Life

How in-Utero Diagnosis Is Being Used to Push Abortion

Imagine you’re an expecting mother, and you’ve just received the heartbreaking news that your unborn baby has a chromosomal disorder, and your doctor says it’s fatal. The doctor explains that an abortion would be the quickest solution, and that without one, your baby will die anyway in perinatal hospice. These are the only options presented.  

It’s cruel and unreasonable to expect a mother or father in this situation to realize they’re being misled. But in a disturbing number of cases, that’s exactly what happens.   

A recent report by the National Catholic Bioethics Center on Health Care and Life Sciences documented how physicians are often reticent about prognosis of children diagnosed in the womb with supposedly fatal disorders. Sixty-one percent of parents who received such a diagnosis said they felt pressured to abort, and in 39 states, “fatal fetal anomalies” and “non-viability” are legal justification to do just that.   

The problem is that, as the report puts it, “there is no universally accepted definition of a lethal or fatal fetal anomaly.” Diagnoses generally classified as “fatal” include “trisomy 13 and 18, severe brain malformations, conditions leading to lung underdevelopment, and absent or severely damaged kidneys.” Yet roughly half of children born with these conditions survive their first 12 months, and many live for years.  

Other conditions, like Down Syndrome, are compatible with “decades of survival” yet often result in pressure by physicians to abort or even withhold life-saving care. That may be why between 67% and 85% of such diagnoses result in termination.  

In reality, many of these supposedly “fatal” diagnoses aren’t reliable. The New York Times reported back in 2022 that false positives are incredibly common with prenatal tests for a number of chromosomal disorders, with screenings for a few conditions returning false positives 60-90% of the time! 

Worse, parents hit with this news are often told all sorts of inaccurate things. When surveyed, 57% of moms and dads who received a prenatal diagnosis said healthcare providers told them that if their child survived, he or she would live a life of suffering. Half were told their child would be a vegetable and live a meaningless life. And 23% were warned that giving birth to their disabled child would ruin their marriage or family. 

Parents who choose not to abort when anomalies are detected before birth are frequently pressured into perinatal hospice, which is where infants go to die naturally. But often, this leads to newborns being denied life-saving care that would be given to any other infant, contributing, ironically, to the supposed “lethality” of their conditions. 

As the author of the bioethics report, Dr. Martin McCaffrey, put it, these diagnoses have become a “self-fulfilling prophecy”: 

If physicians say a condition is lethal, it becomes lethal. When parents are counseled that a prenatal diagnosis is fatal, and offered no hope for supportive medical interventions, they are left to choose between abortion and perinatal hospice. … Lethality begets lethality. 

The damning fact exposed by this report is that too many healthcare providers are functioning like self-appointed eugenicists, dictating to parents which little lives are worth living and which are not. This perpetuates misinformation around children with chromosomal and other disorders, all of whose lives, however long or short, are precious in the sight of God.  

This has to stop. Thankfully, reports like this move us in the right direction, exposing the word games played with terms like “fatal,” “lethal,” “terminal,” and “compatible with a meaningful life.” These games are played at both ends of life, justifying abortion and infanticide on one hand and assisted suicide and euthanasia on the other. 

Doctors need to be honest and “fulfill their duty to offer parents informed consent.” It’s their job to heal, not to kill. And it’s certainly not their job to exaggerate or lie about the lethality of conditions when they believe children who have them are better off dead. Many already know this, but too many, apparently, do not.  

Parents also have a crucial role to play by staying informed and insisting healthcare providers give them the true accuracy of prenatal tests. They should also know that hospice isn’t the only option. As the report concludes, those with children who have life-limiting disorders have every right to demand their children be stabilized, evaluated, and otherwise given the reasonable, life-saving treatment offered to other infants. Parents don’t have to give in to the pressure of self-fulfilling prophecies.  

Lastly, all of us, whether we have a child with disabilities or not, must insist upon a culture that welcomes human life as a gift. The ugliness of encouraging parents to kill their newborns is born of a lie: that human beings are products to be optimized or returned if “defective.” But we’ve seen where this lie leads. It leads to a world where no one is safe from the fibs of physicians playing God. We should prefer a world where more people respond to suffering with the words of God’s Son: “Let the little children come to me.” 

