety of the abortion pill, the FDA said that it will complete the safety review in March 2027, an announcement that led to backlash from pro-life groups.A federal judge in Louisiana ordered the status report on the safety review. According to its update, the FDA expects to have results by mid-December, with a final report in March 2027 — more than a year and a half after the group first promised the review.Pro-life leader Marjorie Dannenfelser, who heads Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, called the FDA’s update “alarming.”“The administration must correct course — and, more importantly, it must not wait for the study to conclude before acting,” said Dannenfelser. “Peer-reviewed evidence shows that the Biden administration relied on insufficient evidence and flawed assumptions when it removed the in-person dispensing requirement.“Action is long overdue,” Dannenfelser said.Students for Life of America leader Kristan Hawkins also criticized the timeline.“It shouldn’t take a judge to pry some answers from the FDA on the dangers of chemical abortion pills, nor should it take this long to get them,” said Hawkins. “While we are glad to see the FDA giving attention to deadly drugs, this is not enough to address the harms that recklessly approving mifepristone in 2000 did to public health and fertility.”Alliance Defending Freedom spokeswoman Erin Hawley observed that “every month of additional delay puts nearly 15,000 additional babies at risk in states where mail-order abortion drugs are unlawful.”Mail-order abortions “don’t empower women — they facilitate the abuse, coercion, and poisoning of women by making high-risk drugs accessible to bad actors at the click of a button,” said Hawley.Study: Colleges ‘fail’ pregnant and parenting studentsA recent study found that hundreds of state colleges and universities are failing to provide resources to help pregnant and parenting students stay in school.The study by Students for Life of America’s Demetree Institute found that the average state college campus in the survey offered “barely half the recommended support” for student parents.The study looked at more than 500 state colleges and universities, examining the housing policies, on-campus resources, financial assistance, medical attention, and accommodations and policy transparency they offer to student-parents.The three lowest-ranked schools were Dalton State College in Georgia, Dakota State University in South Dakota, and Concord University in West Virginia.About 98% of schools in the study were missing at least two recommended accommodations for pregnant and parenting students. On-campus housing for families was unavailable at more than 70% of schools. About 85% of schools did not offer scholarships targeted for pregnant or parenting students.Men’s march for life to be held in BostonMen will gather in Boston on Nov. 1 for a national men’s march for life.The National Men’s March to Abolish Abortion and Rally for Personhood first began in 2021. In the event, men march about three miles to a rally point where they meet up with their families, pray, and listen to speakers.In an interview on EWTN’s “At Home With Jim and Joy,” the march’s president, Jim Havens, said the march is focused on “getting men off the sidelines in the fight for equal protection of the preborn — of all human life.”“We’re going to do it in authentic love; we’re going to do it in a peaceful manner, the right way, standing up in public,” he continued. “It really is powerful when we gather together and do this with Christ at the center.”Scottish bishops warn against proposal to expand abortionThe Scottish bishops are warning against a proposal that they say would allow abortion up to birth for any reason.The proposal would decriminalize abortion in Scotland and remove existing legal safeguards protecting unborn children. The Bishops’ Conference of Scotland expressed opposition to the proposal in a statement by Bishop John Keenan, who heads the bishops’ Marriage, Family and Life Commission.“There is a better way than abortion,” Keenan said in the statement.“Every human life possesses inherent dignity and worth; a dignity that does not depend upon age, size, ability, dependency or stage of development,” Keenan said. “It begins at conception and continues until natural death. A just and compassionate society should recognize and protect the lives of both mother and child, especially when either is vulnerable.”Las Vegas archbishop urges vote against abortion measureLas Vegas Archbishop George Leo Thomas called on Catholics in Nevada to vote “no” on a ballot measure that would roll back protections for unborn children, minors, and women and expand abortion up to birth.The Nevada measure would expand the right to abortion, which is already legal in the state up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. The letter opposing the Nevada abortion ballot measure was read at Masses across the archdiocese Oct. 3-4.“This question is not whether abortion is legal in Nevada; it already is under a law approved by Nevada voters in 1990,” said Thomas. “The Legislature cannot amend or repeal that law; only a direct vote of the people can do so. This question is whether Nevada voters should expand the right to abortion in ways that can harm the health, safety, and welfare of women and minors. Moreover, this measure will have grave and lasting consequences for vulnerable unborn lives.”“Unborn children have no voice and cannot defend themselves,” Thomas said. “As Catholics, our faith requires us to protect the inherent dignity of every human life and to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.”

unitedyam

Here is a roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news.

