abortion

You’ve likely never heard of Prince Alois, the heir apparent to the throne of Liechtenstein and the eldest son of Hans-Adam II, the reigning member of the Liechtenstein princely family.

But earlier this week the Hereditary Prince vetoed legislation that would have legalized abortion in his country during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Liechtenstein is located in Central Europe, between Switzerland and Austria. It’s just 62 square miles, meaning it’s roughly the same size as Washington, D.C. The country dates to 1719 and became independent in 1866.

Predominantly Catholic, the Church’s socially conservative teachings have historically influenced the monarchy’s policies, though in recent years its citizens have been pushing to erode or completely erode its biblical foundations.

Back in 2005, a ballot initiative proposed by pro-life conservatives to enshrine protection of life from conception to natural death was soundly defeated by over 80% of voters. Yet a national referendum in 2011 to decriminalize abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy was narrowly defeated.

In September, Liechtenstein’s parliament voted 13-12 to liberalize the country’s abortion law, a move that set up Prince Alois’ courageous veto this past week.

“With the time-limit regulation, the state effectively withdraws from its responsibility to recognize the right to protection of unborn life during that period,” Prince Alois stated. He then added: “On such fundamental issues as the protection of life, a head of state should take a clear stance and also bear responsibility – even if that is the more difficult path.”

When you explore the convictions of the prince and his family, it’s clear why he was willing to pursue the more challenging course.

Prince Alois’ wife, Hereditary Princess Sophie von und zu Liechtenstein, actually founded and currently runs a pro-life organization that provides comprehensive counseling and psychological support for pregnant women and their families at clinics in Liechtenstein, Austria, and Switzerland.

The foundation’s website declares, “No pregnant woman should be forced into an abortion or find herself in any other difficult situation due to unfavorable circumstances. We will support every pregnant woman who comes to us, even long-term if necessary. We will not leave her alone.”

According to reports, more than one-thousand women and their babies are served each year at the foundation’s facilities.

Catherine Robinson with the Right To Life UK called both the Prince and Princess “Royals of Principle” who are demonstrating “courage and compassion.”

In a political climate that tends to punish those who refuse to bend to liberal trends, the prince’s willingness to take a public stand for life is refreshing and inspiring. Prince Alois is receiving sharp criticism for the veto – but he is unapologetic and is standing firm.

Tatjana As’Ad, who led the initiative to legalize abortion, said the prince was out of step, saying, “It’s surreal what’s happening right now in 2026 in a state in the middle of Europe.”

That defending and protecting preborn life is considered irrational, strange or unusual says far more about Europe’s radicalism than it does about the prince. You might say we’ve come full circle back to Christianity’s earliest days in the region when infanticide was acceptable.

It was the apostle Paul who urged early Christians in Rome, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:2).  

We applaud Prince Alois’ stand and pray that his refusal to conform to the radical “normalization” of abortion in Europe will serve to inspire others in surrounding areas to do likewise when given the opportunity to protect innocent life.

According to The New York Times, Idaho’s ban on abortion is making the state a more perilous place for women and a more dangerous location to give birth.

You read that correctly.

In this story, the Times’ diabolically convoluted logic roars into high gear. 

It seems that by banning the slaughter of innocent pre-born babies, women and babies are somehow worse off than they were prior to the overthrow of Roe.

How so?

“More than a third of Idaho’s OB-GYNs have stopped practicing obstetrics, left the state, closed their practices or retired since the ban took effect in August 2022,” the Old Grey Lady reports. “The impact of the exodus has rippled across the state.”

The insinuation, of course, is that fewer physicians in the state puts women at greater risk because there are fewer of them available for appointments, procedures and emergencies, and the remaining doctors are overwhelmed and thus providing substandard care.

What exactly are the numbers?

A recent study found that 114 of the 268 OB-GYNs practicing in the state of Idaho have either left the area or stopped practicing. During that same time frame, 20 new ones have arrived, making it a net loss of 94.

Yet, did they all really leave because Idaho banned abortion?

Predictably, the Times suggests that correlation proves causation — a gigantic leap that doesn’t seriously consider the very real possibility that doctors left for any number of thereasons cited in the story’s introduction.

Instead, the Times does what the radical, pro-abortion media outlet regularly likes to do – it paints a grim picture of the supposed horrible consequences of socially conservative policies.

To try and make their case for why banning abortion is, ironically, dangerous for both women and children, the lengthy piece by Lisa Lerer features anecdotes of women whose care was either delayed or compromised by Idaho’s OB-GYN shortage. At the same time, the author fails to share any specific data (such as before-and-after rates of maternal mortality) demonstrating that giving birth in Idaho is more dangerous in a post-Roe era. Even in the difficult stories shared, there’s no proof the outcomes would have differed had abortion been legal in the state.

What we do know, though, is that between 2010 and 2020, an average of 1,543 pre-born babies were killed each year in Idaho. Last year, there were 7, and all of them were deemed medically necessary to save the life of the mother.

It’s curious that The New York Times piece goes to great lengths to detail the plight of mothers and their babies navigating this departure of physicians supposedly inspired by the pro-life law but never mentions the thousands of children whose lives have been saved in the state since abortion was banned.

The Times does acknowledge that without an OB-GYN residency program in the state, it has “no pipeline of talent” for recruiting physicians. But then the paper quotes Susie Keller, CEO of the Idaho Medical Association, who suggests the state law that in her words criminalizes “evidence-based care for pregnancy complications” is likely driving physicians away.

Yet, how many OB-GYNs have been prosecuted to date? Zero.

Incidentally, a national study examined and compared 12 states with the strongest abortion restrictions to 14 states with liberal abortion laws and found only a modest decline in available OB-GYN doctors. That’s hardly surprising given that many abortion doctors are classified as OB-GYNs. 

In its piece, The New York Times is helping to fan a propaganda campaign around “Proposition 1” – a ballot initiative that Idaho voters will be deciding on November 3.

Deceptively titled the “Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act,” abortion radicals are seeking to create a statutory “right” to abortion until fetal viability. By voting “No” on the ballot, voters would leave in place Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which protects babies from the point of conception. 

Idaho’s women and their families may well benefit from having more OB-GYNs, but legalizing the killing of pre-born children is neither a necessary nor biblically sound way to encourage more of them to hang out a shingle in the state.