abortion

Mar 17 2026

Is America Growing More or Less Pro-Life?

One of the primary marks of a nation is how it cares for its most vulnerable. Few are more vulnerable and helpless than the preborn. Every child in a mother’s womb is humanity’s tomorrow. That is, after all, how each of us started. Those tiny humans demand our care and protection.

So how are we doing as a country in protecting human life in the womb? For all the seriously heroic pro-life efforts going on across the nation, are our fellow citizens’ views on abortion moving in a positive direction?

New polling data from the Pew Research Center paints a good news/bad news story.

Some good news is that among white evangelicals, 74% say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. This is up from 62% who said this in 2008. (Pew provided no data for black or Hispanic evangelicals.)

The bad news is that in the long run, convictions appear to have not really moved much in the past 30 years. In fact, Pew’s data show the number of Americans who say abortion should be legal/illegal in “all/most cases” is precisely the same today as it was 31 years ago in 1995, as this graph shows.

But there is also good news here. As this chart indicates, there have been recent marked declines in the number of Americans who support abortion and increases in those who want to see it significantly restricted. Pew’s data tells us that in 2024, 63% of Americans thought abortion should be legal in “all/most cases” and that number has now declined to 60%. On the pro-life side, those numbers have shifted from 36% in 2024, up to 38% today. Yet they were exactly as they are today — 60 versus 38% — as they were in 2020 and 1995.

You see a slightly different perspective on the overall consistency from this long trendline:

The year these two conflicting views closed the narrowest gap was in 2009 when 47% of Americans believed abortion should be protected and 44% believed it should be substantially restricted. The highest point the pro-life view reached since 1995 when Pew started tracking this question was 44% in 2009 and 2010. It nearly regained that height with 43% in 2015. The peak for the pro-abortion view was 63% in 2024, and it only hit the low 60s in 1995, 2019 (61%), 2020 (60%), 2022 (62%), and 2026.

Additional good news is that Pew finds a full 76% of Americans believe there should be at least some legal limits on abortion. This is contrary to what pro-abortion activists advocate for and have successfully passed in a great many states in the U.S. When asked, their leaders are not inclined to mention any limitations they favor. In fact, they typically resist basic medical health and safety standards being applied to abortion businesses.

Of this new Pew data, Professor Michael New of the Catholic University of America and the Charlotte Lozier Institute in Washington DC wrote over at National Review,

This Pew poll provides welcome news. Some recent polls, including the Knights of Columbus/Marist poll found that the pro-life position was losing ground in the court of public opinion. However, this poll shows that after a slight dip post-Dobbs, pro-life sentiment is rebounding — good news as pro-lifers continue the effort to build a culture of life.

Abortion by Politics

Finally, Pew documents how abortion has been faring among the two major parties in the U.S. Support for abortion has increased among Republicans and Democrats, yet to very differing degrees.

The Republican party removed “right to life” convictions from its party platform in 2024 and 41% of GOPers supported the full legality of abortion that year. Yet Pew notes a decline since then in the number of Republican or Republican-leaning citizens who believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases down to 36%. Although that conviction has remained pretty steady over the last twenty years.

However, Democrat and Democrat-leaning voters favoring no or few limitations on abortion have risen dramatically from 63% in 2007 to 84% in 2026.

This is a 48-point difference between the two parties on the need to protect preborn life. In 2007, they shared a 24-point gulf.

We should celebrate the good news here and be sobered by the bad. But we must also realize we still have much work to do to recover a nation that values all life, no matter how young. The collective work of this very vibrant pro-life movement must continue — and grow!

Mar 11 2026

Biden Administration Endangered Women With Abortion Pill Change, Research Finds

The Biden administration endangered and harmed thousands of women by canceling the requirement to visit a doctor in person before having the dangerous abortion pill prescribed or dispensed, new research has found.

The Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) released research on March 10 showing the Biden administration’s relaxing of the “in-person dispensing requirement” increased the rate of serious adverse events from 10.15% to 11.50%. This is a “statistically significant difference of 1.35 percentage points and an increase of 13%,” the EPPC notes.

The report was written by EPPC President Ryan T. Anderson and Director of Data Analysis Jamie Bryan Hall.

