abortion

Which Book Would You Want Your Child to Read?

Two children’s books. Two opposing worldviews. One cultural fork in the road.

This month, Live Action released I’m a Baby. Watch Me Grow, a children’s board book highlighting prenatal human development in the womb.

Next month, Abortion Is Everything, a children’s book written by abortion activists and aimed at kids as young as five, will be released.

The timing is not accidental. It reflects a broader cultural struggle over who will shape the values of the next generation — and how early that influence begins.

Abortion Is Everything was written by the founders of Shout Your Abortion, an organization devoted to normalizing abortion. Marketed directly to young children, the book presents abortion as a “superpower” — a tool that enables people to pursue their future.

This is not education. It is indoctrination.

The book offers no honest account of abortion’s reality: that it ends a human life. It entirely avoids the moral gravity of that act. Instead, abortion is framed as something good, necessary and affirming — presented to children who are still learning the most basic distinctions between right and wrong.

The underlying message is clear: personal autonomy matters more than life itself.

In sharp contrast stands I’m a Baby. Watch Me Grow. It simply presents biological reality — heartbeat, growth, movement and development in the womb.

It doesn’t mention abortion. It doesn’t need to.

Both books communicate a position on abortion, but they do so in fundamentally different ways.

One begins with a political conclusion and attempts to train children to accept it morally.

The other begins with biological truth and allows moral understanding to follow naturally.

One refuses to recognize the preborn child at all.

The other acknowledges that the preborn baby is a human being in its earliest stage.

These books reflect a deep cultural divide — a disagreement not just about policy, but about who is human and which humans deserve protection.

Abortion advocates understand this debate is not merely legal, but moral and generational. They know children form beliefs early, so they wrap abortion in pictures, affirming language and emotional appeals.

Pro-life advocates are responding by grounding children in truth: that life before birth is real, human and worthy of moral consideration.

Every culture reveals what it values by what it protects. Are we a culture that elevates self-autonomy and self-interest above all — even when the cost is a vulnerable human life? Or are we a culture that recognizes the value of human life regardless of size, location, ability or dependency?

Children’s books are not neutral. They are tools of moral formation. They teach children what matters — and who matters.

One book teaches children that abortion is freedom. The other teaches that life is worthy of protection.

These are not competing facts. They are competing visions of humanity.

One leads toward a culture that affirms death. The other toward a culture that chooses life.

So, which book would you want your child to read?

Appeals Court Upholds Defunding of Planned Parenthood

In a big victory for life, a federal appeals court ruled the Trump administration can withhold Medicaid dollars from Planned Parenthood locations that provide abortions.

On Friday, December 12, a panel of judges on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous opinion that Congress has the constitutional authority to deprive Big Abortion organizations, including Planned Parenthood, of taxpayer money.

The Court of Appeals vacated preliminary injunctions issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani that had blocked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from withholding Medicaid dollars from Planned Parenthood.

The case stems from Section 71113 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) which Congress passed and President Trump signed into law on July 4.

Section 71113 prohibits federal Medicaid dollars from going to any non-profit organization that is “primarily engaged in family planning services,” performs abortions and received over $800,000 in Medicaid funding in 2023. The provision lasts for one year.

Days after the law was enacted, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, arguing the law was an unconstitutional bill of attainder that punished the organization and its affiliates. Judge Talwani sided with Planned Parenthood.

Judge Gustavo Gelpí, a nominee of former President Joe Biden, explained the OBBBA “does not inflict punishment,” he wrote in the Dec. 12 decision. He was joined by Judges Lara Montecalvo and Seth Aframe, also Biden nominees.

“Section 71113 … simply does not impose ‘punishment’ as the term has been historically understood,” the court explained. “That Section 71113 regulates only certain abortion providers does not mean that it punishes those that it does regulate.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down statutes on bill of attainder grounds only five times in American history, the court noted.

Constitutionally, when Congress utilizes its tax and spending power, it has “‘broad discretion’ to place ‘limits on the use of such funds to ensure they are used in the manner [it] intends,’” the court expounded. Judicial review of such decisions “‘must be deferential.’”

The Court of Appeals’ ruling returns the case back to the district court for further consideration.

“Today, a court has once again allowed the Trump administration to enforce Congress’s unconstitutional ‘defund’ of Planned Parenthood – enabling their attempts to block access to care for patients most in need and force Planned Parenthood health centers to the financial brink,” complained Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

“The intent is clear: They want to shut down planned Parenthood health centers and make it harder for everyone, everywhere to get the health care they need.”

If Planned Parenthood was truly concerned about women being unable to access health care, the solution is simple: stop providing abortions. If it did so, the organization could again qualify for taxpayer-funded Medicaid reimbursements.

