This summer, Senators on the Homeland Security Committee justifiably grilled Dr. Fauci about his support of the dangerous and illegal <a href="https://osp.od.nih.gov/white-house-releases-new-u-s-government-policy-for-stopping-high-risk-life-sciences-research/">gain-of-function research</a> that may have helped create the COVID-19 pandemic. What Americans also deserve to know is that gain-of-function research was not the only ethically-challenged experimentation funded by Dr. Fauci. Under his <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fauci-nih-funding-fetal-tissue-studies">leadership</a>, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) funded nearly 80% of human fetal experimentation at the National Institutes of Health, spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on experiments with aborted baby body parts that were often purchased from Planned Parenthood.
Dr. Fauci invoked the 5th Amendment in response to every question posed to him by the Senators. It was especially revealing when Sen. Joni Ernst <a href="https://x.com/TPostMillennial/status/2082478328397578557">asked</a> Dr. Fauci to account for the millions of taxpayer dollars his NIAID agency spent on gruesome experiments with late-term aborted baby body parts, like stitching babies’ fingers and scalps onto lab rats and mice.
“Dr. Fauci, yes or no, do you support the use of aborted baby body parts in coronavirus experiments?” she asked. “On the advice of counsel, I invoke my rights under the 5th Amendment and respectfully decline to answer the question,” replied a shaken-looking Fauci.
This is not just a question about runaway bureaucratic largesse. The abortion experiments that Dr. Fauci authorized as recently as a few years ago are like something out of Dr. Mengele’s heinous repertoire. At the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-71548-z">University of Pittsburgh</a> — a major <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/university-pittsburgh-wont-explain-its-planned-parenthood-ties-opinion-1594564">Planned Parenthood</a> training hub — Fauci’s NIAID-granted scientists harvested scalps from the heads and skin from the backs of babies aborted at five months’ gestation — as well as their livers, thymus glands, and spleens — and stitched them onto lab rats to create a new experimental platform for Big Pharma. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-71548-z#Fig1">Photos</a> published with the study show the aborted babies’ hair continuing to grow from the scalps stitched onto the rodents.
The study used “autologous” tissues, meaning that for each rodent, all transplanted parts were harvested from the same baby. The NIAID-granted scientists disclosed performing the experiment on at least 44 rodents. Which raises a disturbing question: how did NIAID manage to get nearly fifty five-month-aborted babies with heads intact enough to cut whole scalps off? The University of Pittsburgh is <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/2750560/nih-fetal-experimentation-funding-sponsors-infanticide/">notorious</a> for <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pittsburgh-live-fetus-organs">allegations</a> about born-alive infant organ harvesting, even boasting to the NIH in a 2015 <a href="https://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/2021/08/aborted-infants-continued-blood-flow-advertised-in-racist-university-of-pittsburgh-grant-application-to-nih/">grant proposal</a> that “labor induction” abortion was a “procedure that will be used to obtain the tissue” from the babies.
In the weeks since Dr. Fauci’s 5th Amendment non-testimony before the Senate, Congressional investigators have begun to release further critical information from the good doctor’s government records — like his <a href="https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2026/08/10/senators-johnson-paul-release-initial-texts-from-dr-faucis-government-iphone-2/">text messages</a> with fellow Biden-Harris era HHS-Deep State bureaucrats in late January 2021, warning them that “you need to be aware of” how common severe immune responses to the second dose of COVID vaccine “theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester.” Dr. Fauci apparently did not believe American women and families “need to be aware” of the same information, however, and in the days and weeks that followed, he repeatedly proclaimed to the public that there were “<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/health/fauci-said-no-red-flags-pregnant-women-days-after-raising-theoretical-vaccine-miscarriage-risk-text">no red flags</a>.&#8221;
We don’t yet know how many American women lost their babies due to Fauci’s lies five years ago. Experts point out that vast numbers of pregnant patients were lost to follow-up in the official Pfizer <a href="https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf">data</a>, with high first-trimester miscarriage rates reported among those who were not lost to follow-up. Current NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya <a href="https://x.com/MAHA_Action/status/2087557054667935993">told</a> Fox News this month that prior to his nomination, he was working on a study that showed an increased miscarriage rate following the mass adoption of Fauci’s COVID vaccines. A recent <a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.06.18.25329352v1.full">study</a> from Israel of nearly a quarter-million pregnancies observed a 40% higher-than-expected rate of fetal losses following COVID vaccination in the first trimester.
And it gets even more chilling. Some lines of evidence suggest that some of the very gain-of-function research leading to COVID in the first place may have been carried out using aborted baby body parts. The same lab team at the <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.23_UPDATED-FINAL-FINAL_BARIC-TI_Redacted.pdf">University of North Carolina</a> that performed dangerous gain-of-function research on respiratory coronaviruses throughout the 2010s and shared lab mice with the (<a href="https://www.whitecoatwaste.org/blog/2023/06/15/covid-origin-wcw-investigation-proves-u-s-govt-funded-patient-zero/">also Fauci-funded</a>) Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, and also <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6776695/">developed</a> a “humanized mouse” platform with aborted baby liver, thymus, bone marrow, and lungs in 2018 “[t]o extend the breadth of human pathogens that can be studied using humanized mice” and “provide human lung tissue as an in vivo target for human pathogens.”
We were told by Big Abortion and their supporters that fetal body parts experiments were supposed to help people. In reality, they may have been used primarily for greed and harm. How can we be surprised at the lack of ethics of someone willing to lethally exploit a defenseless human baby? Fauci experimented on aborted babies and their mothers for decades at NIAID, and he experimented on the entire U.S. population during COVID.
The industrial-scale and taxpayer-funded abortion industry in our country relies on and entrenches the assumptions that some human lives — unborn children and their mothers—may either be ignored at best or eliminated at worst, with no lasting consequences for the community that lives this way. But for decades, we have licensed and funded medical doctors to do the eliminating. What kind of doctor can look at the scalping of whole, living, preemie-size infants and bury the facts — and his conscience — in stacks of bureaucratic permission slips? What kind of doctor can take forceps and place them with violence on the body of an infant “<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/124/">child assuming the human form</a>&#8220;? If we want America to be great, we must never hire such doctors again.
***
David Daleiden is the investigative reporter responsible for the 2015 undercover video series documenting Planned Parenthood leaders trafficking aborted fetal body parts. He is the founder and president of The Center for Medical Progress.