Read More
Oregon officials back off ‘gender ideology mandate’ for mom seeking to adopt #Catholic Oregon officials have agreed they will not “categorically disqualify” a Christian woman from adopting or fostering children based on her religious beliefs about gender and human sexuality, which settles a three-and-a-half-year legal battle.The Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) agreed to a legal settlement with Jessica Bates, who was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). It affirms the department will not consider her religious beliefs when evaluating her application for a certification to adopt children and will not attempt to regulate her speech about gender and sexuality.“Every child deserves a loving home, and children suffer when the government excludes people of faith from foster care because of the state’s own ideological crusade,” ADF Senior Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said in a statement following the Sept. 9 settlement.“Oregon officials turned Jessica away just because of her common-sense belief that parents should help children become comfortable with who they are instead of pushing them down a path of confusion and medicalization,” he said. “We believe this settlement is a win-win that protects constitutional rights and puts children’s interests first.”In September 2022, the ODHS denied Bates’ application because she would not comply with a state policy that requires applicants to agree they will “respect, accept and support the … sexual orientation, gender identity [and] gender expression … of a child or young adult” who is placed in the home, which ADF has characterized as a “gender ideology mandate.”Bates sued ODHS in March 2023, arguing that the policy violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. The lawsuit stated she told the certification officer she would love any child as her own but would not facilitate a child’s gender transition through hormone therapy, use pronouns inconsistent with a child’s biological sex, or encourage gender expression inconsistent with the child’s biological sex or same-sex attraction.A federal district court initially ruled in favor of ODHS in December 2023, but an appellate panel of judges ruled in July 2025 that ODHS likely violated her constitutional rights and blocked the department from enforcing the rules against her while the lawsuit continued.Legal settlementPer the legal agreement, ODHS will allow Bates to apply for a certification and will not consider her religious views in any way.It states ODHS will not deny the application “because of her religious beliefs that sexual activity should occur only within the confines of a marriage between one man and one woman, and a person should identify and seek to live consistent with his or her biological sex.”The settlement adds that this extends to her “desire to respectfully speak about, live out, parent, and make day-to-day caregiving decisions consistent with these sincerely held religious beliefs.”Under the agreement, ODHS also cannot require her to “agree to use prescribed words or language, including chosen pronouns, to express views about sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression inconsistent with her religious beliefs described above as a condition of certification.”“[The] ODHS may not enforce any per se standard, rule, or policy that precludes Bates from being considered for any particular placement, based in whole or in part based on her religious belief,” the settlement agreement states.It further prohibits ODHS from disqualifying Bates from consideration for any particular child placement based on her religious beliefs.Yet, the settlement does not prevent ODHS from “deciding a child’s placement based on its individualized consideration of the child’s needs and of a foster parent’s concerns or limitations (including where religiously motivated) on their ability or willingness to meet the child’s specific needs, including with regard to their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.”The Oregon attorney general’s office referred EWTN News to the Oregon Department of Human Services for comment. The department did not respond to a request for comment.
Read More

Oregon officials back off ‘gender ideology mandate’ for mom seeking to adopt #Catholic Oregon officials have agreed they will not “categorically disqualify” a Christian woman from adopting or fostering children based on her religious beliefs about gender and human sexuality, which settles a three-and-a-half-year legal battle.The Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) agreed to a legal settlement with Jessica Bates, who was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). It affirms the department will not consider her religious beliefs when evaluating her application for a certification to adopt children and will not attempt to regulate her speech about gender and sexuality.“Every child deserves a loving home, and children suffer when the government excludes people of faith from foster care because of the state’s own ideological crusade,” ADF Senior Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said in a statement following the Sept. 9 settlement.“Oregon officials turned Jessica away just because of her common-sense belief that parents should help children become comfortable with who they are instead of pushing them down a path of confusion and medicalization,” he said. “We believe this settlement is a win-win that protects constitutional rights and puts children’s interests first.”In September 2022, the ODHS denied Bates’ application because she would not comply with a state policy that requires applicants to agree they will “respect, accept and support the … sexual orientation, gender identity [and] gender expression … of a child or young adult” who is placed in the home, which ADF has characterized as a “gender ideology mandate.”Bates sued ODHS in March 2023, arguing that the policy violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. The lawsuit stated she told the certification officer she would love any child as her own but would not facilitate a child’s gender transition through hormone therapy, use pronouns inconsistent with a child’s biological sex, or encourage gender expression inconsistent with the child’s biological sex or same-sex attraction.A federal district court initially ruled in favor of ODHS in December 2023, but an appellate panel of judges ruled in July 2025 that ODHS likely violated her constitutional rights and blocked the department from enforcing the rules against her while the lawsuit continued.Legal settlementPer the legal agreement, ODHS will allow Bates to apply for a certification and will not consider her religious views in any way.It states ODHS will not deny the application “because of her religious beliefs that sexual activity should occur only within the confines of a marriage between one man and one woman, and a person should identify and seek to live consistent with his or her biological sex.”The settlement adds that this extends to her “desire to respectfully speak about, live out, parent, and make day-to-day caregiving decisions consistent with these sincerely held religious beliefs.”Under the agreement, ODHS also cannot require her to “agree to use prescribed words or language, including chosen pronouns, to express views about sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression inconsistent with her religious beliefs described above as a condition of certification.”“[The] ODHS may not enforce any per se standard, rule, or policy that precludes Bates from being considered for any particular placement, based in whole or in part based on her religious belief,” the settlement agreement states.It further prohibits ODHS from disqualifying Bates from consideration for any particular child placement based on her religious beliefs.Yet, the settlement does not prevent ODHS from “deciding a child’s placement based on its individualized consideration of the child’s needs and of a foster parent’s concerns or limitations (including where religiously motivated) on their ability or willingness to meet the child’s specific needs, including with regard to their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.”The Oregon attorney general’s office referred EWTN News to the Oregon Department of Human Services for comment. The department did not respond to a request for comment.

