• 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

abortion

Aug 04 2026

Alaska Surrogate Battles to Keep Baby After Abortion Demand

What happens when a surrogate refuses to abort the baby she’s carrying? 

This week, Live Action News released an exclusive interview that shines light on a significant moral dilemma surrounding surrogacy: What happens when motherhood is commercialized, and babies are treated like property that can be discarded through a contract?

Surrogate Backstory

According to Live Action News, McKenna West, an Alaskan nurse and single mom, agreed to become a surrogate for a couple from California to help them experience the gift of a child.

Everything seemed to be going well until the 20-week ultrasound, when doctors diagnosed the baby boy, whom McKenna calls Gabriel, with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a serious congenital heart defect. The diagnosis is life-threatening and requires multiple surgeries between birth and three years of age, but it is treatable. 

According to McKenna and court filings obtained by Live Action News, the couple told her to get an abortion, per the surrogate contract. She refused, and the couple filed a lawsuit against her.

According to court documents, no doctor in Alaska would perform an abortion at 22 weeks, which would have entailed dismembering the baby’s body. 

McKenna says a podcaster friend got in touch with Lila Rose of Live Action, and Lila agreed to help McKenna and her children get to Texas, where heart specialists could save baby Gabriel’s life.

The California couple stopped sending money to McKenna because she refused to abort the baby. They’re now demanding that their money be returned and are seeking additional monetary damages. 

Current Situation

McKenna is now 36 weeks pregnant and in Texas. Gabriel is due September 2, 2026.

In a lawsuit, the California couple is demanding that McKenna travel to California to deliver the baby, where it is unclear if they will provide the medical care that he needs or leave him to die after birth.

McKenna says she is willing to travel to California to deliver Gabriel, but only if they guarantee he will be given the medical assistance he needs to live. According to Live Action News, the California couple has not agreed to this condition.

McKenna has filed for custody of Gabriel so she can authorize doctors to perform life-saving heart surgery after he is born.

Couples seeking surrogates almost always choose to work with gestational surrogates who are not genetically related to the baby, rather than traditional surrogates, to increase their chances of retaining legal authority over the child. 

The legal proceedings are ongoing in Alaska and in California. It’s possible a court in California could determine where McKenna gives birth and what medical team provides care to Gabriel. 

McKenna is being represented by Lincoln Wilson, a former Alliance Defending Freedom attorney who is now a partner at First & Fourteenth PLLC. 

Bigger Picture

Advocates of surrogacy have mostly considered the practice as an act of generosity that helps families have children. There are likely many people who have entered into these agreements with compassionate and sincere intentions to do good. But commercial surrogacy raises significant moral questions that must be addressed. 

What happens when a baby has a disability?

What happens when a baby doesn’t meet the expectations of adults?

What happens when adults disagree about whether the child should have the opportunity to live?

Should a woman be forced to get an abortion?

These might sound like hypothetical questions, but they aren’t for McKenna and baby Gabriel.

For those of us who believe that every human life has inherent dignity and worth, regardless of a diagnosis or disability, this case is a sober reminder of what’s really at stake with IVF and surrogacy. 

It is also a reminder that while contracts might establish legal rights, or attempt to treat children as property, they cannot erase the humanity of a baby. 

The consequences of commercial surrogacy and IVF can literally mean life or death for preborn babies. 

It’s time for all Americans of good will to think clearly and carefully about the negative impacts of commercial surrogacy and IVF. Babies are not products. Parenthood isn’t just a contractual relationship. And the value of human life should never depend on age, location, ability, or dependency. 

The Daily Citizen will continue to follow this developing story.

Related articles and resources:

Perspectives on Surrogate Motherhood

What Does The Bible Say About Surrogacy?

Photo from Live Action.

Written by Nicole Hunt · Categorized: Life · Tagged: abortion, surrogacy

Jul 28 2026

DOJ Settles With Pro-Life Activist Paul Vaughn Over Unjust Prosecution

Pro-life activist Paul Vaughn reached a seven-figure settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) over his unjust arrest and prosecution.

Multiple heavily armed FBI agents arrested Vaughn at the family’s Tennessee farmhouse on October 5, 2022. The agents took Vaughn away in front of his wife and their seven children, including their 18-month-old.