Credit: Getty Images

The Heinous Fetal Experiments Dr. Fauci Refused To Answer For

Abortion

Anthony Fauci

COVID-19 Vaccine

DW Opinion

Gain-of-Function research

The birth of a child is supposed to be one of the happiest moments of a parent’s life. In the case of McKenna West, it’s been a legal nightmare. After she was hired as a surrogate mother, West’s pregnancy became controversial when she fled to Texas out of fear of a forced abortion.
The dispute stems from a California couple enlisting an Alaska-based nurse, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/13/us/surrogate-texas-birth-surgery-hnk">McKenna West</a>, to be the surrogate for their child. That arrangement broke down when West fled to Texas, claiming the couple started pressuring West to have an abortion when their unborn child was diagnosed with a life-threatening heart condition. Texas Attorney General and Senate candidate Ken Paxton intervened on behalf of the child, who has since been born in Texas. However, a court-issued restraining order prevents West from seeing the child.
Differences in Texas and California abortion law are causing the legal dilemma. In <a href="https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OHE/abortion/Pages/your-rights/your-legal-right-to-an-abortion.aspx">California</a>, the law states that abortion is legal up to the point of fetal viability or at any point if the mother’s life or health is at risk. In <a href="https://guides.sll.texas.gov/abortion-laws">Texas</a>, abortion is banned except in cases where the mother’s life is threatened. Thus, by going to Texas, West could not be forced to have an abortion, nor would Texas cooperate in any effort to return her to a state to undergo a procedure Texas bans. After all, Ms. West did not kill anyone. On the contrary, she fled to Texas to avoid that.
This type of legal conundrum is the inevitable consequence of the <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-roe-v-wade-upholds-mississippi-abortion-law/">overturning of Roe v. Wade</a> in 2022. The Supreme Court concluded it is up to the states to craft their own laws on abortion, with many states enacting restrictions or outright bans while others passed laws to ensure its legality. Despite the protections, people are finding ways around the bans. We are already seeing the rise of “abortion tourism”: cases of women leaving states where abortion is banned and going to states where it is legal.
Abortion has long been a source of controversy, but surrogacy is a more recent debate. For couples with fertility problems, surrogacy offers a path to becoming parents. Some surrogates are friends or family helping out a loved one, but the practice becomes more controversial when it becomes <a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/surrogacy-unregulated-debts-profits-b9fdd987">commercialized</a>. There are now companies that set up potential parents with a surrogate at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars. Thus, people like Ms. West can make extra money at the cost of renting out their womb to a stranger who may not have the ability to get pregnant themselves.
Commercial surrogacy is rife with ethical criticisms, not least of which is the commodification of children, with thousands of dollars changing hands. Billboards around the country offer upwards of $50,000 to prospective surrogates. How a society treats children says a lot about it. So what does it say when children are effectively being sold, almost 200 years after that indefensible practice ended?
At the very least, there are risks to the children in surrogacy cases, especially if the child becomes unwanted at some point during the pregnancy, as we see in West’s case, linked to the sovereignty of the surrogate mother. If the biological parents want to abort the child, where does that leave the surrogate? This is especially true in cases where you have pro-choice parents but a pro-life surrogate. You cannot force someone to have an abortion, but that becomes complicated in cases like McKenna West.
If we are going to continue having paid surrogacy in this country, there needs to be stronger protections for surrogate mothers. Pro-life surrogates have to be protected from any attempts to force them into having an abortion. While forced abortion is illegal at the federal and state levels, it may be wise to clarify the law to include cases where the surrogate is not biologically related to the child they are carrying.
The unborn child needs protection as well. While SCOTUS returned abortion policy to the states, it has not commented on legal protections for surrogate children. If parents decide they don’t want the child, the unborn child should be treated as a child given up for adoption. Doing so protects the child’s life and the surrogate mother from any coercion.
The case of McKenna West is exposing some of the moral ambiguities surrounding surrogacy for pay. While some argue that paid surrogacy is inherently unethical, at the very least, protections are needed for both the child and the surrogate. Doing so benefits the unborn and the country as a whole.
***
<a href="https://www.joinyv.org/talent/matthew-cookson">Matt Cookson</a> is an alumnus of the Young Voices Contributor Program and was a Middle East History and Policy Fellow with Young Voices. He also works in the supply chain for a U.S. Defense Contractor. His commentary has appeared in the Mises Institute, RealClearPolitics, the National Interest, Providence Magazine, China Source, and the Idaho Freedom Foundation. You can follow him on X @<a href="https://x.com/MattCookson95">MattCookson95</a> and Substack @<a href="https://substack.com/@thewaythecookiecrumbles?utm_source=user-menu">thewaythecookiecrumbles</a>.

Mother holding sleepy newborn baby

How A Surrogacy Nightmare Exposed America’s Fractured Abortion Law Depravity

McKenna West

Pro-Life Movement

Surrogacy

A baby born with a severe heart defect is in critical condition as a bitter legal battle continues between a pro-life surrogate who refused to abort him and genetic parents who demanded the pregnancy be terminated.
The newborn, whom surrogate McKenna West named Gabriel and his genetic parents named Rumi, was placed back on a breathing tube after his condition deteriorated following open-heart surgery, according to court documents obtained by <a href="https://www.tmz.com/2026/08/25/surrogate-mckenna-wests-baby-gabriel-in-critical-condition/">TMZ</a>. 
In a Dallas courtroom Tuesday, the genetic parents Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed told a judge they were reeling after West defied their demand to get an abortion and traveled to Texas, where she sought legal protection and medical care for the baby.
“He’s our child,” Gilkar said, according to <a href="https://apnews.com/article/baby-surrogacy-mckenna-ivf-texas-heart-surgery-3df649dd00acd9fec8324687be557044">The Associated Press</a>, which reported that the California woman wiped away tears on the witness stand. Referring to the surrogate sitting across the courtroom, Gilkar added, “She’s unstable. She’s trying to take him from us.”
Jeff Domen, an attorney for West, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/baby-surrogacy-mckenna-ivf-texas-heart-surgery-3df649dd00acd9fec8324687be557044">repeatedly pressed</a> Gilkar about her desire to terminate the pregnancy after the baby was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, or HLHS.
“Would you trust somebody to care for your child that wanted your child dead?” Domen asked.
Gilkar said she did not know how to answer.
West, an Alaska nurse and single mother of two, delivered the baby earlier this month in the Dallas area after Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton secured a court order requiring that he receive life-saving medical care. 
The baby was diagnosed at 20 weeks with HLHS, a serious congenital heart defect. West has said that after learning of the diagnosis, the genetic parents demanded that West travel to California to abort the child, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/red-state-comes-to-rescue-of-surrogate-mom-facing-pressure-to-kill-baby?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=3&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Red+State+Comes+To+Rescue+Of+Surrogate+Mom+Facing+Pressure+To+Kill+Baby">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported.
West told the judge she scheduled an abortion at 23 weeks at the couple’s urging but ultimately could not bring herself to go through with it. 
“I knew that this baby, despite the diagnosis, had a great chance at survival and a great chance at leading a long life,” West told the court.
West also described the “terrifying” prospect of undergoing an abortion.  
“It would have been a two-day procedure … they would have injected his heart with a solution that would stop it,” West <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/08/25/us-news/surrogate-mckenna-west-breaks-down-describing-abortion-procedure-at-over-20-weeks/">testified</a>, saying the baby would have been removed two days later. “It was terrifying.”
The <a href="https://dam.tmz.com/document/3f/o/2026/08/14/3fb808514e0747bca9785de19a7b2472.pdf">surrogacy agreement</a> at the center of the dispute contains a provision giving the genetic parents broad authority to request that West abort the baby.
The child later underwent <a href="https://x.com/LilaGraceRose/status/2089514128465649710?s=20">complex heart surgery</a>, the first of three surgeries needed to treat HLHS. Since then, the baby’s condition has taken a turn for the worse.
“He’s struggling to breathe … We have to watch him gasp for air and choke on tubes,” Gilkar said, according to the <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/08/25/us-news/surrogate-mckenna-west-breaks-down-describing-abortion-procedure-at-over-20-weeks/">New York Post.</a> 
Beyond the custody fight, the California couple is reportedly <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/surrogate-baby-saga-takes-dark-new-turn-after-mom-chose-life?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=19&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Surrogate+Baby+Saga+Takes+Dark+New+Turn+After+Mom+Chose+Life">seeking a six-figure cash award</a> from West, accusing her of “malicious conduct” by refusing to terminate the pregnancy and breaching the surrogacy agreement. 
Gilkar and Ahmed have claimed they suffered emotional distress throughout the ordeal, which has captivated attention from pro-life activists and members of the Trump administration. 
West previously said having the baby could cost her up to $200,000 — a price she was willing to pay.
“This is my body, and I absolutely don’t want to go through this. Nothing was scarier than questioning my own soul and knowing what would happen to this baby boy,” she <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/red-state-comes-to-rescue-of-surrogate-mom-facing-pressure-to-kill-baby?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=12&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Red+State+Comes+To+Rescue+Of+Surrogate+Mom+Facing+Pressure+To+Kill+Baby">told</a> Live Action. “His life doesn’t have a price tag on it. There’s nothing that they could try to come after me for that would be worth his life.”
The Dallas judge on Tuesday extended for another two weeks a temporary restraining order barring West from making medical decisions for the baby. The judge did not issue a final custody ruling.

