abortion

FDA Launches Study on Safety of Abortion Pill

At long last, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced plans to study the safety of the drug mifepristone, better known as the “abortion pill.”

The decision comes years after President Joe Biden and his administration authorized the drug to be distributed via telehealth appointments and through the mail. Previously, any woman who sought the prescription pharmaceutical was required to see a doctor in-person.

Advocates for the abortion pill are quick to downplay some of the serious side effects of the drug.

Some of those include hemorrhage, severe infection (sepsis), and undetected ectopic pregnancy, which is a life-threatening pregnancy outside the uterus. Common side effects include heavy bleeding and blood clots, cramping, nausea, fever and dizziness.

Those advocating for easy distribution of the abortion drug point to years of data purporting to prove its “safety and effectiveness.” Tragically, they ignore the danger of what can happen when unsuspecting women recklessly and cavalierly pop pills that are designed to kill the life of preborn children.

Calling any drug whose consumption will lead to the death of a preborn baby as “safe” is delusional, but also dangerous for the mother. When you consider that for more than two decades the drug was always dispensed in-person, it’s logical that the medical oversight that process included likely minimized any spike in side effects escalating into the death of the woman taking the pill. 

Yet, in their effort to normalize and expand access to abortion, Planned Parenthood dismisses concerns raised by pro-life advocates regarding the unmonitored distribution of the drug.” Planned Parenthood’s Alexis McGill, the leading abortion organization’s CEO, called the FDA’s wise review “a politically motivated farce.”

The idiom, “The pot calling the kettle black,” immediately comes to mind.

Planned Parenthood and McGill’s manic obsession with abortion is so acute that they’re willing to politicize the safety of women in order to keep the killer drugs flowing through the mail on demand.

“We already know chemical abortions kill babies and endanger women,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), chairman of the Senate’s health committee. “The Trump administration needs to stop dragging their feet and immediately reinstate the in-person requirement.”

It’s been reported that former FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who was fired last month, supported the idea of a review, but was awaiting new technology to make it happen. The study will involve pouring over medical records of women who have taken the drug and then evaluating health concerns and outcomes. 

According to Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, the new study has the support of the White House.

The pro-life friendly state of Louisiana is challenging the current Biden-era rules that allow mifepristone to be distributed via telemedicine, mail and pharmacies. They’re rightly arguing that current regulations undermine and outright violate their state’s ban on abortion.

Earlier this spring, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Louisiana’s claim, but the Supreme Court stayed the ruling, which allowed the reckless distribution of the abortion pill to continue. The case remains under review in the Fifth Circuit and could eventually make its way back to the High Court.

The current FDA review could take up to six months, though initial findings could be issued this summer.

Please join us in praying for a thorough, honest, and critical review of the dangers of the drug and that officials will acknowledge and address the myriad of dangers associated with this deadly drug.

A Look at Which States Have Abortion on the Ballot in 2026

Since 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, one of the primary battlegrounds over abortion policy has been in the states. Both abortion-rights advocates and pro-life organizations have turned to statewide ballot initiatives to advance their policy positions on abortion.

What makes the 2026 landscape particularly interesting is the fact that it is no longer only about abortion activists attempting to expand and entrench abortion policy through state constitutions. For the first time since Dobbs, organized efforts are underway to reverse previous abortion-rights ballot victories.

Abortion Will Be on the Ballot in Three States

Abortion-related constitutional amendments will be on the ballot in three states this fall including Nevada, Missouri and Virginia.

Nevada

Nevada voters will be asked whether they want to amend the state constitution to allow abortions until viability or at any time to preserve the health or life of the mother. The health exception offers a loophole to allow abortions at any time in the pregnancy. 

State law requires the measure we passed by voters in two even-numbered years. The voters already approved it by a margin of 64% to 35%. All that is required for passage is a simple majority. 

Under current state law, Nevada allows abortions until viability and at any time to preserve the health and life of the mother. 