unitedyam

The legal settlement ensures that Jessica Bates’ religious views will not be a factor in determining whether she can adopt children.

Read More
Study: Doctors don’t screen for abortion coercion — and it hurts women #Catholic A recent study found that women who are pressured to undergo unwanted abortions are at highest risk of negative outcomes and harm from abortion.The study, published in the Journal of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (JAHM), found that physicians rarely screen for coercion and pressure to abort, even though it is the highest predictive risk factor for negative outcomes.The authors, David C. Reardon, Dr. Martha W. Shuping, and Dr. Patricia K. Giebink, called the failure to screen for this “medical negligence.”“Women considering abortions should be evaluated for risk factors predictive of negative outcomes,” the study read. “The failure to screen for these risk factors is medical negligence. Screening and informing women of their personal risk factors as required by ethical and legal standards may lead to consideration of alternatives to abortion by women who consider the risks unacceptable.”Michael New, a senior associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a pro-life group that does abortion-related research, said it was a “methodologically strong study,” noting that 1,000 women were surveyed, 226 of whom had an abortion in the past.“Pro-lifers and the medical community should learn several important lessons from this study,” New told EWTN News. “First, coerced abortions are not uncommon. Secondly, … this study adds to a body of research that finds that a substantial percentage of abortions are unwanted or are inconsistent with the values of the woman seeking the abortion.”“Third, even though supporters of legal abortion claim that women obtaining abortions report low levels of mental health problems, they should acknowledge that mental health risks are substantially higher among the subset of women who are emotionally conflicted or who would prefer not to have the abortion,” he continued.Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, a senior ethicist at The National Catholic Bioethics Center, urged physicians “to provide full disclosure of the risks and side effects to their patients.”“The long list of bad mental, emotional, and health effects that regularly arise in the wake of an induced abortion should give pause to anyone seeking, or counseling, abortion, especially when it comes to medical professionals who themselves need to be fully informed regarding the seriousness of these risks,” Pacholczyk told EWTN News.“I think it’s fair to say that a key duty of the physician or healthcare professional, in seeking to ‘do no harm,’ would be to try to dissuade their patients from acting on any desire to procure a direct abortion,” he continued. “And a candid discussion about the broad range of potential bad outcomes from the procedure provides an excellent starting point for dialoguing with their patients in a moment of crisis.”Pacholczyk urged medical professionals to have references for pre-abortion counseling for women considering abortion.“While medical professionals may not be able themselves to provide all the support a young woman requires when confronted with an unexpected pregnancy, they should be able to recommend or refer the woman to obtain additional helpful pre-abortion counseling so she can ponder, and bring to the surface, her own motives and fears, and by doing so, hopefully strengthen her to steer clear of the pseudo-remedy of abortion and instead address her situation with a heightened awareness of the care, accompaniment, and support coming from those around her,” Pacholczyk said. Though difficult to enforce, legislation to require medical professionals to screen for coercion may enable victims of coercion to sue abortion clinics, if put into effect, according to New.“It is unsurprising that physicians performing abortions rarely screen for coercion,” New said. “Many abortion are done in high-volume clinics where abortion doctors spend very little time with women seeking abortions.”Kelsey Pritchard, a spokeswoman for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the abortion industry doesn’t prioritize women.“The abortion industry prioritizes profit — not women’s well-being, informed consent, or health, the overwhelming evidence shows,” Pritchard said.“Previous peer-reviewed research by Charlotte Lozier Institute scholars indicates most women who’ve had abortions would have preferred not to if they had more support, with nearly a quarter describing their abortions as unwanted or coerced,” Pritchard continued.She voiced concerns about the ease of abortion coercion due to mail-order abortion.“Since Democrats made it as easy as ordering an Amazon package for anyone anywhere to buy and ship dangerous abortion drugs, even to states with pro-life laws, this hidden epidemic has gone from bad to worse, with alarming cases of women assaulted and poisoned across the country,” Pritchard said.“Women pressured, coerced, or forced to abort go on to report higher levels of mental health and quality-of-life difficulties, which they all too often endure silently as they can face significant hurdles to coming forward,” Pritchard said.“The loudest pro-abortion voices refuse to acknowledge the truth behind their narrative of ‘freedom’ and ‘choice,’” Pritchard said.
Read More