Doctor used an Ultrasound  3d sonogram  monitor for  the fetus 22 weeks young adult patient pregnant

Baby Fights For Life As Genetic Parents Battle Surrogate Who Refused Abortion

California

life

News

Politics

pro-choice

surrogate

Texas

There is something about the public response to Lindsay Clancy that I cannot stop thinking about.
It isn’t the question the jury is being asked to decide. I don’t know whether Clancy met the legal standard for criminal responsibility when she killed her three children, and I am not interested in pretending that watching a trial from afar qualifies me to answer that question.
I am interested in us.
I am interested in the enormous movement of sympathy that has developed around this woman.
Supporters have gathered outside the courthouse dressed in pink. Rallies have been organized on her behalf. Social media is filled with women passionately defending her and talking about the failures of maternal mental-health care. A fundraiser for Clancy’s parents — who have reportedly depleted substantial resources relocating and supporting their daughter throughout the case — has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And I keep coming back to one question: Why do so many women seem to identify so deeply with Lindsay Clancy?
I want to be very careful because I know something about postpartum mental illness. After the birth of my daughter Grace, I experienced postpartum psychosis.
I know that it is real. I know that a woman’s mind can become frighteningly unlike her own after childbirth. I know that postpartum mental illness can be far more serious than being tired, overwhelmed, or “having the baby blues.” Women experiencing psychiatric crises after childbirth need to be taken seriously. They need competent medical care. Their families need to know what warning signs to look for. And women need to be able to say, without shame, when something is terribly wrong.
So I have no interest in minimizing postpartum psychosis in order to make a point about Lindsay Clancy.
But we are increasingly unwilling to make a distinction. Mental illness may affect a person&#8217;s culpability for an act. It does not change the moral nature of the act itself.
Cora was five years old. Dawson was three. Callan was eight months old. Their mother killed them.
That last fact is not actually in dispute in the courtroom. The question being litigated is whether Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for what she did. Her defense argues that severe mental illness, including postpartum psychosis, rendered her incapable of criminal responsibility. Prosecutors argue otherwise. That is the question the jury must answer.
But whatever that jury decides, three innocent children were killed. And somehow, in much of the cultural conversation surrounding this case, those children are beginning to feel almost peripheral.
The rallies are for Lindsay. The pink shirts are for Lindsay. The viral posts are about Lindsay.
The impassioned defenses are about what Lindsay was going through, what Lindsay’s doctors failed to recognize, what medications Lindsay was taking, whether Lindsay was adequately supported, whether Lindsay was sleeping, whether Lindsay was overwhelmed. Those may all be important questions.
But I keep wondering: What about the children?
Perhaps our response should not surprise me. After all, American culture has spent more than 50 years precisely developing this moral reflex.
When a woman is pregnant and frightened, we are taught to begin with her circumstances. Is she financially stable? Does she have support? Is the father involved? Is another child going to derail her education? Is she emotionally capable of parenting? Did she want to be pregnant? Is she overwhelmed? Is she depressed? Is motherhood more than she believes she can bear?
And somewhere along the way, the circumstances of the mother become so enormous that the humanity of the child nearly disappears.
The child becomes secondary to the crisis.
Eventually, we don’t simply say that the mother’s suffering deserves compassion. We say that her suffering can justify the intentional killing of her child.
That is abortion.
And I wonder whether 50 years of making that argument has formed us more profoundly than we realize.
I am not arguing that compassion for Lindsay is wrong. Christians, in particular, should never be afraid of extending compassion to someone who has committed even the most horrifying act. Mercy is not something we reserve for people whose sins are socially acceptable.
What concerns me is something different. We have become extraordinarily practiced at looking at a dead child and asking first what his or her mother was going through.
And abortion taught us how to do that.
For decades, the defense of abortion has depended on shifting the moral center of the story away from the human being who dies and toward the human being experiencing the crisis.
The mother’s suffering becomes the justification. But suffering does not make killing good. Being unsupported does not make killing good. Being frightened does not make killing good. Being poor does not make killing good. Being abandoned does not make killing good. And being mentally ill does not somehow transform the killing of an innocent human being into a morally good act.
Mental illness can matter enormously when we ask a different question: How responsible was this person for what she did? That is an important question. It is one our criminal justice system must take seriously. But it is not the same question as: Was what happened to these children wrong?
Of course it was.
We seem increasingly unable to separate those two conversations. We believe that if we call an act objectively wrong, we have somehow forfeited compassion for the person who committed it. Or we believe that if we acknowledge someone’s suffering, we must soften our description of what that suffering led her to do. We don’t.
Compassion should change how we respond to the woman. It should not change how we describe what happened to the child. That principle matters far beyond the Clancy case.
A woman seeking an abortion may be terrified. She may have been abandoned by her child&#8217;s father. She may not know how she will pay her rent. She may already have several children at home. She may have just received a devastating prenatal diagnosis. She may be depressed. She may feel utterly alone.
Every one of those circumstances should move us toward her. Feed her. House her. Sit beside her. Pay her bills. Help her find medical care. Hold her while she cries. Help her raise her child if necessary.
Her suffering should dictate the depth of our response to her. It cannot dictate the value of her child. That is the distinction our abortion culture erased. And perhaps that is why something about the response to Lindsay Clancy feels so familiar.
Women hear about a mother who was struggling, frightened, mentally unwell and overwhelmed, and something in us immediately moves toward her suffering. That instinct, by itself, is beautiful. But we have been culturally conditioned to take another step.
We allow the mother’s suffering to become the center of the moral universe until the child she has lost, or the child whose life she has taken, becomes almost invisible.
Cora, Dawson and Callan cannot become invisible. We can demand better postpartum mental-health care in their names. We can acknowledge that their mother may have been gravely ill. We can pray for Lindsay. We can even hope that the justice system takes every legitimate fact about her mental condition into consideration.
None of that requires us to forget where the greatest irreversible harm occurred. Three children went to bed on January 24, 2023, in the home where they were supposed to be safest. They will never get to grow up.
Whatever happens to Lindsay Clancy now, there will be doctors, attorneys, advocates, family members, and strangers fighting over what should happen to her next.
There is no next chapter for Cora.
There is no next chapter for Dawson.
There is no next chapter for Callan.
Perhaps that is what bothers me most about the extraordinary public identification with their mother.
For more than 50 years, we have been told that compassion requires us to understand why a woman might kill her child. Maybe it is time to remember that compassion also requires us to mourn the child who was killed.
***
Abby Johnson is CEO and Founder of And Then There Were None and ProLove Ministries.