But since Planned Parenthood is an abortion business, and profits off the killing of hundreds of thousands of preborn children every year, it’s unlikely to make that choice. Every year, the abortion giant performs an increasing number of abortions and fewer real health care services.

Nearly 50 Planned Parenthood clinics have been forced to close this year. The organization, which has almost 600 clinics, estimates as many as 200 of these could close if funding losses continue.

Waiting in the gap to help women are approximately 2,750 pregnancy resource centers nationwide that provide nearly $368 million in free services to clients every year. These centers are motivated by compassion, not profit.

In a separate but related lawsuit, 23 states sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Section 71113’s enforcement in their states. After Judge Talwani also granted that injunction, the 1st Circuit issued an administrative stay to place the judge’s ruling on hold while it considers the Trump administration’s request to stay the injunction pending appeal.

The flurry of lawsuits seeking to prevent Section 71113’s enforcement demonstrates the provision’s success in ensuring taxpayer dollars don’t subsidize an industry that kills preborn children.

For that reason, congressional Republicans must extend the one-year provision and defund Big Abortion organizations – again – in an upcoming budget bill.

The case is Planned Parenthood v. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

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

Court Overrules District Judge, Allows Planned Parenthood Defunding to Continue

House Passes ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act,’ Finally Defunding Planned Parenthood

Photo from Shutterstock.

Pro-Life Groups Raise Alarm Over Delayed FDA Review of Abortion Pill Safety

Pro-life organizations and advocates called for the FDA Commissioner to be fired this week over the failure of FDA health officials to review abortion pill safety.

The abortion pill is a two-step process. The first pill, mifepristone, prohibits a baby’s further development and eventually starves it. The second pill, misoprostol, expels the baby from the mother’s body.

As reported by the Daily Citizen, in May, the Ethics and Public Policy Center released a study revealing nearly 11% of women who take the pill experience serious adverse effects, including sepsis, hemorrhaging, infection, and emergency room visits.

That is 22 times higher than the FDA’s current label, which suggests the rate of adverse effects is only 0.5%.

When Senator Josh Hawley addressed the study with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy at a senate hearing later that month, Secretary Kennedy acknowledged the data was “alarming” and pledged HHS would perform a “complete review” of mifepristone.

Since May, the FDA has not completed a review of mifepristone, and instead approved a generic version of the drug at the end of September.

In a post on X, Senator Hawley called the approval “shocking.” He declared:

I have lost confidence in the leadership at the FDA. [The] FDA had promised to do a top-to-bottom safety review of the chemical abortion drug, but instead, they’ve just greenlighted new versions of it for distribution.

Now, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America claims FDA leadership intentionally slow-walked the promised review of mifepristone and is calling for the FDA Commissioner Marty Makary to be fired.

Senator Hawley recently released his letter to the FDA Commissioner, calling on the agency to stop stonewalling the review and reinstate the mifepristone safety protocols instated during the first Trump Administration.

Live Action’s President Lila Rose called on the FDA to act immediately to protect children and mothers from mifepristone.

To date, the White House and Department of Health and Human Services deny slow-walking the review and maintain it simply takes time.

For now, mifepristone and its generic counterpart remain available to the public under existing FDA authority, and no leadership changes have been announced. But there is growing pressure for the FDA to complete the promised safety review.

Some women, after taking the first abortion pill (mifepristone), come to regret their decision. Thankfully, there is a way to reverse the pill’s effects if prompt action is taken.

To learn more about the abortion pill reversal protocol, visit abortionpillreversal.com or call 1-877-558-0333 to be connected with a medical professional who can guide callers through the process of reversing the pill’s effects.

Additionally, if you’re struggling and need a listening ear, Focus on the Family offers a free, one-time counseling consultation with a licensed or pastoral counselor. To request a counseling consultation, call 1-855-771-HELP (4357) or fill out our Counseling Consultation Request Form.

Related articles and resources:

RFK Jr. Announces ‘Complete Review’ of Abortion Pill After ‘Alarming’ New Study Reveals Dangers

Louisiana, ADF Challenge Biden-Era Abortion-By-Mail Scheme

FDA Approves Generic Abortion Pill Despite Ongoing Safety Review

Become an Option Ultrasound Life Advocate

Dealing With an Unplanned Pregnancy

I’m Pregnant, Now What?

My Choice Network

New Insights on the Dangers of the Abortion Pill

New Federal Legislation Aims to Protect Conscience Rights in Medical Education

In November, the Senate and the House introduced legislation to protect the conscience rights of medical students, who object to abortion on moral or religious grounds. 

The measures, S. 3238 and H.R. 6219, are companion bills that were developed simultaneously and introduced on the same day, November 20, 2025.

If passed, the bills require residency programs that receive federal funding through Medicare to make participation in abortions an opt-in program rather than an opt-out program.

