• Skip to main content
Daily Citizen
  • Subscribe
  • Categories
    • Culture
    • Life
    • Religious Freedom
    • Sexuality
  • Parenting Resources
    • LGBT Pride
    • Homosexuality
    • Sexuality/Marriage
    • Transgender
  • About
    • Contributors
    • Contact
  • Donate

pro-life

Jul 14 2025

Emily’s Story: Pro-Life Supporters are More than ‘Pro-Birth’

“Pro-life.”

When you read this, what do you see? It might be the image of an ultrasound or pro-life events like the March for Life in Washington, D.C. Others may see a newborn wrapped in a cozy blanket.

But what happens to this baby after his or her birth?

Although the church does incredible work to care for children who have been granted their right to life, it feels as though the stereotypical pro-life movement is not often associated with advocacy measures for what comes after birth: the rest of a child’s life.

As a pro-life supporter, it frustrates me that these two discussions – the protection of preborn human life, and proper care for children after birth – do not always go hand-in-hand. While pro-life activists rightfully encourage healthy pregnancies and safe births, we must remember that the term “pro-life” also includes services such as safe foster homes and adoptions. In fact, a well-functioning foster care system could significantly reduce women’s felt “need” for abortions.

Tragically, many children who receive their right to life are born into horrible circumstances – abusive or neglectful homes, abandonment, families battling addiction, parents who lack resources to care for their child, the death or incarceration of a parent – the list goes on.

Terrible situations such as these have forced the removal of countless children from their families and warranted their placement in the foster care system. Unfortunately, the term “pro-life” does not typically prompt images of such scenarios.

In 2023, the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) estimated a total of 343,077 children in the United States foster care system. In 2023 alone, 175,283 children entered foster care, with 82% of these placement cases involving abuse and neglect.

While foster care has been a blessing to many children and families, the system is not perfect. As of 2023, 20% of children in the foster care system had spent at least 3 years waiting for either adoption or reunification with their families. Additionally, some choose to foster simply for the extra cash it provides, rather than because they genuinely care about the children in the system.

It is both devastating and difficult to imagine the individual children these statistics represent – boys and girls who were rightfully granted the chance to live, but removed from their biological families and thrown into circumstances beyond their control.

A very close friend of mine, Emily, represents just one of the thousands of children impacted by the foster care system. I recently had the honor of listening to Emily describe her moving experiences with foster care and adoption.

Her story demonstrates exactly why pro-life advocacy does not stop at birth.

Emily was born in 2003, the fifth out of nine children. Her parents did not have the resources to properly care for their family, and their house was crowded and dirty. Emily recalls her youngest sister “crawling around eating cat food and toilet paper” off the ground.

In 2010, Emily’s home was investigated after police found her disabled brother wandering their neighborhood unattended on two separate occasions. As a result, Emily and several of her siblings entered the foster care system due to neglect.

Emily was only six years old when she was removed from her family.

While her two-year-old sister was placed in a stable, loving foster home, Emily and her three-year-old sister lived a very different story – one that no child should ever have to tell.

The two girls remained in their first foster home for one year. During these twelve months, Emily remembers being locked in her bedroom or out of the house for hours at a time, forcing her to use the bathroom outside.

She also recalls her foster mother taking away a book the girls had received from their biological mom. It was never returned. 

During this time, Emily and her sister were often taken back home to visit their parents.

“I didn’t understand why I could see them, but not live with them,” she said.

One day, after waiting until her foster mother had left for the grocery store, Emily called 911 for help. She remembers feeling “scared, confused and wanting to leave.”

When the police arrived at her foster home, they told seven-year-old Emily there was nothing they could do to help her.

A year after their initial placement, Emily and her sister were “dropped off at a friend’s house” so their foster mother could go on vacation. These people were not foster care certified, and when Emily’s social worker found out, the two girls were immediately removed from their first foster care placement.

The sisters were then relocated to a temporary placement, where they stayed for four months before transitioning to a more permanent foster home.

Around this time, Emily was given the option of returning to her biological parents’ home or pursuing adoption. Ultimately, Emily chose adoption.

When describing her third foster care placement, Emily noted she had “nothing bad to say about that place.” It was in this home that Emily and her sister were first introduced to Christianity and ultimately to their adoptive parents.

Little did Emily know that her Sunday school teacher at church would soon provide a permanent, loving home for three girls in need of a family.

After spending 27 months in foster care, Emily and her two sisters moved into their new and final home on October 18, 2012.