‘Mass Exodus’: Dr. Jay Richards on the Demise of Gender Ideology and What It Means for the Pro-Life Movement

What do gender and sexual ideology have to do with protecting preborn babies?

Dr. Jay Richards explained at this year’s National Pro-Life Summit, an annual event designed to help people, particularly students, defend and advance the pro-life cause.

Richards, who directs the DeVos Center for Life, Religion and Family at the Heritage Foundation, joined Kristen Hawkins, Charlie Kirk, Ben Carson, Kayleigh McEnany and dozens of other experts in Washington D.C. to help attendees understand the pro-life landscape in 2025.

“To protect [preborn babies], we need to think about them [within] the institution of the family, and the destruction of the family as a result of the sexual revolution,” he exhorted aspiring activists.

Hosted by Students for Life, the Summit drew energy and inspiration from pro-life wins in the White House. But Richards emphasized the pro-life movement’s unique opportunity to change hitherto inaccessible hearts and minds.

To take advantage of this opportunity, he argued, pro-lifers must understand the President’s actions in the context of a larger backlash against the ideology of the sexual revolution.

To do that, Richards explained the connection between abortion and gender ideology.

Killing children in the womb and abolishing the sexual binary might seem unrelated. But Richards contended both are distinct consequences of the sexual revolution, an ideology that “exploded” in the 1960s with the introduction of birth control.

Richards suggested picturing abortion and gender ideology as two stations on a train track.

Imagine the sexual revolution is a train trip. You’re on a track, so the train is moving you in a particular direction. And there’s different stations along the way to your destinations … At every stop, people can get off the train.

Contrary to popular belief, the sexual revolution isn’t moving passengers to a more sexually liberated society.

“If that’s what it is [doing], we wouldn’t be sterilizing children who are confused about their bodies in 2025,” Richards remarked.

Instead, the fundamental premise of the sexual revolution is the legal and social “fracturing” of marriage, sex and childbirth, or, “The idea that those things don’t have to go together, ought not to go together, might be better if they don’t always go together.”

Abortion and gender ideology should be understood as phenomena that contribute to the rupture of God’s design.

Abortion is one of the revolution’s earliest stops. It is what Richards calls an enabling technology — something that makes the ideas of the revolution feasible. The sexual revolution’s first enabling technology, and train stop, was the birth control pill.

“There’s been types of contraception or contraceptive behaviors for as long as there have been humans,” Richards acknowledged, continuing,

But it was not until the approved birth control pill that it seemed at least [plausible] to have sex, all you want, right in the middle of the most fertile years of your life without having to deal with the consequences, namely a baby.

But birth control didn’t sufficiently delink sex and childbirth. In fact, Richards noted, “It so greatly increased out-of-wedlock sexual activity that it vastly increased the numbers of out-of-wedlock births as well.”

The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 made abortion the new stopgap — an enabling technology that stopped childbirth by killing the child.

Gender ideology comes quite a few stations down the line, after the Supreme Court detached sex and marriage in 2015.

Prior to the dissociation of sex and childbirth, Richards argued, the state had a compelling interest to recognize marriage as a productive partnership between a man and a woman:

Marriage is the institution that socially ratifies, recognizes, protects and reinforces a basic biological reality, that it takes a fertile male and a fertile female, one of each, to mate.
There’s a widespread assumption, now widely confirmed by social science, that, all things being equal, the well-being of a child is enhanced dramatically if that child is raised by his or her married mother and father.
So, there’s a state interest in recognizing and protecting and distinguishing this institution from, say, a rotary club, voluntary association, or a religious body, or a medical license or a real estate license.

But, by 2015, Americans had largely accepted the idea that sex, marriage and childbirth weren’t related — and didn’t need to be.

Richards decoded the logic behind Obergefell v. Hodges: If sex doesn’t have to take place within a marriage, and marriage doesn’t have anything to do with producing or raising children, then marriage need not be between a man and a woman.