“Without requiring an in-person doctor visit, anyone can go online and get mail-order abortion pills,” said Anderson, adding,

There is no way to ensure that the unborn baby hasn’t grown so large that chemical abortion is unsafe for the mother, no way to ensure that the unborn baby isn’t implanted outside of the uterus where using chemical abortion drugs could prove deadly to the mother, and no way to ensure that it’s the mother who is voluntarily requesting the chemical abortion drugs and not a boyfriend seeking the pills to secretly and coercively poison her.

Tragically, exactly that happened in the case of Rosalie Markezich, a Louisiana woman coerced into taking abortion drugs by her boyfriend, who obtained them from a doctor in California via mail.

The Biden administration suspended the “in-person dispensing requirement” in 2021, making the change permanent in 2023. The requirement had been in effect since 2000, when the FDA first approved mifepristone, mandating the drug – the first in the two-drug abortion regimen – be dispensed and administered only in a clinic, medical office or hospital.

The 2021 changed allowed the drug to be obtained through the mail – allowing women to abort their baby without ever talking to another person – rather than from a licensed physician in an office setting.

Credit: EPPC

The new findings follow the EPPC’s release of a study last year finding the rate of serious adverse events from the abortion pill is far higher than the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had previously acknowledged.

According to that study, “nearly 11% of all women who abort their child with mifepristone suffer from life-threatening conditions, including sepsis, infection or hemorrhaging” – a rate 22 times higher than the FDA had claimed.

The FDA is currently reviewing the abortion pill’s safety profile at Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s direction. Pro-life supporters, however, have raised concerns that the study is being delayed.

The EPPC’s latest findings provide new urgency for the FDA to crack down on the abortion pill and reinstate its safety guardrails – if not outright ban mifepristone – to protect women.

“Making America Healthy Again” demands nothing less.

At Focus on the Family, we have been working to turn the cultural tide and save mothers and babies from abortion for years. Since beginning the Option Ultrasound Program in 2004, Focus has helped save over half a million lives. Just $60 will help save a life through Option Ultrasound. Will you partner with us to save lives from abortion?

If you are experiencing an unexpected pregnancy and want to learn more about your options, you can visit My Choice Network.

Related articles and resources:

My Choice Network

I’m Pregnant, Now What?

Dealing With Unplanned Pregnancy

Become an Option Ultrasound Life Advocate

New Insights on the Dangers of the Abortion Pill

Overcoming Abortion and Becoming a Force for Life

Photo from Getty Images.

Mar 09 2026

Pop Star Jokes About Fan’s Abortion, Encourages Others to do the Same

A rising pop star unapologetically joked about a fan killing her preborn baby last week — the sobering result of the decades-long devaluation of life in the West.

“I didn’t know I was pregnant here but at least my baby got to hear ‘Midnight Sun’ before I aborted it,” a fan of songstress Zara Larsson commented under a TikTok video of Larsson performing the song.

“I killed the performance and then you killed it after the performance purrrrrr,” Larsson replied, using a slang term meant to indicate strong approval or celebration.

The singer remained unapologetic — even gleeful — in the face of pro-life censure.

“Like, sorry, that’s funny,” Larsson said of her (mediocre) wordplay in a video responding Students for Life president Kristan Hawkins, who called the singer’s comments “sick.”

“Like, I don’t know what to say. That’s funny,” Larsson repeated.

The singer encouraged her followers to further trivialize abortion.

“Let’s make more jokes,” she said. “Like, abortion is healthcare.”

Hawkins’ responded to Larsson’s video on X, writing:

This is the culture of death the pro-abortion movement has created. We must end it.

Hawkins’ response refers to the systematic devaluation of life in American culture, evidenced by the legalization, normalization and celebration of killing preborn babies.

Larsson’s reprehensible comments illustrate a grim new iteration of the culture of death — the trivialization of murder.

Larsson and her fan reduced the death of a preborn child to a pithy exchange on social media. Even more disturbing, the duo joked about the baby’s death after humanizing him or her. The child’s mother admitted he or she could hear music. Larsson freely used the word “kill” to describe the child’s death.

You don’t kill “a clump of cells.” You kill a living being. But, in a culture of death, life ceases to matter.