In 2024, the abortion lobby spent over $13 million to pass the amendment, while there was no financial effort to defeat it.

Missouri

This fall, Missouri voters will consider a ballot measure to repeal the abortion amendment that was passed in 2024.

In 2024, voters very narrowly (51% to 48%) approved Amendment 3, which established a constitutional right to abortion until viability or at any time to preserve the health or life of the mother.

Prior to this amendment, state law protected preborn babies from the moment of conception.

Now, pro-life advocates and lawmakers have successfully advanced a new constitutional amendment that would ask voters whether to restore protections for preborn children and put new limits on abortion. 

Interestingly, the measure was referred to the ballot by the Missouri legislature and not only repeals the abortion amendment from 2024 but also bans opposite sex transgender surgeries for minors.

The latest public poll on this measure from February 2026 shows 47% support, 40% oppose and 12% are still undecided. 

The threshold for passage of a constitutional amendment in Missouri is a simple majority vote (50% +1).

In 2024, abortion activists in Missouri reported more than $31 million in campaign contributions, while pro-life advocates reported about $2 million in contributions.

Virginia

This fall, Virginia voters will consider a ballot measure to enshrine abortion in the state constitution. It was referred by the state legislature. 

The amendment would allow abortion until the third trimester or at any time to preserve the health or life of the mother. The health exception offers a loophole to permit abortions at any time in the pregnancy.  

Under current Virginia law, abortion is permitted until the third trimester or at any time to preserve the health or life of the mother.

The latest public poll on this measure from January 2026 shows 66% support, 28% oppose and 6% are still undecided. 

The threshold for passage of a constitutional amendment in Virginia is a simple majority vote (50% +1).

Abortion Could Be on the Ballot in Three Other States

Efforts are still underway in Nebraska, Colorado and Idaho to put abortion-related measures on the ballot, but deadlines are quickly approaching and these citizen-led measures require signatures and verification to make the ballot this fall. 

In Nebraska, there is a pro-life effort to amend the constitution to include that a “preborn child is a person at every stage of development, beginning at fertilization.” Signatures are due July 1, 2026.

In Colorado, there is a pro-life effort to repeal the abortion amendment that was passed in 2024. The measure was cleared for signature gathering on May 1, 2026. Signatures are due August 3, 2026.

And in Idaho, abortion activists are attempting to enshrine abortion into the state constitution making it legal through viability. Signatures were submitted on May 1, 2026, and are currently being verified by the Secretary of State.

Abortion Amendment Background

To date, abortion advocates have secured 14 victories at the ballot box on abortion-related statewide measures. By comparison, the pro-life movement received three notable wins in 2024. 

In Florida and South Dakota, voters rejected proposed constitutional amendments that would have expanded abortion rights. In Nebraska, voters approved a constitutional amendment protecting the state’s existing law limiting most abortions to the first trimester.

Related Articles and Resources: 

Abortion Industry Promotes New, Dangerous Chemical Abortion Regimen

Alternatives to Abortion: Pregnancy Resource Centers

Counseling Consultation & Referrals

Dealing With Unplanned Pregnancy

My Choice Network

What Does the FDA Shakeup Mean for Abortion Pill Review?

What to Know About the Life at Conception Act Introduced in the U.S. Senate

White House Launches Moms.Gov Directing Women to Pregnancy Resource Centers

5 Phrases Christians Should Banish From Their Vocabularies

Estimations vary, but there are approximately one million words in the English language, though most dictionaries include between two hundred thousand and five hundred thousand or so of them. The average person has a vocabulary of between 10,000 and 30,000 words. 

Of those in the available lexicon, there are profane and crass words and terms that Christians should never use, of course, but there are also five more that believers should banish from their vocabulary.

Scripture has something important to say about the power of the words we use, specifically noting that how we choose to communicate can be consequential not only in our own lives, but also influence those around us.

“Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits,” wrote King Solomon (Proverbs 18:21). He also noted, “The soothing tongue is a tree of life, but a perverse tongue crushes the spirit” (Proverbs 15:4).

Historically, Christians have put a high value on communicating clearly and truthfully. We should say what we mean and mean what we say. Writing to believers in Corinth who were debating the matter of speaking in tongues, the Apostle Paul wisely noted that it’s impossible for anyone to know what you’re saying if you’re not speaking intelligibly. In fact, he likened it to “speaking into the air” (1 Cor. 14:9).

But good communication isn’t simply about being heard audibly, but also about being understood. We can best accomplish that by choosing our words carefully and deliberately. Speaking plainly and truthfully trumps the use of big flowery words that are vague or downright misleading.

Which brings us to five terms Christians should never use:

The first two: “trans man” and/or “trans woman.”

The primary reason we shouldn’t be using these terms is because neither a “trans man” nor a “trans woman” exists. They’re fantastical creations of a delusional ideology. A so-called “trans woman” is a man who thinks he’s a woman. A “trans man” is a woman who thinks she’s a man.

Big media requires their writers to use the terms, so we’re regularly subjected to seeing them in print. Focus on the Family prioritizes God’s truth and the exclusivity of two immutable and unchanging sexes, so you won’t see those terms in any of our publications.

Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton has debated this issue on college campuses and has written extensively about it. In a Daily Citizen essay, he noted that many well-meaning folks say the terms should be used to spare the feelings of the sexually confused. But Glenn correctly states, “Compassion doesn’t require saying untrue things.”

He added:

“People do have the right to choose their own identity and live by it the best they can. That is called individual autonomy. However, no one has the right to demand that everyone else agree with that identity.

“Some may choose to use new preferred pronouns and names for the sake of personal relationship. But no one should be forced to say things they know to be untrue. Not even about what it means to be male or female. That is forced speech.”

The other terms Christians should avoid using are an oldie and two emerging new ones – but phrases some believers regularly let slide into their vocabulary: “pro-choice,” “abortion rights,” and “reproductive rights.” 

Prior to the emergence of the “Right to Life” movement following the Supreme Court’s horrific 1973 decision legalizing abortion in all fifty states, advocates for abortion were known as “abortion rights” advocates or “pro-abortion” activists. 

The term “pro-choice” emerged as a public relations ploy to counter the pro-life surge.

In recent years, “abortion rights” and “reproductive rights” are the newest euphemisms used to try and socially soften the reality of what radical activists are defending and championing: the killing of innocent pre-born life.

C.S. Lewis once gave writing advice to a young girl in Florida that applies to Christians as they navigate communication involving both abortion and the sexually confused.

“Always try to use the language so as to make quite clear what you mean, and make sure your sentence couldn’t mean anything else,” Lewis wrote. “Always prefer the plain direct word to the long, vague one.”

In summation, watch and cultivate your words carefully – and avoid these five terms: trans woman, trans man, pro-choice, abortion rights, and reproductive rights.

What to Know About the Life at Conception Act Introduced in the U.S. Senate

Important legislation was introduced earlier this year to protect all preborn human life from the moment of creation, and it deserves the attention of every American who believes all human life has value.

Senator Mike Rounds (SD) introduced the Life at Conception Act (S. 3667) in the United States Senate earlier this year. Companion legislation, H.R. 722, was introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Congressman Eric Burlison (MO).

The Act would clarify by statute that the right to life is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to every human being at all stages of life, beginning at the moment of conception and continuing until natural death.

The legislation was cosponsored by Focus on the Family friend Senator Jim Banks as well as Senators James Lankford, Marsha Blackburn, John Kennedy, Roger Wicker, Tommy Tuberville, Kevin Cramer, Bill Hagerty, Mike Crapo, John Hoeven, Steve Daines, Joni Ernst and John Boozman.

Many pro-life organizations support the measure, including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Students for Life, Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America.