Within a week of the Obergefell ruling, trans activists began appearing on the covers of magazines. The T, joked Richards, began jockeying for a place with the Ls, Gs, and Bs.

Where once all relationships — including homosexual ones — assumed a sexual binary, the introduction of gender ideology now made the sexual binary obsolete, and even discriminatory.

Richards explained the progression like this:

Obergefell decided that the sexual binary did not matter for the institution of marriage. Gender ideology just says the sexual binary does not matter, period.

A logical next step.

Until gender ideology, most people had passively accepted a ride on the sexual revolution express. But this stop struck passengers differently from its predecessors, Richards found:

We’re now far enough along that the victims [of gender ideology] are telling their stories. That makes this different from abortion. The primary victims of abortion very rarely live to tell about it. The detransitioners do. This is a different issue from every one before. This train station is different from every other train station before.

Confronted with the consequences of demolishing the sexual binary, Richards said people have gotten off the ride.

It’s a mass exit of people wanting off this train. People who were partisans in favor of same-sex marriage, people who had been pro-choice their whole lives, people who thought free sex was great, people who had never spent two seconds thinking about the sexual revolution saw Rachel Levine, and big ol’ Leah Thomas standing next to Riley Gaines, and said, “This is insane.”

This is the environment pro-lifers find themselves in, Richards concluded — on a train station with a bunch of confused, disillusioned people that “are open to conversations [they] were not open to five years ago.”

Richards urged pro-lifers to equip themselves to have these important, delicate conversations. His advice? Connect the systematic destruction of God’s design with bizarre ideology making them exit the crazy train in the first place — station by station.

To walk it back, you have to connect pre-born babies to the sexual revolution. You have to be able to situate the sexual revolution as responsible for the destruction of the family and categorize abortion as a weapon of that attack.

If we can convince people in the train station of that, Richards said he’s convinced we can end “the scourge of abortion.”

This author tends to agree.

Additional Articles and Resources

The Two-Parent Privilege: Understanding Contemporary Family Formation

The 4B Movement: Anti-Women, Accidentally Pro-Life

Different Family Forms Lead to Prison or College for Young Men

Important New Research on How Married Parents Improve Child Well-Being

Here’s What Happens When Good People Don’t Connect Gay and Trans Ideology

Sorry ‘Gays Against Groomers,’ But Gay Activists Helped Start This Transgender Fire

Sorry ‘Gays Against Groomers,’ But Gay Activists Helped Start This Transgender Fire — Part Two

WSJ is Wrong About Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Having No Dire Effects

How the Binary in ‘LGBTQ+’ Reveals Its Utter Incoherence

Why Christians Can’t Avoid the “Trans” and Gender Redefinition Issue

How the “Trans” and Gender Redefinition Issue Attacks the Family

The Rise of Intentional Single Mothers

A recent, gut-wrenching story from the New York Times should be required reading for anyone thinking about employing In vitro fertilization. After a mix-up, two California couples ended up carrying, birthing and raising each other’s baby girls for several months. Ultimately, the two sets of parents made the “unbearable decision” to switch children, choosing custody of their genetic daughter over the one they had welcomed and nursed and loved.  

Though describing a rare occurrence, the story illustrates why this under-regulated industry needs more oversight, as the author notes. What is missed in the piece, however, is that the main problems with this kind of assisted reproduction aren’t the freak accidents with things that might but probably won’t go wrong. The main issue is the any number of things that go wrong anytime babies are created in ways that ignore God’s design for the family.   

For example, just as tragic as parents learning they must give up a baby they thought was theirs is when one genetic parent conceives a child without wanting the other parent to be involved in that child’s life. Unlike a rare embryo mix-up, this kind of parental alienation is common in the fertility industry. The Guardian recently reported that the number of single women seeking fertility treatments in the U.K. has more than tripled in the last decade, outpacing the growth of IVF in general and even the growth of same-sex couples seeking to make a baby.  