Duxbury Murder

What The Support For Lindsay Clancy Reveals About The Abortion Debate

Human Dignity

Lindsay Clancy

WASHINGTON—With midterm elections fast approaching, Republicans are once again grappling with an issue they seem to have forgotten how to message: abortion.
For years, the GOP embraced the issue, with Republicans touting their pro-life bona fides and pledging to protect the unborn. But since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Republicans have struggled to find their footing on the issue. Nowhere is this clearer than at the White House, where President Donald Trump has largely avoided the issue, focusing instead on pro-life wins from his first term.
Still, many Republican lawmakers have remained engaged on the topic, going so far as to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gop-lawmakers-ramp-up-pressure-on-trump-admin-to-crack-down-on-abortion-pill">square off with</a> with Trump on issues like abortion drugs. Pro-abortion groups think this will be the key to Democrats&#8217; midterm success.
“Voters are fed up with Republicans treating their bodies and lives as political pawns, and the backlash is growing,&#8221; EMILY&#8217;s List President Jessica Mackler said recently. &#8220;Republicans’ politically toxic, anti-abortion agenda fueled Democratic victories up and down the ballot.&#8221;
One of the country&#8217;s top pro-life groups thinks this is wrong — and it wants Republicans to take note.
In a memo exclusively obtained by The Daily Wire, SBA Pro-Life America urges Republican candidates to highlight their Democrat opponents&#8217; extremism by focusing on their support for late-term abortions. &#8220;Every top-performing message highlights the Democratic candidate&#8217;s support for late-term elective abortion,&#8221; SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser wrote to Republican candidates in late August.
Massachusetts just became the 12th state to allow abortions at any point throughout pregnancy — even when the mother and baby are healthy — a policy legal in just seven countries. SBA&#8217;s memo urges Republicans to prevent Democrats from avoiding specifics when discussing abortion — something Democrat strategists are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/us/politics/abortion-midterm-elections-democrats-republicans.html">encouraging</a> candidates to do — forcing them to own their votes for policies that many voters find distasteful.
&#8220;These laws make their extreme position undeniably clear — and voters oppose it by overwhelming margins,&#8221; Dannenfelser writes. &#8220;Our message testing in swing races this cycle shows that going on offense to call out Democrats&#8217; extremism on late-term abortion moves the margin 4-5 points towards the pro-life candidate.&#8221;
SBA Pro-Life America commissioned Evolving Strategies to conduct the polling through randomized controlled trial testing on the effectiveness of three different abortion messages in Senate and gubernatorial races in Iowa: the &#8220;attack&#8221; message,&#8221; the &#8220;soft positive&#8221; message,&#8221; and the &#8220;hard positive&#8221; message.
The &#8220;attack&#8221; message — highlighting Democrat candidates&#8217; support for late-term elective abortions — was the most effective, shifting the Republican vote margin by 3.3 points for governor and 4.4 points for Senate. The messages SBA Pro-Life America tested called out candidates for supporting late-term abortions of babies in the third trimester, even when the baby is perfectly healthy, capable of feeling pain, and can survive outside the womb.
&#8220;In 2024, a shift of four points for Republicans would have meant a 57-seat majority in the Senate,&#8221; Dannenfelser wrote. &#8220;A shift this large towards Democrats would have lost the House and the presidency.&#8221;
SBA&#8217;s message testing also found strong effects when highlighting that the baby can feel the pain of later-term abortions, and pairing that messaging with another message highlighting the pro-life candidate&#8217;s support for &#8220;reasonable gestational limits with exceptions.&#8221;
That contrast moved voters between 5.3 and 6.6 points, the memo states. SBA Pro-Life America&#8217;s top performing message in a test of Hispanic Texans also moved voters 3.7 points in House races and 6.6 points in the Senate.
&#8220;These results match our experience during our 6 million (and counting) visits to voters&#8217; homes across this cycle and the last,&#8221; the memo says. &#8220;&#8216;Normie voters,&#8217; including persuadable Democrats, are generally shocked and outraged to learn that anyone supports elective abortion late into the second and third trimesters.&#8221;
SBA Pro-Life America notes that even &#8220;moderate&#8221; Democrats like David Crowley or Sherrod Brown are on the record supporting abortion in the fifth month of pregnancy or later — putting them on the other side of most Americans.
&#8220;Elective abortion through all trimesters is the mainstream position of Democratic elected officials and politicians, even though less than half of their voters support such a view,&#8221; Dannenfelser wrote. &#8220;Nearly every single Democrat in Congress has cosponsored or voted for legislation that would legalize late-term elective abortion in every state.&#8221;

Gemini_Generated_Image_rm9uixrm9uixrm9u

Could Late-Term Abortion Be The Key To A Republican Midterm Sweep? One Group Thinks So.