The DOJ charged the Christian father and 10 others with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act for peacefully protesting at an abortion clinic in Nashville, where they prayed and sang worship songs. Seven of the protesters were also charged with “conspiracy against rights.”

Vaughn faced up to 11 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. He was eventually found guilty and sentenced to three years supervised release.

The Biden administration’s jihad against pro-life supporters shouldn’t have come as a surprise.

On the same day the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, then-Attorney General Merrick Garland said the DOJ “strongly disagree[d]” with the Court’s decision, calling it a “devastating blow to reproductive freedom.”

“The Justice Department will work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom,” Garland said, citing the FACE Act as a tool to “protect healthcare providers and individuals seeking reproductive health services.”

After Garland’s speech, the DOJ brought 24 FACE Act cases against 55 defendants, 22 of which were brought against peaceful pro-life supporters.

The Biden DOJ essentially ignored the 400 violent attacks on pregnancy resource centers and churches despite the fact the FACE Act also makes it illegal to interfere with people seeking to exercise religious freedom at their places of worship.

Thankfully, President Donald J. Trump pardoned Vaughn and 22 other peaceful pro-life protesters on January 23, 2025, the day before the national March for Life.

“Twenty-three people were prosecuted. They should not have been prosecuted,” the president remarked at the time. “Many of them are elderly people. They should not have been prosecuted. This is a great honor to sign this.”

Vaughn, now father of 11 children, brought legal action against the DOJ for his unjust arrest and prosecution; he was pardoned while his case was on appeal. Now, a settlement has been reached with the Trump DOJ.

According to the Thomas More Society, which represents Vaughn, the settlement represents an admission that “the Biden DOJ’s and FBI’s actions were an abuse of government powers.”

“My family has been through a traumatic ordeal that never should have happened. But today brings an end to this portion of the story,” Vaughn said in a statement.

“I am grateful to the members of this Department of Justice who were willing to look honestly at what the prior administration did to our family and so many others and attempt to make it right.”

Vaughn added,

I am grateful to President Trump for the pardon that restored my good name, Thomas More Society for their tireless defense, and the countless people who stood with us in prayer.
This chapter is finally closed, and our family looks forward with gratitude and hope, as we continue to serve God, advocating for the most vulnerable among us without fear.

Vaughn’s story serves as a reminder that elections have consequences, and that doing what is right isn’t always easy. It may well involve trials and persecutions – even in the United States of America.

We should all be grateful for Vaughn’s courageous pro-life witness and be just as willing to accept difficulties and trials in our continued fight for life.

Related articles and resources:

House Advances Bill to Repeal Law Weaponized Against Pro-Lifers

President Trump Pardons 23 Peaceful Pro-Life Protesters

Six Pro-Life Supporters Found Guilty, Face 11 Years in Prison for Peaceful Abortion Clinic Protest

Photo from Thomas More Society.

Written by Zachary Mettler · Categorized: Government Updates, Life · Tagged: abortion, Trump

Jul 27 2026

Massachusetts House Passes Bill Legalizing Abortion Until Birth

The Massachusetts House passed a radical bill legalizing all late-term abortions in the Bay State.

On July 22, the House passed H. 5595, “An Act prioritizing patient access to care.” The legislation essentially removes all remaining restriction on abortion in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) warns.

The Massachusetts House passed H. 5595 by an overwhelming 119-33 vote. Nine Democrat members joined all 24 present Republican members in opposing the bill.

“It allows abortion past 24 weeks with no requirement of medical justification, meaning abortions could be performed at full term, just days before natural birth, for any reason or no reason at all,” MFI advises.

Under current Massachusetts law, abortion is only legal past 24 weeks if it is:

  1. Necessary to preserve the life of the patient;
  2. Necessary to preserve the patient’s physical or mental health;
  3. Warranted because of a lethal fetal anomaly or diagnosis;
  4. Warranted because of a grave fetal diagnosis indicating the fetus is incompatible with life.

It’s important to note current Massachusetts law already provides massive loopholes for women to abort their child late in pregnancy, since the law’s “physical or mental health” exception provides wide latitude for abortionists to determine when an abortion is “necessary.”

H. 5595 would make the state’s already permissive abortion law even more radical by striking out existing limitations on late-term abortion and including the following language (with no restrictions):

An abortion may be performed by a physician based upon the professional judgment of the physician.