I’m reminded of a line from C.S. Lewis’ eminently relevant The Screwtape Letters, in which Screwtape, a demon, describes humor as “an invaluable means of destroying shame.”

People continue toward damnation, Screwtape contends, when they discover “almost anything [they] want to do can be done, not only without the disapproval but with the admiration of [their] fellows, if only it can get itself treated as a joke.”

Larsson’s utter detachment from the gravity of murder illustrates how much influence the culture of death wields over hearts and minds.

It is vital, then, for pro-lifers to not only pursue legal protections for preborn children, but also to remind those who have forgotten that human life is intrinsically valuable.

Only when Americans reclaim the cultural value of life will abortion become unthinkable — and jokes like Larsson’s utterly unacceptable.

If you are experiencing an unexpected pregnancy and want to learn more about your options, you can visit My Choice Network.

Related Articles and Resources:

Counseling Services

Resources for those considering abortion.

Resources for those recovering from abortion.

My Choice Network

I’m Pregnant, Now What?

Dealing With Unplanned Pregnancy

Become an Option Ultrasound Life Advocate

New Insights on the Dangers of the Abortion Pill

Overcoming Abortion and Becoming a Force for Life

Appeals Court Upholds Defunding of Big Abortion Businesses

Photo credit: TikTok/@honeyhazelwood, TikTok/@zaralarsson, Getty

Feb 17 2026

California Passes $90 Million Funding Bill for Planned Parenthood

California passed a bill last week granting Planned Parenthood $90 million to spend however it likes.

SB 106 passed the California state assembly in a 55-14, party-line vote. Governor Gavin Newsom, accompanied by several Planned Parenthood executives, signed the bill on February 11, promising it would “protect access to critical resources for women and families across the state.”

Critics argue granting Planned Parenthood an additional $90 million — on top of the $145 million California taxpayers have already paid the abortion giant since Congress defunded it in July — does not address California’s most pressing medical concerns.

“Why does Planned Parenthood get a ninety-million-dollar grant [when], right now, over 60 hospitals in the state of California are on the verge of shutting down and have to ask for a hospital distress loan?” Assemblyman David Tangipa asked his colleagues.

Hospitals and maternity wards are especially sparse in rural areas. Tangipa’s Medera County — one of the largest counties in California — doesn’t have a single maternity ward.

“We should be focused on ensuring comprehensive medical care for women everywhere, not directing limited resources in a way that leaves communities behind,” the assemblyman concluded.

Tangipa proposed amending SB 106 to prevent Planned Parenthood from spending the grant on pro-abortion lobbying and better direct the funds toward rural areas.

None of his amendments passed.

Tangipa’s criticisms hit on several important points. Though Planned Parenthood bills itself as a comprehensive “reproductive health” provider, it primarily sells abortions, dispenses sex-rejecting hormones and peddles comprehensive sex education to minors.

According to its most recent annual report, Planned Parenthood performed 402,230 abortions in FY 2022 — a 2% increase from the previous year — and gave out sex-rejecting hormones to as many as 40,000 people.

In contrast, Planned Parenthood provided 10% fewer “additional services” in FY 2022 than in 2013, with a 61% decrease in breast exams, a 54% decrease in PAP smears and a whopping 63% decrease in prenatal services.

California’s decision to further fund Planned Parenthood rather than supplement rural hospital services could reflect the abortion corporation’s entrenched relationship with many lawmakers.

Planned Parenthood donated $1.6 million to California legislators in the past ten years, including more than $68,000 to Governor Newsom.

Some California state representatives have sought abortions from Planned Parenthood. Assemblywomen Buffy Wicks opined at length about the abortion Planned Parenthood performed on her, and how the death of her unborn child facilitated her political career and enabled her to start a family on her own schedule.

“I got to create [my] life because Planned Parenthood gave me the opportunity to make that choice and to make that decision at that vulnerable time of my life,” Wicks told the assembly.

The decision to end her child’s like wasn’t Wicks’ to make. Her success and happiness do not justify the death of her first child. But Wicks’ reasoning illustrates the close ideological alignment between Planned Parenthood and many progressive politicians.

These ideological and monetary ties undergird the symbiotic relationships between Planned Parenthood and much of the political left, including progressive elites in California.