Congress

Midterms

The biological parents at the center of an extraordinary surrogacy battle are suing the single mother who carried and gave birth to their child, accusing her of breaching their contract by refusing their demand to abort the baby after a treatable heart defect diagnosis.
The California couple is reportedly seeking a six-figure cash award from McKenna West, who gave birth to their baby last Wednesday in the Dallas area, accusing her of “malicious conduct” by refusing to terminate the pregnancy.
In the lawsuit, obtained by <a href="https://www.tmz.com/2026/08/19/mckenna-west-sued-for-misconduct/">TMZ</a>, Nausheen and Omar are asking a judge to award them more than $100,000 in damages from McKenna for allegedly breaching the surrogacy agreement, in addition to unspecified damages for what they called her “malicious, outrageous conduct.”
The Daily Wire reached out to Lee Budner, an attorney for the parents, Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar, for information on the lawsuit. Lila Rose, president and founder of Live Action, <a href="https://x.com/LilaGraceRose/status/2090129426054803629?s=20">confirmed</a> reports of the suit Wednesday. It’s unclear when the lawsuit was filed and in what jurisdiction.
Nausheen and Omar reportedly claimed to have suffered emotional distress throughout the ordeal, which has captivated attention from pro-life activists to members of the Trump administration. The <a href="https://dam.tmz.com/document/3f/o/2026/08/14/3fb808514e0747bca9785de19a7b2472.pdf">surrogacy agreement</a> at the center of the dispute includes an abortion clause allowing the biological parents to demand an abortion at their discretion.
“Further, the Parties hereto, as stated above, agree that there shall be termination of the pregnancy for fetal abnormality as determined by a physician designated by the Intended Parents if the Intended Parents request termination of the pregnancy,” the agreement reads, according to TMZ.
At 20 weeks, the baby was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a serious congenital heart defect that typically requires three staged surgeries. With treatment, babies have high survival rates into adulthood, according to <a href="https://www.nyp.org/pediatrics/heart/hypoplastic-left-heart-syndrome-hlhs/treatment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital</a>. That medical reality did not stop the biological parents from seeking an abortion,<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/red-state-comes-to-rescue-of-surrogate-mom-facing-pressure-to-kill-baby?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=3&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Red+State+Comes+To+Rescue+Of+Surrogate+Mom+Facing+Pressure+To+Kill+Baby"> The Daily Wire</a> reported. West refused the abortion demand and fled to Texas to seek medical expertise in a state with a sweeping abortion ban. 
West named him Gabriel. The biological parents named him Rumi, a historical Persian name with Islamic roots.  
Earlier this week, a medical team <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/parents-who-wanted-surrogate-baby-aborted-agree-to-life-saving-heart-surgery?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=3&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Parents+Who+Wanted+Surrogate+Baby+Aborted+Agree+To+Life-Saving+Heart+Surgery">determined</a> that the baby was eligible for the Norwood procedure, the first of three surgeries typically performed on babies born with HLHS. Babies with the condition typically undergo a second operation at 4 to 6 months of age, <a href="https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/12214-hypoplastic-left-heart-syndrome-hlhs">according</a> to the Cleveland Clinic. 
“Rumi is now recuperating under the loving care of his parents and his heroic team of doctors, nurses, and medical staff,” the family’s lawyer told <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/parents-who-wanted-surrogate-baby-aborted-agree-to-life-saving-heart-surgery?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=3&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Parents+Who+Wanted+Surrogate+Baby+Aborted+Agree+To+Life-Saving+Heart+Surgery">CBS</a>. “This is the last update on Rumi’s health that his family intends to share. His condition remains critical and complex, and his family seeks privacy in caring for their son on his long road to recovery.” 
West previously said having the baby could cost her up to $200,000 — a price she was willing to pay.
“This is my body, and I absolutely don’t want to go through this. Nothing was scarier than questioning my own soul and knowing what would happen to this baby boy,” she <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/red-state-comes-to-rescue-of-surrogate-mom-facing-pressure-to-kill-baby?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=12&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Red+State+Comes+To+Rescue+Of+Surrogate+Mom+Facing+Pressure+To+Kill+Baby">told</a> Live Action. “His life doesn’t have a price tag on it. There’s nothing that they could try to come after me for that would be worth his life.”
In other court filings, Gabriel’s biological parents accused West of initially agreeing to terminate the pregnancy before reversing course,<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/couple-surrogate-claims-wanted-baby-aborted-break-silence-as-red-state-steps-in?author=Amanda+Harding&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=11&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=Couple+Surrogate+Claims+Wanted+Baby+Aborted+Break+Silence+As+Red+State+Steps+In"> The Daily Wire</a> reported. 
“It is undisputed that West initially agreed and that she herself made the initial appointment. She then unilaterally changed her mind, cut off all contact with A.B. and C.D., and withdrew medical releases allowing A.B. and C.D. to have contact with all medical providers,” the filing said.
A Dallas judge granted the biological couple’s request for a temporary restraining order against West and blocked her from making any medical decisions for the child she was carrying.
Lincoln Wilson, an attorney for West, told<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/12/texas-surrogacy-california-alaska-parental-rights/"> The Texas Tribune</a> that his client “is lawfully the parent because she gave birth to this child that she carries in Texas, then she should control custody as well.”
A court hearing is scheduled for August 25.

GettyImages-2282041604

Surrogate Baby Saga Takes Dark New Turn After Mom Chose Life

babies

ultrasound

Many of you have heard the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/parents-who-wanted-surrogate-baby-aborted-agree-to-life-saving-heart-surgery">story</a> of McKenna West. She is the surrogate mother who recently fought against the biological parents of the baby she was carrying in order to save his life. After discovering a heart condition at her 20-week ultrasound, the biological parents demanded an abortion. West refused. A literal fight for the baby&#8217;s life ensued. By the grace of God, West was successful. The baby she fought to carry to term has since been born alive and is receiving the care he needs.
There is one detail to this story, though, that didn&#8217;t make the headlines. It&#8217;s a seemingly small detail, but it stopped me in my tracks. And it&#8217;s quite likely one of the biggest reasons why baby Gabriel is here today: the quiet but profound actions of West&#8217;s brother.
In an <a href="https://www.liveaction.org/news/surrogate-fights-baby-heart-condition-refusing-abortion">interview</a> with Live Action, West shared that after learning of the parents’ request to terminate the pregnancy, she felt overwhelmed. She knew she had signed a contract that included a termination clause. She was also a single mother in a difficult financial situation. She believed she had no choice but to follow the wishes of the baby’s biological parents.
That is, until she received a call from her brother. He knew she had been struggling with the decision to abort. He knew she did not believe it was right. And he didn’t believe it was right either. Without any biological connection to the baby in his sister’s womb, he offered to adopt the child. If that gave her a way out, he was willing to step up and raise a stranger’s baby as his own.
It was at that point in her retelling of the story that I got chills. He set one of the most beautiful and sacrificial examples of what it means to be truly pro-life. It was not just a slogan on social media or a “babies’ lives matter” sign at a march. Her brother embodied the cause by living it out.
He knew baby Gabriel’s life had value, and he was willing to do whatever he could to protect it. And in that circumstance, he found something he could physically do to save the baby&#8217;s life.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/akDI0X8229A?si=qGFScMmNd1Gazj6c" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
As of now, baby Gabriel is in the custody of his biological parents, not West&#8217;s family. But that offer from her brother gave West the courage and confidence to keep fighting and to find a way to save the baby.
The actions of West&#8217;s brother should be a lesson for all of us. If we believe in a mission or a cause that is bigger than ourselves, sometimes living that mission means taking action that costs us something. Sometimes it means getting involved in someone else’s crisis and being willing to carry a burden that is not ours.
His selflessness helped save a life, and it convicted me. What am I doing locally for moms who find themselves unexpectedly expecting? What am I doing for the woman who is scared after receiving a fetal diagnosis in an already fragile moment of her life? There are pregnancy centers in cities across the country that need help. They need volunteers. They need donations. They need people willing to show up and serve. They operate in a mission field that never stops, much like the role of parenthood itself.
We can learn a lesson from the actions of West&#8217;s brother and become the hands and feet of this mission. There is perhaps no stronger way to encourage the pro-life movement than to actively support not only the cause, but also the mother carrying the burden. Be the village these mothers need. Be willing to live out the pro-life message when the moment arrives.
***
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