Currently, residents have the option to opt-out, but it can often mean unethical pressure to participate in abortion training or professional stigma and concern that it will compromise career options.

By changing the system from an opt-out to an opt-in, there isn’t an implied requirement for all medical students to participate in abortions, abortion counseling or abortion referrals.

The bill simply uses federal requirements as leverage to change the way medical schools manage abortion education for students. In order to keep federal funding, participation in abortion “education” must be voluntary and the school cannot discriminate against students who chose not to participate.

A coalition of pro-life organizations are supporting the legislation, including SBA Pro-Life America, Americans United for Life, National Right to Life, March for Life, Heartbeat International, Alliance Defending Freedom, Students for Life Action, Ethics and Religious Liberty Coalition, Live Action, Heritage Action, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, Liberty Counsel, Liberty Counsel Action, Family Research Council, and AAPLOG Action.

In a press release, Senator Lankford, the primary Senate sponsor of the legislation, said, “Medical residents should never be pressured to violate their beliefs in order to finish their training or advance in their career.”

Congressman Greg Murphy, M.D, the primary sponsor in the House of Representatives, said:

Opting out of such training enables potential retaliation by faculty who have enormous power over residents and their future success. This issue is about restoring a non-ideological educational environment where individuals do not fear expressing moral or religious objections.

Focus on the Family applauds these commonsense measures. No one should feel compelled or coerced to participate in an abortion in violation of their conscience.

Pro-life friends, you can help protect the conscience rights of pro-life doctors in training by contacting your senators and representatives today and urging them to support S. 3238 and H.R. 6219, the Conscience Protections for Medical Residents Act. You can either call their offices directly through the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121, or you can use the Senate website directory or the House website directory.

Thank you for being a voice for reason and commonsense in policy making. Let’s protect the right to object to abortion on moral and religious grounds without being targeted for discrimination.

The Telephone Used to Save Lives. Now It Takes Them.

When Alexander Graham Bell was granted the first patent for the telephone in 1876, most people saw the invention as a triumph of mankind’s longtime challenge to communicate nearly instantaneously over long distances.

First through telegraph and then telephone, the first devices were primarily used by post offices, railroads, stock exchanges, newspapers and the wealthy – all to relay time-sensitive and urgent information.

The telephone was also used to save lives – mainly to call doctors and hospitals seeking help for sick or distressed patients.

Tragically, telecommunication technology is now being used to help facilitate the deaths of hundreds of thousands of pre-born children every year. From Tuesday’s New York Times:

Last year, one out of four abortions nationwide was provided via telehealth, compared to 5 percent before 2022, according to WeCount, a study led by the Society of Family Planning. And in states where abortion was totally banned, 99 percent of abortions were provided by telehealth.
“The reality is people are getting abortions, people are providing abortions, and the post-Dobbs environment is not stopping them,” said David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University who co-wrote the book “After Dobbs.”

Despite bans or restrictions on abortion in upwards of 20 states, doctors in abortion-friendly states are mailing deadly drugs to patients, who then self-administer the toxic cocktail.

A new law in Texas now bans this practice. HB7, which went into effect last week, permits Texas citizens to sue abortion pill distributors for at least $100,000 per violation.

Predictably, abortion advocates are criticizing the legislation, calling it an intimidation tactic against doctors and a pseudo spy campaign that incentivizes private citizens to pry into people’s private lives.

Texas joins seven other states either banning the mailing of abortion pills or telehealth abortion: Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

Radical abortion enthusiasts have polished and perfected their talking points. Dr. Ushma Upadhyay, who is a professor and a public health scientist at the University of California, San Francisco, uses soft words to describe the hard truth about what’s at stake.

“All of this legislation will never take away from the fact that women will continue to need abortion care, and continue to get abortion care,” she says.

Merriam-Webster defines “health care” as “efforts made to maintain, restore, or promote someone’s physical, mental, or emotional well-being especially when performed by trained and licensed professionals.”

“Abortion care” is a term that’s been widely adopted – and widely abused. There is no such thing. Abortion isn’t a form of “care.” It doesn’t maintain, restore or promote anything – it destroys and decimates innocent life and inflicts long-term psychological damage on the mother.

The zealots wanting to allow the unfettered killing of preborn children are right that pro-life advocates have declared war on telehealth abortion. That’s because it not only destroys innocent life but also threatens the health and life of the mothers who often blindly ingest the toxic pills thinking they’re the equivalent of taking an aspirin.

Telecommunication isn’t the first invention to be coopted for evil purposes. Going back to fire itself, the broken and sinful have regularly misused and abused all types of discoveries and inventions. Telehealth allows those either unable to leave their homes or those without access to adequate medical care get the help they need. Legislators are wise to wrestle back control of it from those committed to corrupting and leveraging it for evil purposes like abortion.