The bill would also do away with the existing medical review process “and the reporting safeguard for late-term procedures,” MFI states.

In effect, H. 5595 would weaken what little safeguards for life exist in Massachusetts and expressly legalize all abortions on demand for any reason in state law.

“While abortion proponents argue that late-term abortions are rare,” MFI states, “expanding this barbaric practice does serious damage to our society’s moral foundation.”

“Protecting unborn life and caring for women are not opposing goals. Real compassion means building up support for mothers, not removing every check on when a life can be ended.”

The bill now goes to the Massachusetts Senate for consideration. Gov. Maura Healey has not indicated whether she would sign the bill. Last year the governor approved a shield law to protect abortion providers in Massachusetts from prosecution for prescribing and sending abortion drugs to individuals out of state.

Christian citizens can respond to H. 5595 in three ways. First, MFI is urging Massachusetts citizens to take action and urge their state senator to vote no on S. 1563, the Senate version of the bill. The organization is also calling on Christians who live in Massachusetts to call the Senate Ways and Means Committee at (617) 722-1481 and urge every member to vote against the bill.

Second, Christians nationwide should pray for wisdom and conviction for Massachusetts legislators to defeat the radical abortion legislation.

Finally, Christians can get involved by volunteering with their local pregnancy resource center or donating to Focus on the Family’s Option Ultrasound ministry to help save babies 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

How You Can Join the Pro-Life Movement

Photo from Shutterstock.

Written by Zachary Mettler · Categorized: Government Updates, Life · Tagged: abortion

Jul 17 2026

Yes, Abortion Amendments Do Invalidate Pro-Life Laws: Just Look at Missouri

A significant pro-life legal battle is unfolding in Missouri, and it demonstrates exactly what’s at stake when an abortion amendment is approved and added to a state constitution.

At issue is whether states may continue to enforce longstanding health and safety regulations governing abortionists or whether those legal protections will be deemed unconstitutional under adopted state constitutional language.

In 2024, Missouri approved Amendment 3, which enshrined abortion in the state constitution. Following its passage, Planned Parenthood filed a legal challenge to invalidate numerous statutes governing abortion.

The lawsuit went beyond targeting laws related to when a woman can get an abortion. It sought to repeal provisions related to informed consent requirements, chemical abortion protocols, waiting periods and facility safety requirements.

The 221-page complaint also asked the court to issue an injunction to block the laws from being enforced while the case is litigated.

After a ten-day trial in January, the trial judge ruled largely in Planned Parenthood’s favor in June 2026.

The decision invalidated many abortion-related statutes, including Missouri’s 72-hour waiting period, restrictions on chemical abortion and several licensing and operational standards for abortion facilities.

The court preserved a small number of medical safeguards, like in-person visits, to rule out an ectopic pregnancy and confirm the gestational age of the baby.

Missouri recently appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court.

The central issue before the court is not just whether abortion is constitutionally protected, but whether a constitutional “right” to abortion bars the state from maintaining reasonable health and safety standards for abortionists.

Impact on Abortion Policy

This case demonstrates a number of important effects these developments have on abortion policy in a state.

First, the long-term impact of passing unrestricted abortion amendments.

Pro-life advocates repeatedly warned that passing an abortion amendment would result in common-sense laws meant to protect the public being repealed. Abortion activists denied those claims. Pro-life advocates were right, and abortion activists were intentionally denying the truth about the far-reaching impact of enshrining abortion access in the state constitution.

Second, this case also illustrates how quickly the legal landscape can change.

Laws meant to protect the public, enacted over many years by the people’s elected representatives, were invalidated in a single ruling by one court.

Abortion Amendment Back on the Ballot

For the first time nationwide, state voters will be asked to vote on their recently enacted abortion amendment this fall in Missouri.

The initiative to enshrine abortion was passed by a very narrow margin in 2024 — 51% to 48%.

This new ballot measure would allow abortion until 12 weeks’ gestation and would allow exceptions in the cases of rape and incest.

The measure was referred to the ballot by the state legislature and not only repeals the 2024 abortion amendment but would also ban opposite sex transgender surgeries for minors.

Latest public polling on this measure from February 2026 shows support at 47%, opposition at 40% and undecided at 12%.