GettyImages-1267369053

How One Brother’s Sacrifice Saved Baby Gabriel

Upstream

A baby with a heart defect at the center of an extraordinary surrogacy battle between a pro-life surrogate and biological parents, who sought an abortion, has undergone his first life-saving surgery.
The child, whom his parents named Rumi, underwent <a href="https://x.com/LilaGraceRose/status/2089514128465649710?s=20">complex heart surgery</a> Monday to treat hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a serious congenital heart defect that typically requires three surgeries.
Lee Budner, an attorney for the parents Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar, said a medical team determined that the baby was eligible for the Norwood procedure, the first of three surgeries typically performed on babies born with HLHS. Babies with the condition typically undergo a second operation at 4 to 6 months of age, <a href="https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/12214-hypoplastic-left-heart-syndrome-hlhs">according</a> to the Cleveland Clinic. 
“Rumi is now recuperating under the loving care of his parents and his heroic team of doctors, nurses, and medical staff,&#8221; the family’s lawyer told CBS. &#8220;This is the last update on Rumi&#8217;s health that his family intends to share. His condition remains critical and complex, and his family seeks privacy in caring for their son on his long road to recovery.” 
The surgery comes after the biological parents who sought to abort the baby following its HLHS diagnosis, the latest twist in a stunning surrogacy battle that has drawn attention from pro-life advocates<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-admin-steps-into-surrogates-fight-for-newborns-life-saving-care?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Trump+Admin+Steps+Into+Surrogate%E2%80%99s+Fight+For+Newborn%E2%80%99s+Life-Saving+Care"> to the Trump administration.</a>
McKenna West, a single mother of two, delivered the baby last Wednesday in the Dallas area after Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton secured a court order requiring him to receive life-saving medical care. She named him Gabriel.
At 20 weeks, the baby was diagnosed with HLHS. West has said that after learning of the diagnosis, his biological parents demanded that West travel to California to abort the child,<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/red-state-comes-to-rescue-of-surrogate-mom-facing-pressure-to-kill-baby?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=3&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Red+State+Comes+To+Rescue+Of+Surrogate+Mom+Facing+Pressure+To+Kill+Baby"> The Daily Wire</a> previously reported.
“So we were all really upset. It was completely unexpected. Everything had been going great,” West, who became pregnant through IVF, told<a href="https://www.liveaction.org/news/surrogate-fights-baby-heart-condition-refusing-abortion"> Live Action News</a>. “I was full of fear and stress of what they were going to choose. I was feeling pretty confident that they were going to choose termination, and how could I possibly live with myself going through that?”
West refused the abortion demand and fled to Texas, where abortion is mostly illegal, and the state law recognizes the woman who carries and gives birth to a child as the “gestational mother.” 
Most surrogacy contracts include provisions giving the intended parents a say in whether to terminate a pregnancy.<a href="http://surrogate.com/"> Surrogate.com</a> says surrogates cannot be forced to undergo an abortion, but refusing to comply with a contractual agreement could carry “financial and legal consequences.”
West says having the baby could cost her $200,000 — a price she was willing to pay.
“This is my body, and I absolutely don’t want to go through this. Nothing was scarier than questioning my own soul and knowing what would happen to this baby boy,” she told Lila Rose, president and founder of Live Action. “His life doesn’t have a price tag on it. There’s nothing that they could try to come after me for that would be worth his life.”
In court filings, Gabriel’s biological parents accused West of initially agreeing to terminate the pregnancy before reversing course,<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/couple-surrogate-claims-wanted-baby-aborted-break-silence-as-red-state-steps-in?author=Amanda+Harding&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=11&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=Couple+Surrogate+Claims+Wanted+Baby+Aborted+Break+Silence+As+Red+State+Steps+In"> The Daily Wire</a> reported. 
“It is undisputed that West initially agreed and that she herself made the initial appointment. She then unilaterally changed her mind, cut off all contact with A.B. and C.D., and withdrew medical releases allowing A.B. and C.D. to have contact with all medical providers,” the filing said.
A Dallas judge granted the biological couple’s request for a temporary restraining order against West and blocked her from making any medical decisions for the child she was carrying.
Lincoln Wilson, an attorney for West, told<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/12/texas-surrogacy-california-alaska-parental-rights/"> The Texas Tribune</a> that his client “is lawfully the parent because she gave birth to this child that she carries in Texas, then she should control custody as well.”
A court hearing is scheduled for August 25.

03472245-d5f3-4d06-86f8-c7c45e404491-1

Parents Who Wanted Surrogate Baby Aborted Agree To Life-Saving Heart Surgery

baby

Pregnancy

There is nothing more important to a pregnant mother than making sure her growing baby is healthy. She tries to eat the right foods, avoids caffeine, and drinks plenty of water.
As a mother of four, I know the feeling well.
Newly released <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2026/08/11/republican-senators-release-fauci-texts-on-safety-of-covid-19-vaccine-for-pregnant-women/">text messages</a> from 2021 show our nation’s health officials, including Anthony Fauci, privately discussed theoretical risks around the widely mandated COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant mothers. These documents indicate that those in power knew that after the second dose, there was a heightened risk of mothers miscarrying in their first trimester.
During that same time period, I was pregnant with my daughter and felt tremendous pressure to take the vaccine for the “safety” of my baby. Looking back now, the gaslighting and shaming I received from doctors, news media, and society for declining the injection is surreal. Knowing what we know now, that it was likely to lose a healthy baby because of the shot, I’m grateful for refusing to make my child their experiment.
I feel for the women who took the vaccine, truly believing they were doing what was best for their baby, and lost a child because of what seems like apathy and negligence. Americans should all be outraged at this discovery and should ensure it never happens again.
Today, the Trump administration is slowly taking steps to remedy the health crisis we endured under President Joe Biden, such as decreasing vaccine requirements and removing chemicals from our food. We can see each of these victories touted by parents and influencers alike.
But it’s not enough.
The current Food and Drug Administration and Health and Human Services officials need to do what Fauci and his team never did: put women and children first. That means releasing the truth about the dangerous abortion pill, which now accounts for 65% of all abortions in the United States, killing thousands of preborn babies each day and harming women.
True accountability means reviewing the data, bringing back safety requirements, ending mail-order pills, and pulling mifepristone off the market for good.
For more than a year, the FDA and HHS teams have known about real-world data that shows the harmful effects of the abortion pill. Although they’ve promised to conduct their own study, we’ve yet to see movement on this pressing issue.
<a href="https://eppc.org/publication/insurance-data-reveals-one-in-ten-patients-experiences-a-serious-adverse-event/">Insurance claims</a> analyzed by the Ethics and Public Policy Center found that 1 in 10 women experience serious adverse events such as sepsis, infection, or hemorrhage within 45 days of a <a href="http://whatisabortion.com/">chemical abortion</a>. This is 22 times higher than the “less than 0.5%” figure long cited on the drug label. Why wait to review and highlight these statistics for the American people?
In addition to broadly publicizing these serious complications, the FDA should restore basic safeguards for the abortion pill by reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement, rather than today’s dangerous mail-order distribution, which has led to <a href="https://www.liveaction.org/news/husband-separation-poisoned-pregnant-abortion-drugs">rampant coercion</a>, abuse, and parental circumvention.
By not releasing its study as soon as possible and having no safety requirements in place for these lethal pills, the FDA is putting women and children at grave risk.
The reality is that chemical abortion has led to the deaths of <a href="https://www.liveaction.org/news/fda-report-casualties-abortion-pill-climb/">7.5 million preborn children</a> and <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/185245/download?attachment">at least 36 women</a>. Ultimately, if our leaders were truly honest with the American people about the dangers of mifepristone, the first drug in the two-pill regimen, they would pull it from the market completely.
Planned Parenthood committed <a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/facts-figures/annual-report">430,000 abortions</a> last year and is fueled by over $800 million in taxpayer funds. It’s no surprise they’re facing <a href="https://apnews.com/article/florida-medication-abortion-lawsuit-planned-parenthood-6494355a10b48334269cd4bf759d25e0">lawsuits</a> for keeping these types of statistics under wraps. But we must hold our nation’s leaders accountable for the roles they undertook, rather than worry about whether we’re being told the whole truth.
The science is clear: life begins from the moment of conception. Each and every abortion is the intentional killing of another human being. Federal leaders must recognize the <a href="http://babyolivia.com/">humanity</a> of the preborn child in the womb and stop enabling workarounds that undermine protections for life. By prioritizing maternal health, adoption, and genuine life-affirming alternatives, we can truly care for the women and children in this country.
In 2021, mothers like me were pushed to take a shot without understanding the risks. Today, women are still being kept in the dark about the abortion pill, and preborn children are treated like an afterthought.
Let’s end the cycle of silence.
Only then, when we refuse to treat the next generation like an experiment, can we honestly say we’re serious about making America healthy.
***
Kimberly Bird is a communications specialist for Live Action, a wife, and the mother of four children.