In her Guardian article, Amelia Hill quoted several women who chose to become solo mothers. They feel “empowered” because they “did it on their own.” Typically, the father relegates himself to the status of “sperm donor.” One single 45-year-old, conscious of her ticking biological clock, put it this way:  

I’m never gonna meet anybody. … I think doing it without a partner is probably a bit easier. … I worried whether [my daughter would] mind not having a dad. … But now I think it’s good not to have rushed into a relationship that might not have worked simply for that reason. 

According to the mother, the experience has been liberating. “People would ask: ‘Did he leave you—did you leave him?’ and it felt good to be able to say: ‘Nope, I did it on my own!’” 

But she didn’t do it on her own. No woman or man has a child on his or her own. In her case and in the case of each of the thousands of single women in the West turning to science to give them children, there is always a father involved.  

In any other situation that a father is alive but absent, he would be considered a “deadbeat.” The child and the mother are rightly considered abandoned and wronged. Somehow, in this case, choosing the abandonment is empowerment and progress for women. 

All the euphemisms in the world will not change what has happened to the child. Intentionally conceiving with the intent to raise a child without the father creates the same painful situation as if the father left. The consequences are not altered because technology was utilized. 

The rise of intentionally single mothers and same-sex couples hiring surrogates and “donors” has exposed how selective our society is with compassion. Major magazines run long-form articles about rare and terrible cases in which children are born to the wrong parents, but if a baby is taken from either their mother or father as the plan we are supposed to celebrate “freedom” and autonomy. And the children are not allowed to complain.

Each assumption behind these far-more common tragedies is adult-centric. Babies are a right that adults can demand. Adult happiness is the priority of the child’s wellbeing. Marriage and moms and dads are optional aspects of childrearing. The family can be remolded and deconstructed at will. 

Tragically, many Christians approach surrogacy and embryo-destructive IVF with the same “the kids will be alright” assumption, as long as adults get what they want. This is completely backwards. The first consideration when it comes to marriage and procreation is what God intended. This allows us to know what is best for children, what and whom they have a right to, and how children were meant to come into the world.

Failing to answer these questions has subjected children to serious harm, even when all the technology goes “right.”

Young People on Pro-Life Movement’s Future

I spent last weekend chatting with some of the young people at the 52nd annual National March for Life.

The energy on the National Mall spoke to marchers’ excitement about the Trump administration’s early support for life, including releasing 23 peaceful pro-life protesters from prison and enforcing a ban on tax dollars funding elective abortions.

With speakers like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Vice President J.D. Vance set to address the march, the people I interviewed also expressed excitement about the pro-life movement’s prospects in 2025.

They also had some ideas.

Here’s what I found out.

Many wanted to see more pro-life legislation on the books. Abby was one of several who wanted state officials to pass more heartbeat laws. Others told me they’d like to see a federal ban on abortion — though they’re unsure if it can be accomplished in a year.

“I’d like to see a federal abortion ban,” Jefferson told me. “I’m not sure how likely that is, but it’s really a culture shift we can work on.”

Margaret thinks the government needs to stop funding Planned Parenthood.

It’s weird that we fund it on a government level. It’s just weird. Why would you do that? Why would you not fund places that help women instead of convincing them to get a surgery that could potentially ruin their chances of having children years later?

Margaret is asking the right questions. To read more about how weird Planned Parenthood really is, click here.

But most of the people I spoke to didn’t reference legislation at all. Instead, they hope the pro-life movement will focus on abortion prevention through education and supporting healthy families and communities.

“I think focusing on the family and community aspect is important,” Nathan explained. “We should show how building stronger communities [that support people in crisis pregnancies] prevent abortions rather than putting a Band-Aid on the problem.”

A big part of preventing abortions, they said, is making sure women with unexpected pregnancies know they can get support.

“We really need to let [women with unexpected pregnancies] know they are loved, and that, if they don’t have people that will support them, there are people that are willing to support absolute strangers because this matters so much,” Caleb said.

Matteo told me he knows pregnancy resource centers are out there, but that many of the women who need them don’t.

“Often, people will say they don’t have the resources to provide for a baby,” he expounded, “but there’s definitely people [and organizations] that can help. We need to get the word out.”