Initially, nine-year-old Emily didn’t believe this arrangement was truly permanent, but the girls soon integrated with their new family. They began calling their parents “mom and dad” early on, and were lovingly embraced by their three older siblings.

Today, Emily works as an Early Childhood Educator, teaching a preschool class at a daycare. She explained how her background has allowed her to resonate and sympathize with children in her class who have difficult home lives or struggle with certain issues.

“I had it pretty good overall,” Emily said. “Some kids have it way worse.”

Emily’s story demonstrates that the battle for children’s rights doesn’t stop at birth. As Christians, we are obligated to advocate for children who are alive as a result of the births we have fought for – especially children who have spent years in the foster care system, waiting for either adoption or reunification with their biological families.

Contrary to the stereotype, pro-life supporters are more than just “pro-birth.” We care for a child’s entire life – from conception until the very end.

When I read the words “pro-life,” I still picture the ultrasounds, marches and newborns. But now, I also see faces of children who were given the chance to live, yet are trapped in situations beyond their control.

I see faces like Emily’s – the freckled redhead who has not only become one of my closest friends, but has also deeply influenced my own life with her powerful story.

Ultimately, I see countless lives we can change by providing safe foster homes and adoptions for children in need of Christ’s love.

So, I ask you to read these two words again: “Pro-life.”

What do you see now?

Related Articles and Resources:

Wait No More

Adoption From Foster Care

Faces of Foster Care

Resources: Fostering or Adopting Children From Difficult Backgrounds

Focus on the Family: Pro-Life

Written by Meredith Godwin · Categorized: Life · Tagged: advocacy, foster care, pro-life

Jun 26 2025

Pro-Life Win: US Supreme Court Clears Path to Defund Planned Parenthood

In a significant victory for the pro-life movement, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of South Carolina’s plan to defund Planned Parenthood, creating a pathway for other states and Congress to finally stop using taxpayer dollars to subsidize Planned Parenthood.

This decision affirms state governments, and even the federal government, have the authority to define a qualified medical provider and confirms Medicaid recipients can’t sue to block those decision.

Background

The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood, concerns South Carolina’s decision to withhold Medicaid tax dollars from abortion providers.

As reported by the Daily Citizen, the case originated with an executive order South Carolina’s governor issued in 2018, which prohibited abortion clinics from participating in the state’s Medicaid program.

Planned Parenthood sued the state on behalf of Medicaid recipients, claiming they have a judicially enforceable “right” to choose which qualified medical providers Medicaid should cover, including Planned Parenthood.

The Court heard oral arguments in April.

Opinion

The majority opinion was authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

The central issue in this case was whether the Medicaid Act’s language gives recipients a legal right to sue in court. The majority said no because the language is too vague. If Congress wanted to permit individuals to sue, the Court opined, it would have used crystal-clear “rights” language. In this case, it did not.

The majority also reasoned that, because Medicaid is a spending program, federal agencies are responsible for holding states accountable, not individuals filing lawsuits.

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

Dissenting justices argued that, in their opinions, the statutory language gives individuals the right to sue. They contend that if Medicaid recipients can’t sue in court to defend their rights, they are powerless to challenge the state’s actions.

The case reveals an important philosophical divide within the Court regarding the separation of powers, federalism and the role of the judiciary.

The majority represents a more restrained and limited role of judicial power, requiring unambiguous language from Congress to interpret a private cause of action in federal statutes. The dissent presents a more expansive interpretation of the law and judicial power to infer rights in federal law that may not be explicitly stated.

Impact

Medina is a landmark case because it empowers states and Congress to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Focus on the Family applauds the Court’s decision. This ruling will save women and babies from the tragedy of abortion.

Other states can now look to South Carolina’s law as an example of how they, too, can defund Planned Parenthood at the state level.  

In addition, Congress now has strong legal authority to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers at the federal level.

Now is the time to call on Congress to defund Planned Parenthood. American taxpayer dollars shouldn’t subsidize abortion providers. Contact your senator and representative today.

Written by Nicole Hunt · Categorized: Life · Tagged: planned parenthood, pro-life, supreme court

Jun 24 2025

Abortion Pill Chemicals May Be Contaminating America’s Tap Water

In addition to aborting babies and harming women, mifepristone (the abortion pill) is possibly contaminating America’s tap water.

In a recent letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Senator James Lankford and Congressman Josh Brecheen urged EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to investigate “the potential contaminant effects of this drug”:

We request that the EPA study the impact of the “byproducts” of mifepristone, such as the active metabolites that are entering our nation’s water system and threatening access to safe drinking water.