Missouri law requires all constitutional amendments earn a simple majority (50% plus 1) to become law.

The case isComprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, et al. v. State of Missouri.

The Daily Citizen will continue following this developing story.

Related Articles

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

The Abortion Industry’s Winning Streak on Ballot Measures is Finally Over

Election Day 2024: A Final Look at What Abortion Measures Might Pass

Photo from Shutterstock.

Written by Nicole Hunt · Categorized: Government Updates, Life · Tagged: abortion

Jul 08 2026

Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood Restarts on Independence Day

On Independence Day, Americans celebrated our nation’s 250th birthday with much pomp and circumstance, especially in Washington D.C., which featured a presidential address and a dazzling display of 850,000 fireworks.

The day also marked an unhappy development – the resumption of federal taxpayer dollars flowing into the coffers of Planned Parenthood, our nation’s largest abortion provider.

It’s tragic a day celebrating the Declaration of Independence, which acknowledges each person’s right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” became the day Planned Parenthood began raking in millions of dollars again.

The abortion giant cruelly denies those fundamental rights to preborn infants.

Last year, Congress successfully defunded Planned Parenthood for the first time in history, depriving the abortion business of roughly $850 million. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), which President Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025, cut taxes on American families, provided billions for border security and national defense, and defunded abortion organizations for a period of one year.

The defund provision (Section 71113) prohibited federal Medicaid dollars from going to any “prohibited entity” that provides abortions and received over $800,000 in Medicaid funding as of 2023.

The OBBBA originally contained a provision to defund Planned Parenthood for a 10-year period. However, this was drastically reduced to one year after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled the 10-year provision violated the chamber’s rules.

For months, it was unclear whether Section 71113 would take full effect after federal district Judge Indira Talwani, nominated to the court by former President Barack Obama, blocked the provision just days after the bill’s enactment.

Eventually, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit overturned Talwani’s decision and allowed Section 71113 to take effect. The provision formally expired on July 4, 2026.

The Hyde amendment generally prohibits federal taxpayer dollars from directly paying for abortions. But before Section 71113’s enactment, Planned Parenthood could receive federal monies, including government grants, contracts and Medicaid reimbursements, for other services.

All money is fungible, so these federal dollars subsidized the abortion business, allowing it to pay salaries, sustain operating expenses and expand into new locations.

In part because of the defunding from the OBBBA, Planned Parenthood closed nearly 50 clinics last year due to financial headwinds.

However, several blue states, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Washington, stepped in to bail out the organization and provided over $202.5 million in supplemental funding to Planned Parenthood.

The Senate passed the OBBBA through the reconciliation process, allowing the bill to proceed with a simple majority vote (51) rather than the usually required 60 votes.

More recently, Congress passed a second bill through the reconciliation process in June 2026, providing $70 billion for increased immigration enforcement.

The legislative body could pass one more reconciliation package before the end of the year, but Republican lawmakers are divided on their priorities.

The conservative House Freedom Caucus recently penned a letter to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson calling for a Reconciliation 3.0 bill that extends the OBBBA’s “prohibition of federal funding for abortion providers to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being used to subsidize the radical abortion industry.”

However, according to The Hill, many Senate Republicans “are cooler” to the idea with some lawmakers expressing a “general reluctance … to start an abortion fight so close to the midterms.”

In a statement to The Hill, pro-life activist Lila Rose said allowing Section 71113 to expire was a “moral failure” in need of correction.

“President Trump and Congress must act as fast as possible to restore and extend the defunding of Planned Parenthood and every organization that commits abortion,” Rose said.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said, “Defunding Big Abortion is now the default expectation of the pro-life movement. When they return to D.C., Republicans must do all they can through reconciliation to once again block taxpayer dollars from Planned Parenthood and abortion businesses.”

Indeed, an organization that kills over 400,000 preborn children each year does not deserve one red cent of taxpayer money. Congress must extend the defunding of Planned Parenthood, protecting Americans’ hard-earned taxpayer dollars, preborn babies and their mothers from the tragedy of abortion.

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

Congress Must Extend Defund of Planned Parenthood

New Planned Parenthood Annual Report: More Abortions, Fewer Services

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

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

Photo from Getty Images.

Written by Zachary Mettler · Categorized: Government Updates, Life · Tagged: abortion

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 16
  • 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