Maryella thinks the pro-life movement could benefit from teaching sex-ed in schools.

High schoolers have these horrible sex-ed classes. If the pro-life movement could go into public schools and teach more about adoption and foster care to high school students, I think it would substantially change their vote for the better.

Several expressed how important it would be for secular leaders — not just church leaders — to teach about the dangers of promiscuity. They believe the pro-life movement should work toward promoting abstinence and sexual purity as a healthy way of life.

Jefferson has lots of hopes for the pro-life movement next year. He’s convinced social media is one of the best ways young people can help achieve those goals.

“Gen. Z is growing up in a tech age,” he enthused. “We know how to use all the technology, and it amplifies our voice more than older generations. We need to utilize that, use our voice on social media, and be loud.”

Young people’s next best secret weapon, Jefferson told me, is our persistence.

We’re full of energy. We can do things that the older people can’t. We can stay up long hours, we can stand outside the abortion clinics, we can march for long hours. We have to use what God’s given us and steward it well.

Full of energy and full of ideas, the pro-life youth are a force to be reckoned. 2025 won’t know what hit it.

Young Person Talks to Young People at National March for Life

When you attend the National March for Life, the first thing you’ll notice is the cold.

You might not feel it all at once. You might, like this overconfident reporter, even take your gloves off to better grip your pen.

You’ll question your decision when the stoic secret service agent to your left casually lifts his ski mask over his bright red nose. You’ll know you made a mistake when your favorite ballpoint pen slips through your numb fingers and into a mud puddle.

The second thing you’ll notice is the event’s size. In the shadow of the Washington Monument last Friday, I watched thousands of people wind their way through metal detectors to participate in a pre-march rally.

At various points, I found myself in close proximity to Catholic and Russian Orthodox clergymen with puffer coats under their robes, babies wrapped into blanket burritos, gaggles of teenagers wielding handmade signs and banners, and, once, in front of a complimentary dessert table, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

The third thing you’ll notice is how many of these people are young. For every older priest and Governor, I seemed to encounter five more people under thirty years old.

Being under thirty myself, I decided to ask some of my people why they were spending Friday at the National March for Life.

I approached Emma Smith (16) after seeing her sign, a striking red, black and white creation featuring a growing, pre-born baby in the center.

“I wanted my sign to pack a punch,” she told me. “I wanted people to understand that these are babies — real humans.”

Emma attended the National March with her Christian high school. She says the group traveled all the way from North Carolina speak up against abortion.

“We’re here to celebrate life,” Emma explained. “We just want people to know that God loves babies.”

God’s love for preborn children was a common, deeply-held conviction among those I interviewed.

“I believe abortion is very bad because babies are created in the image of God,” Adventures in Odyssey superfan Isaiah (12) told me, holding up two of his many signs.

I asked Isaiah’s friend, Bets (10), why she thought people her age should support the pro-life movement.

“Because we are close to the age of the people we are wanting to live,” she explained, showing me the sign hanging around her neck.

I met college friends Sophia (21) and Katherine (21) just inside the rally grounds. Katherine was excited to join the march for the first time.

“I just think it’s amazing,” she told me, smiling. “The amount of people that come out here to support the cause is pretty inspiring.”

Sophia said she grew to love children after growing up an only child. She and Katherine skipped classes to show government and church leaders that young people care about the pro-life cause.

I think its important for church and U.S. leadership to see what young people want. So hopefully we’ll see a lot of students taking the day off school to be here — because this is important to us.

Siblings Margaret (15) and Jefferson (17) are exactly the people Sophia hoped would show up and show out.

“We’re coming from Rockville, Maryland. We go to Rockville High School and we’re missing it,” Jefferson told me, laughing. “Sorry Rockville High School!”

It was an easy decision for the 17-year-old, who says the Holy Spirit convicted him to support preborn babies at a young age.

“[I’m marching] to be a voice for the unborn. I find it is very much motivated by the Holy Spirit and the convictions I’ve been given.”