In 1996, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) conducted an environmental evaluation for mifepristone, stating, “Mifepristone may enter the environment from excretion by patients, from disposal of pharmaceutical waste, or from emissions from manufacturing sites.”

Ultimately, the CDER concluded that mifepristone posed no major threats, and could be “used and disposed of without any expected adverse environmental effects.”

However, this brief investigation occurred long before the popularization of at-home chemical abortions.

Today, medication abortions (mifepristone is the most popular abortion pill on the market) account for over 60% of known US abortions – an estimated 648,500 at-home abortions in 2023 alone.

The drug functions as a progesterone blocker, inducing abortion by disrupting a pregnant woman’s hormones.

Since the CDER’s 1996 assessment, at least one study has shown these harmful byproducts in mifepristone remain active even after passing through the human body.

In their letter, Lankford and Brecheen express concern that,

If residual amounts of the drug and its metabolites persist in wastewater, prolonged exposure could potentially interfere with a person’s fertility, regardless of sex.
We believe it is reckless to allow a known progesterone blocker to be flushed into America’s drinking water without knowing definitively if it impacts fertility rates.

In a pro-life campaign earlier this year, Students for Life of America claimed:

As women increasingly use the pills at home to end pregnancies and flush the expelled tissue, trace amounts of the medication make their way into rivers and streams, where they can harm endangered species and livestock.

After conducting their own testing, the group also claimed that mifepristone is “contaminating tap water and could be threatening human fertility.”

Zac Kester, an advising attorney with Students for Life, stated:

We know it’s synthetic. We know it’s potent. We know it’s designed to end pregnancy, to stop biological processes. So we’re hoping that this prompts local governments and other bodies to pursue more testing and research.

It seems Students for Life’s efforts have done just that. In their letter to the EPA, Lankford and Brecheen, along with three other senators and 20 additional representatives, demanded a serious study of mifepristone byproducts by August 2025:

Scientific research on the health effects of water sources where there are trace amounts of a chemical that is designed to end the life of a child in the womb should not be controversial.
The American people deserve to know what contaminants might be present in their drinking water and their potential impacts on public health.

Related Articles and Resources:

Pro-Life: Focus on the Family

New Insights on the Dangers of the Abortion Pill

The Abortion Pill: How Does It Work?

Woman Nearly Dies from Abortion Pill, Story Reflects Disturbing EPPC Data

New Abortion Pill Study Confirms Danger to Mothers

Here’s the Secret Pro-Abortion Activists Won’t Tell You About the Abortion Pill: It’s Dangerous

Shield Laws Enable Chemical Abortions in Pro-Life States

Written by Meredith Godwin · Categorized: Culture, Life · Tagged: mifepristone, pro-life, water

Jun 20 2025

New Poll: More Americans are Pro-Life, Think Abortion is ‘Morally Wrong’

Exciting new Gallup polling shows Americans are becoming more pro-life, support restrictions on abortion and increasingly think abortion is “morally wrong,” compared to previous polls.

The pro-life community should be encouraged that our cultural needle is moving towards a more life-affirming worldview.

Here are three important takeaways from Gallup’s new poll.

1. More People Identify as “Pro-Life” — Especially Young People and Men

Since 2024, the percentage of people identifying as “pro-life” grew from 41% to 43%, while those identify as pro-choice dropped by 3%.

The pro-life gain is just two points, but we will celebrate every single percentage point we get because that’s how culture changes!

What’s especially interesting about these numbers is the pro-life gains among young people and men.

Let’s start with the youth.

Between 2022 and 2025, according to polling data, the number of young people between the ages of 18-29 who thought abortion should be legal under any circumstances fell from 53% to 34% — a whooping 19%!

In the same timeframe, the percentage of young adults (18-34) who identified as “pro-life” grew from 26% to 37% — a gain of 11%.

Since 2022, the percentage of men identifying as pro-choice dropped from 48% to 41%.

This year 32% of women identified as pro-life, while 54% of men identified as pro-life — a shocking 22% gap.

Trends demonstrate a cultural shift away from identifying as “pro-choice” towards identifying as “pro-life.”

2. More People Think Abortion is “Morally Wrong”

The percentage of people who thought abortion was “morally wrong” increased from 37% last year to 40% this year!

Not only has the “morally wrong” position increased, but the idea that abortion is morally acceptable has also decreased since last year.

The percentage of women who think abortion is morally acceptable dropped 3%, from 60% to 57%, while the percentage of men who think abortion is morally acceptable dropped 7% points, from 47% to 40%.

The data clearly demonstrates that moral acceptance of abortion is declining and moral rejection for abortion is rising.