Planned Parenthood spends millions of dollars each year lobbying for pro-abortion policies. Supporting abortion has become a tent-pole position for the modern Democrat party. Many left-leaning political hopefuls, eyeing the 2026 and 2028 elections, have circled the wagons around Planned Parenthood to please their voter bases.

Planned Parenthood also affirms gender ideology through damaging comprehensive sex ed programs, which it develops and teaches. Comprehensive sex ed affirm gender ideology, normalize minors engaging in risky sexual behaviors and claim children have “sexual rights.”

Though gender ideology has become unpopular with most Americans, it continues to motivate a loud section of the political left’s base.

The tangled relationships between California’s legislators and Planned Parenthood give the abortion giant an undeniable leg up in fiscal negotiations.

Reason and the will of the people won’t prevail in California as long as organizations like Planned Parenthood hold legislators’ ears and pocketbooks.

Additional Articles and Resources

Planned Parenthood Earns $2 Billion Killing Over 400,000 Babies, Annual Report Shows

Gender Ideology Sours Feds on Comprehensive Sex Ed

Colorado Lawmakers Force Taxpayers to Fund Planned Parenthood Bailout

Planned Parenthood Drops Suit After Trying to Force Taxpayers to Fund Abortions

Trump Administration Delivers Pro-Life Wins Ahead of March for Life

Feb 06 2026

Right to Life Michigan Sues Over Law Requiring Hiring of Pro-Abortion Employees

Right to Life of Michigan (RLM) and Pregnancy Resource Center (PRC) filed a lawsuit challenging a state employment law that requires them to hire pro-abortion employees.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed the suit on behalf of the pro-life organizations, explaining in a press release:

Michigan amended its employment law to re-define “sex” discrimination to include “the termination of a pregnancy.” It is now illegal for Right to Life of Michigan and Pregnancy Resource Center to recruit and hire only those employees who share their pro-life views.

ADF, a legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, the sanctity of life and parents’ rights, added, “The law also requires these organizations to offer abortion coverage in their insurance plans in direct conflict with their very mission.”

ADF Senior Counsel Bryan Neihart stated:

It makes no sense to force pro-life organizations to hire employees who disagree with that view. Pro-life groups should be free to share the message of hope and joy with women and families experiencing a difficult season through employees who share their common goal.

According to the ADF press release:

Right to Life of Michigan offers life-affirming education and advocates for pro-life policies across the state. Pregnancy Resource Center provides women with medical care, resources and support structures to help them through their pregnancies. Both hire like-minded individuals who share their convictions about the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. They depend on their employees to promote their pro-life views to the public and to encourage other staff.

But state employment law now requires them to hire individuals who disagree with their work and their deeply-held pro-life beliefs.

Michigan enacted the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act in 1976, prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations, employment, housing and education on the basis of “religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status.”

The act prohibited “sex-based discrimination due to pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy,” but it specifically excluded “nontherapeutic abortions not intended to save the life of the mother.”

In 2022, Michigan voters passed Proposal 3, the “Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative,” a law enshrining abortion as a constitutional right.

To bring the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act in line with Proposal 3, the legislature passed Senate Bill 147, which deleted “nontherapeutic abortion not intended to save the life of the mother.”

That change meant that “sex discrimination” included anyone who had an abortion or supported abortion.

The legislature also approved Senate Bill 4, adding “sexual orientation and gender identity or expression” as categories protected from discrimination.

Amber Roseboom, president of Right to Life of Michigan, spoke in a press release about the challenge to the state’s employment law:

Non-profit organizations like Right to Life of Michigan should have the right to recruit and hire employees who unequivocally support women in choosing life-affirming pregnancy care and who compassionately advocate for that choice. … Our legal challenge aims to ensure that Right to Life of Michigan has the freedom to hire employees who share its vision without the threat of government punishment so that we can continue to advocate for life-affirming options now and into the future.

Among other allegations, the lawsuit states that Michigan’s employment law violates RLM and PRC’s First Amendment rights to expressive association and assembly; to freedom of speech and press; and to free exercise of religion and to religious autonomy.

The case is Right to Life of Michigan v. Nessel.