He continued:

The phrase that stands out to me is being a voice for the voiceless. Right now, [preborn babies’] voices aren’t being heard. We have to give them that voice as people who are up here walking around.

For Margaret, sacrificing a day of school hadn’t been so easy.

“I’ve [always] been against abortion and I want babies to live, but, before [last night], I [hesitated] because I had a few assignments.”

On Thursday night, she told me, something changed her mind.

“I don’t know what it was, but I just felt really motivated. I was like, ‘Yeah, I’ll skip school to come.’”

Amanda (22) attended the march with her parish. She told me she marched to honor babies like her brother.

I’m here because my family has been greatly impacted by abortion. My brother is adopted, and I couldn’t imagine my life without him. I’m just here to let people know that it is good they exist.

Amanda’s friend Maryella (20) hoped youth attendance at the march would convince other young people to openly support life.

“I feel like a lot of people think that young people are very for abortion because it’s ‘new and modern,’ but I think a lot of youth do disagree with abortion and [know] that it’s really harmful to use it as a tool for their convenience.”

She continued:

I think when youth are out here it shows other young people that it’s okay to be against the abortion agenda and that being pro-life isn’t too traditional or too in the past.

Like Maryella, Kamila (16), Abby (18) and Olivia (17) hoped to represent their generation well.

“It’s going to impact us a little later in life, but [being pro-life] is something we’re already thinking about,” Kamila explained. “It’s important to represent our age group.”

“I think it’s important to stand up for people who can’t speak for themselves,” Abby added, “because if we don’t do it, who will?”

The trio felt emboldened by the support of President Trump and Vice President Vance.

“I think it’s awesome, because we finally have pro-life advocates in our government system to speak up for the unborn and make laws that can outlaw [abortion].”

“I think it’s a beautiful thing to be in Washington D.C. so soon after the inauguration and to represent something so beautiful,” Olivia reflected.

Caleb (24), Adam (19) and Nathan (20) also expressed cautious optimism about the new administration.

“Vance and Trump’s record on abortion hasn’t been my favorite,” Adam admitted, “but I think it’s very good that we have the support of some of the most powerful people in government.

“I think even having their ear turned to the pro-life movement is a good first step.”

The young men are members of the Knights of Columbus — one of the National March for Life’s biggest sponsors. They intend to help the pro-life movement shape a culture that values life.

“The culture that we foster now is the culture that we’re going to foster our kids into,” Nathan told me.

“It’s important for us to interact with as many people as possible [and start] building strong communities and families.”

Matteo (19), Diego (19), Nazareth (18), Adolfo (18), Christian (19), Collin (18), and Collin (19) bussed to the march with the University of Notre Dame’s Right to Life Group.

“There’s millions who get killed every year from abortion, and we’re here to speak up against that—because they can’t speak for themselves,” Matteo told me. They hope this year’s march will encourage U.S. leaders to enact progressive change on abortion.

Young people weren’t just part of the marchers. 22-year-old Hannah Lape took the stage at the pre-march rally to speak on behalf of Wheaton College.

“Wheaton was invited to lead the march last August,” Lape told me, “and we knew that speaking was part of that invite. I knew I was going to be taking the job as [Wheaton’s Voice for Life] president, so everyone kind of just agreed that I would [speak].”

“I was excited, too!” she added.

Lape hopes young people will lead the pro-life movement in the era of social media.

I think so much social media representation of our generation is so negative. And there are a lot of pro-life young people my age in college, but whether it’s algorithms or echo chambers or what have you, people don’t see them.
I think it’s really important for our generation to show that young people are pro-life and we want pro-life policies.

Part and parcel of that, said Lape, is combatting pro-abortion lies online.

We have to tell people the truth first and foremost. There’s a lot of disinformation out there about abortion. The left [engages] in intentional fearmongering. They say, “If we don’t have this law, or if we have this law, than you will lose all of your rights and women will die.” That’s absolutely not true. They conflate miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy care to abortion care.

Better than any other metric, the passion and persistence of the young people at this year’s March for Life illustrates the health and vitality of the American pro-life movement.

Vive la Résistance!