In new motherhood, fetal health monitoring through regular ultrasounds and check-ups enables constant monitoring of the fetus’s growth and development.

Making America Healthy Means Ending The Abortion Pill

Abortion Drug

Covid vaccine

MAHA

Mifepristone

Massachusetts already had some of the most lax abortion laws in the country, allowing it up to 24 weeks — a stage in pregnancy in which <a href="http://google.com/url?q=https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/154/4/e2024065963/199459/Survival-of-Infants-Born-at-22-to-25-Weeks&amp;sa=D&amp;source=docs&amp;ust=1786655577221317&amp;usg=AOvVaw12tYgtkBgrEp17Opsc66Y0">over 10,000 babies</a> are born and survive each year in the United States. Gov. Maura Healey didn&#8217;t think that was good enough. This week, surrounded by a gaggle of gleeful young women, she signed a law barring any gestational limits on abortion.
Massachusetts joins nine other states that occupy an extreme position on this issue, even by international standards, where <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/gestational-limits-on-abortion-in-the-united-states-compared-to-international-norms/">only 15 countries</a> permit elective abortion past 15 weeks. <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/gestational-limits-on-abortion-in-the-united-states-compared-to-international-norms/">Sixty-five percent</a> of countries that allow elective abortion limit it to 12 weeks or less.
Pro-choice lawmakers and activists like Healey are presumably still angry that the United States overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. They&#8217;ve been working tirelessly to retaliate against pro-life laws, and this is their latest victory.
States like Virginia are considering <a href="https://www.elections.virginia.gov/election-law/proposed-constitutional-amendment-question-1">similar measures</a>. This November, voters will decide on a constitutional amendment that would dramatically expand abortion protections, including a guarantee that the state may never prohibit a third-trimester abortion that a physician deems necessary to protect a woman&#8217;s physical or mental health. Interpreted broadly, that means abortion for any reason, since &#8220;mental health&#8221; is subjective enough to cover nearly any circumstance.
Supporters of no-limit abortion claim such laws are necessary to save women&#8217;s lives in emergency situations, but they&#8217;re inclined to euphemize the reality with language like &#8220;expanded access to reproductive healthcare.&#8221; The sanitized phrasing works for them: It disguises what abortion actually is. Mass. Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll <a href="https://www.mass.gov/news/governor-healey-signs-legislation-strengthening-abortion-protections-in-massachusetts">did exactly this</a> when she assured citizens the law was all about &#8220;compassion, support and the ability to receive care,&#8221; framing it as a route to &#8220;medically appropriate care close to home.&#8221;
Driscoll, Healey, and legislators may say third-trimester abortions are a necessary safeguard for mothers facing medical emergencies, but some physicians who actually manage high-risk pregnancies disagree. The American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs (AAPLOG) <a href="https://aaplog.org/premature-delivery-is-not-induced-abortion/">states unequivocally</a> that late-term abortions are never necessary; in any true third-trimester emergency, whether severe preeclampsia, placental abruption, or maternal sepsis, the standard is to deliver the baby, not abort it. If the child doesn&#8217;t survive that process, AAPLOG notes, &#8220;The body of the unborn child is treated with respect, recognizing the humanity of the life which is lost.&#8221;
Pro-abortion advocates often point to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) for support, but ACOG <a href="https://www.acog.org/contact/media-center/abortion-language-guide">is hardly a neutral arbiter</a>; the organization explicitly advocates to &#8220;increase access to abortion,&#8221; has called for the repeal of gestational limits, and insists patients be allowed access to care &#8220;at any point during a pregnancy.&#8221; ACOG and other pro-abortion groups blur miscarriage care, premature delivery, and induced abortion together under the same sanitized umbrella of &#8220;reproductive healthcare.” This creates the false impression that restricting late-term abortion would leave mothers dying in emergency rooms. You cannot respect or dignify an unborn child&#8217;s life through poison and dismemberment when an equally valid option — delivery — is on the table.
Some women seeking third-trimester abortions aren&#8217;t in danger themselves. They&#8217;ve received a difficult fetal diagnosis, often tragic and painful to face. I have deep empathy for any mother told her child has a condition that will end his or her life shortly after birth. But a fatal diagnosis is not ethical grounds for ending that life. These children can still be delivered, swaddled, and held for whatever time they have, or placed in the NICU or palliative hospice care.
The reasoning gets even harder to defend once &#8220;severe anomaly&#8221; expands beyond fatal conditions. Spina bifida and Trisomy 21 are not terminal diagnoses; many people born with them live long, full lives. Yet <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4589245/?">the vast majority of pregnancies</a> with these diagnoses end in abortion. That&#8217;s no longer a decision about survival; it&#8217;s a judgment about whose life is worth living, and it edges toward eugenics — the idea that a human being can be discarded for failing to meet an arbitrary standard. That position depends on refusing to call an unborn child what she is — a human being — even as ultrasound images, audible heartbeats, and kicks from inside the womb make the fact increasingly hard to deny.
So when politicians offer <a href="https://malegislature.gov/PressRoom/Detail?pressReleaseId=1450">bland statements</a> about how &#8220;medical decisions should be between a patient and their doctor,&#8221; without accounting for the rights of the second patient — clearly alive by every vital sign — it rings hollow.
Though Massachusetts framed its law as necessary only for emergencies, pro-choice advocates don&#8217;t want any such stipulations. <a href="https://reproequitynow.org/prioritizing-patients-act">Reproductive Equity Now</a>, a pro-abortion group, insists that &#8220;at no point in pregnancy&#8221; should lawmakers determine when abortion is permissible — emergency or not. 
In other states with full-term abortion access, lawmakers have confirmed the real purpose of these laws is to allow abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, no questions asked. When then-New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy <a href="https://www.pbs.org/video/steve-adubato-in-conversation-with-governor-phil-murphy-1knwrz/">was asked</a> whether his state&#8217;s law was meant to protect abortion &#8220;at any point in a woman&#8217;s pregnancy: all nine months?&#8221; he answered, &#8220;Correct.&#8221;
In debates, pro-abortion advocates center their arguments on rape, incest, or medical emergency. What they won&#8217;t acknowledge are the situations in which women obtain third-trimester abortions for reasons beyond these. 
As Emma Camp wrote <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/democrats-third-trimester-abortions/680163/">in The Atlantic</a>, they may point out that &#8220;these abortions are rare,&#8221; implying they&#8217;re therefore not worth moral concern. Yet these same advocates center their case for all-access abortion on the rare situations of rape and incest, which occur in <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives">less than 1% of pregnancies</a>. Either rare situations matter, or they don&#8217;t. Abortion advocates don&#8217;t get to pick and choose which ones count.
<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24188634/">One study</a> found that women who received abortions after 20 weeks cited reasons like delayed recognition of pregnancy, indecision, financial trouble, difficulty finding a provider, and travel barriers. Others cited relationship status, mental health struggles, drug use, and domestic violence. These circumstances are genuinely difficult, but they are not a justification for ending the life of a healthy, viable baby.
No-limits abortion advocates don&#8217;t see unborn children as human beings, but as parts of a woman&#8217;s body and an extension of personal autonomy. Erica Millar, a late-term abortion advocate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-why-there-should-be-no-gestational-limits-for-abortion-121500">wrote that</a> legal gestational limits cause women to &#8220;terminate pregnancies they would otherwise keep&#8221; and &#8220;keep pregnancies they would have otherwise terminated&#8221; because they&#8217;re forced to end a wanted pregnancy &#8220;before they are emotionally and psychologically prepared&#8221; to do so.
But a pregnancy isn&#8217;t a product to keep or return. It&#8217;s the biological reality of another human being&#8217;s existence, one that will live or die based on the state of an emotionally fraught, vulnerable mother, often coaxed toward abortion without understanding the full consequences of her choice. She&#8217;s told it will be easier not to see the child, that he will likely die at birth anyway, that abortion spares him pain. Yet <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/birt.12176?">studies find</a> it can benefit a mother&#8217;s long-term well-being to see and hold her stillborn child; one found <a href="https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/11/e008616">up to 99%</a> of mothers who did so were satisfied with that decision. It seems similar results could occur for women with children who might die soon after birth. Choosing abortion to avoid seeing your child&#8217;s body doesn&#8217;t make grieving that loss any easier.
Lawmakers can cloak abortion in the language of &#8220;termination&#8221; and &#8220;healthcare,&#8221; but that doesn&#8217;t silence the suction pump or make the forceps invisible. It doesn&#8217;t erase the existence of a person who never was before and never will be again. Too many are more concerned with talking points that lambaste their opponents than with the physical reality of what they&#8217;re defending — the stuff of potassium chloride, cardiac arrest, vacuum aspiration, or what the pro-abortion <a href="https://societyfp.org/clinical_guidances/society-of-family-planning-clinical-recommendation-induction-of-fetal-asystole-before-abortion">Society for Family Planning itself warns</a> may occur: &#8220;unanticipated expulsion of a fetus with cardiorespiratory activity.&#8221;
Abortion after 24 weeks is never necessary, and it is always barbaric. Healey scored a political win this week. Virginia may hand the movement another one in November. But every time a legislature calls this &#8220;healthcare,&#8221; a beating heart gets a little easier to ignore, and that is the real cost no press release will mention.
***
Ericka Andersen is the author of “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Freely-Sober-Rethinking-Alcohol-Through/dp/1514013363/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Freely Sober: Rethinking Alcohol Through the Lens of Faith</a>” (InterVarsity Press, 2026)
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