3. More People Support Restrictions on Abortion

    Since 2024, the percentage of people who support restrictions on abortion grew from 62% to 68%.

    Even when support for abortion was high following the Dobbs case that overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, unlimited abortion access has always been a minority view.

    The data clearly supports the conclusion that public opinion in the United States supports restrictions on abortion.

    The moral arc is tilting pro-life.

    These indicators of a cultural shift towards more life-affirming beliefs are welcome news to the pro-life community who has been working faithfully to make abortion unthinkable.

    There is still much work to do, but the pro-life community should celebrate these wins, thank God for His faithfulness, and continue the important work of serving and loving women, their babies and their families.

    Written by Nicole Hunt · Categorized: Life · Tagged: poll, pro-life

    Jun 09 2025

    Pro-Life Ohio Man Sues for Unfair Arrest Outside Abortion Clinic

    An Ohio man is suing the city of Cuyahoga Falls for violating his First Amendment rights after police arrested him outside a local abortion clinic last December.

    Three days after Christmas, Zachary Knotts and his wife peacefully promoted pro-life values on a public sidewalk near Northeast Ohio Women’s Center.

    To share his evangelical message, Knotts spoke into a battery-powered megaphone, which had previously been cleared for public use by the Cuyahoga Falls Police Department.

    Abortion clinic escorts quickly swarmed Knotts, shoving umbrellas in his face and drowning his words with whistles and kazoos.

    Despite the escorts’ repeated noise and harassment, police only arrested Knotts for violation of the Cuyahoga Falls Noise Ordinance.

    In their report, The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) states:

    Although Mr. Knotts used a megaphone to be heard, his megaphone was not substantially louder than the noise of surrounding traffic.

    The audio from Mrs. Knotts’ video recording demonstrates that Mr. Knotts’ megaphone was easily drowned out by the sound of the traffic on the nearby State Road and the escorts’ whistles and kazoos used to drown out his megaphone.

    ACLJ attorneys claim Knotts’ arrest clearly compromised his right to free speech, noting:

    • Police can’t prove Knotts’ volume violated local ordinance – the batteries in his megaphone died before their arrival.
    • Although a nearby resident complained about Knotts’ pro-life speech, she never mentioned the escorts’ noise.
    • The only witness questioned was an off-duty, private security officer for the abortion clinic.
    • An officer warned Knotts would be arrested again if he caused further “annoyance,” regardless of whether or not he used amplified speech.  

    Though police seemed eager to shut down Knotts’ pro-life message, officers had previously refused to censor abortion escorts’ threatening speech.

    During a previous encounter in the presence of a police officer, Knotts reportedly told escorts his mother-in-law had considered abortion, and that his now-wife “should be dead.” One escort responded, “We can fix that.”

    Another spat on Knotts. Police told Mrs. Knotts these alarming threats were not a crime.

    The ACLJ writes:

    The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee freedom from annoyance or inconvenience – it guarantees freedom of speech, especially for unpopular viewpoints that challenge the status quo.

    When government officials start deciding which messages deserve protection based on their own preferences, we’re all at risk.

    ACLJ’s lawsuit, filed May 30 seeks the following:

    • A declaration that the charges and arrest were unconstitutional
    • Compensation for alleged violations
    • A bar banning police from arresting protesters outside the abortion clinic
    • The return of Knotts’ microphone

    The government does not have authority to censor citizens based on the content of their speech. Unfortunately – and too frequently – pro-life advocates like Zachary Knotts are not always afforded their First Amendment rights.

    This case is Knotts v. The City of Cuyahoga Falls

    Related Articles and Resources

    Focus on the Family: Pro-Life

    Police Pay Christian Woman Arrested for Praying Outside UK Abortion Clinic

    Pro-Life, Free Speech Win: Federal Appeals Court Blocks Kentucky ‘Buffer Zone’ Ordinance

    Pregnancy Resource Centers Fight Against Mandatory Abortion Referrals in Illinois

    Cruz, Smith Push Congress to Make June ‘Life Month’

    Arkansas Allocates $2 Million to Pregnancy Help Organizations

    Proposed Budget Bill Defunds Abortion Providers Like Planned Parenthood

    Written by Meredith Godwin · Categorized: Life · Tagged: abortion, pro-life

    • « Go to Previous Page
    • Page 1
    • Page 2
    • Page 3
    • Page 4
    • Page 5
    • Go to Next Page »

    Privacy Policy and Terms of Use | Privacy Policy and Terms of Use | © 2026 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.

    • Cookie Policy