Study: Doctors don’t screen for abortion coercion — and it hurts women #Catholic A recent study found that women who are pressured to undergo unwanted abortions are at highest risk of negative outcomes and harm from abortion.The study, published in the Journal of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (JAHM), found that physicians rarely screen for coercion and pressure to abort, even though it is the highest predictive risk factor for negative outcomes.The authors, David C. Reardon, Dr. Martha W. Shuping, and Dr. Patricia K. Giebink, called the failure to screen for this “medical negligence.”“Women considering abortions should be evaluated for risk factors predictive of negative outcomes,” the study read. “The failure to screen for these risk factors is medical negligence. Screening and informing women of their personal risk factors as required by ethical and legal standards may lead to consideration of alternatives to abortion by women who consider the risks unacceptable.”Michael New, a senior associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a pro-life group that does abortion-related research, said it was a “methodologically strong study,” noting that 1,000 women were surveyed, 226 of whom had an abortion in the past.“Pro-lifers and the medical community should learn several important lessons from this study,” New told EWTN News. “First, coerced abortions are not uncommon. Secondly, … this study adds to a body of research that finds that a substantial percentage of abortions are unwanted or are inconsistent with the values of the woman seeking the abortion.”“Third, even though supporters of legal abortion claim that women obtaining abortions report low levels of mental health problems, they should acknowledge that mental health risks are substantially higher among the subset of women who are emotionally conflicted or who would prefer not to have the abortion,” he continued.Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, a senior ethicist at The National Catholic Bioethics Center, urged physicians “to provide full disclosure of the risks and side effects to their patients.”“The long list of bad mental, emotional, and health effects that regularly arise in the wake of an induced abortion should give pause to anyone seeking, or counseling, abortion, especially when it comes to medical professionals who themselves need to be fully informed regarding the seriousness of these risks,” Pacholczyk told EWTN News.“I think it’s fair to say that a key duty of the physician or healthcare professional, in seeking to ‘do no harm,’ would be to try to dissuade their patients from acting on any desire to procure a direct abortion,” he continued. “And a candid discussion about the broad range of potential bad outcomes from the procedure provides an excellent starting point for dialoguing with their patients in a moment of crisis.”Pacholczyk urged medical professionals to have references for pre-abortion counseling for women considering abortion.“While medical professionals may not be able themselves to provide all the support a young woman requires when confronted with an unexpected pregnancy, they should be able to recommend or refer the woman to obtain additional helpful pre-abortion counseling so she can ponder, and bring to the surface, her own motives and fears, and by doing so, hopefully strengthen her to steer clear of the pseudo-remedy of abortion and instead address her situation with a heightened awareness of the care, accompaniment, and support coming from those around her,” Pacholczyk said. Though difficult to enforce, legislation to require medical professionals to screen for coercion may enable victims of coercion to sue abortion clinics, if put into effect, according to New.“It is unsurprising that physicians performing abortions rarely screen for coercion,” New said. “Many abortion are done in high-volume clinics where abortion doctors spend very little time with women seeking abortions.”Kelsey Pritchard, a spokeswoman for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the abortion industry doesn’t prioritize women.“The abortion industry prioritizes profit — not women’s well-being, informed consent, or health, the overwhelming evidence shows,” Pritchard said.“Previous peer-reviewed research by Charlotte Lozier Institute scholars indicates most women who’ve had abortions would have preferred not to if they had more support, with nearly a quarter describing their abortions as unwanted or coerced,” Pritchard continued.She voiced concerns about the ease of abortion coercion due to mail-order abortion.“Since Democrats made it as easy as ordering an Amazon package for anyone anywhere to buy and ship dangerous abortion drugs, even to states with pro-life laws, this hidden epidemic has gone from bad to worse, with alarming cases of women assaulted and poisoned across the country,” Pritchard said.“Women pressured, coerced, or forced to abort go on to report higher levels of mental health and quality-of-life difficulties, which they all too often endure silently as they can face significant hurdles to coming forward,” Pritchard said.“The loudest pro-abortion voices refuse to acknowledge the truth behind their narrative of ‘freedom’ and ‘choice,’” Pritchard said.

unitedyam

A recent study highlights that when women are coerced or pressured into abortion, they are at high risk for negative outcomes — but abortion prviidess rarely screen for abortion coercion.

Read More