Since Roe’s reversal in 2022, the pro-life movement has continued to advance the cause of life state-by-state and at the federal level.

This federal bill seeks to establish the principle that many Americans already believe and science affirms  — that human life begins at conception, and every human being deserves equal protection under the law.

The measure is based on the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which declares that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This bill would establish federal law that preborn children are human beings deserving of constitutional protection.

Supporters of the bill contend that preborn babies are human beings and should be recognized as persons entitled to the same legal protections as every other human being.

Modern science confirms that a new and genetically distinct human organism is created at fertilization. From that moment on, the developing human grows through many stages, but the humanity of the preborn baby does not change. The only thing added is time and nutrition.

Pro-life advocates contend that this scientific reality carries significant legal and moral implications.

If human beings possess inherent dignity and worth, then the law should not exclude an entire class of human beings just because they are more dependent than other human beings.

This bill reflects an ongoing conversation within the pro-life movement following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe in 2022. The decision to overturn Roe did not answer whether preborn children are “persons” under the 14th Amendment. This legislation would answer that question directly — with a resounding yes.

To date, both measures have been referred to committees but have not advanced any further in the legislative process.

If you believe every human life deserves legal protection from its earliest creation, consider contacting your senators and representatives today and ask them to support the Life at Conception Act.

A Young Poet’s Pro-Life Voice is Censored — But Her Poem Goes Viral Online

A misapplied liberal bumper sticker has it that “Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History.” It is never applied to strong Christian women being faithful to what God has called them to. But that is precisely what academic historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich was referring to when she penned this quote in a scholarly 1976 journal article.

Ulrich was describing the highly devout Puritan woman of the American colonies.

There is a faithful Christian lass in Jefferson County, Colorado who is actually making history for being silenced by her liberally minded Drake Middle School teacher and school administrators. The Daily Citizen does not know this 13-year-old girl’s name, but we are deeply moved by her brilliance, conviction and passion.

Her seventh-grade class was assigned to write a slam poem about, as she explained, “a conflict in the world that we are passionate about.” She chose to write about life because choosing life is a very important part of her family’s story. Neither she nor her mother would exist if her grandmother had not bravely and selflessly chosen life when she found herself pregnant at the tender age of 14. But she did, and they are all thankful.

Yet, her teacher told her she could not present her poem before the class, even though she carefully met all the criteria outlined by the assignment. It was the topic, and her voice, that was muzzled. The mom explained she was told “because of the offensive material in the poem, that they were not going to allow her to present.” 

You can hear this creative poem and judge for yourself if it is offensive and deserving of being banned. It starts with a famous quote from Dr. Suess, “A life is a life, no matter how small.”

It is a lovely, thoughtful piece of work. What a remarkable girl!

But this girl and her mom were told it was “too political.”

The mother rightfully pushed back on the teacher, explaining many other students’ poems presented controversial material like racial politics, LGBT issues, and immigration, but to no resolve.

Yet, it gets worse.

When this mindful girl asked her teacher why she would not be able to present her poem, her teacher told her she would not even be able to be present in the classroom while other students read their own poems. She would have to sit outside. Unlike Rosa Parks who was unjustly asked to move to the back of the bus, this girl was asked to step off the bus.

This young teen bravely pressed the matter and the teacher relented, allowing her to be in the class with her fellow students to hear them recite their poems.

Of her own crisis-laden conception, in which her mother bravely chose life, the student’s mother beautifully explained, “There is hope in hard situations. There is purpose in pain. And good things come out of situations that seem bleak and my family is proof of that.”

Thank God for such beautiful strong female voices speaking truth amid a culture of death. Shame on the Jefferson County, Colorado, school officials for illiberally muting this spirited and intelligent girl’s talented pro-life voice. 

JeffCO Public Schools can be contacted at the following:

JeffCO Public Schools / 1829 Denver West Drive #27 / Golden, Colorado 80401
Phone: 303-982-6500