Gemini_Generated_Image_jijsj3jijsj3jijs

What ‘No Limits’ Abortion Actually Looks Like

Health Care

Massachusetts

The Trump administration is stepping into the extraordinary surrogacy fight pitting a surrogate against a baby’s biological parents, warning hospitals that the child, who was born with a heart defect, must receive life-saving care as a tense legal battle unfolds.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) submitted a letter to Children’s Medical Center of Dallas and UT Southwestern Medical Center reminding them of their obligations to treat the child under federal disability civil rights law, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/hhs-warns-texas-hospitals-denying-life-saving-care-newborn-disability">according to Fox News.</a> 
HHS said federal disability protections bar doctors from withholding care because of a patient’s condition, including the belief that a disabled person’s life is less worthy or that their care would place a burden on others, the outlet reported.
McKenna West, a single mother of two children, delivered baby Gabriel Wednesday in the Dallas area after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton secured a court order requiring him to receive life-saving medical care when his surrogate rejected demands from his biological parents to abort him.
At 20 weeks, Gabriel was diagnosed in utero with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) — a serious but treatable congenital heart condition that typically requires three staged surgeries. After learning of the diagnosis, his biological parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, demanded that West travel to California to abort the child, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/red-state-comes-to-rescue-of-surrogate-mom-facing-pressure-to-kill-baby?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=3&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Red+State+Comes+To+Rescue+Of+Surrogate+Mom+Facing+Pressure+To+Kill+Baby">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported.
“So we were all really upset. It was completely unexpected. Everything had been going great,” West, who became pregnant through IVF, told <a href="https://www.liveaction.org/news/surrogate-fights-baby-heart-condition-refusing-abortion">Live Action News</a>. “I was full of fear and stress of what they were going to choose. I was feeling pretty confident that they were going to choose termination, and how could I possibly live with myself going through that?”
West refused the abortion demand and fled to Dallas, where she sought legal protection and access to doctors experienced in treating Gabriel’s condition.
Most surrogacy contracts include provisions giving the intended parents a say in whether to terminate a pregnancy. <a href="http://surrogate.com">Surrogate.com</a> says surrogates cannot be forced to undergo an abortion, but refusing to comply with a contractual agreement could carry “financial and legal consequences.”
West says having the baby could cost her $200,000 — a price she was willing to pay.
“This is my body, and I absolutely don’t want to go through this. Nothing was scarier than questioning my own soul and knowing what would happen to this baby boy,” she told Lila Rose, president and founder of Live Action. “His life doesn’t have a price tag on it. There’s nothing that they could try to come after me for that would be worth his life.”
Gabriel’s biological parents are now speaking out through their attorneys, accusing Paxton’s office of turning the case into “political theater” through its legal actions.
“Our clients’ child was born earlier this morning and he is now receiving medical care provided by a team of pediatric experts,” attorney Lee Budner said in a statement to The <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/12/texas-surrogacy-california-alaska-parental-rights/">Texas Tribune</a>. “McKenna West’s baseless attempts to intervene in the child’s medical care have been soundly rejected by the courts.”
“Our clients’ only focus at this time is ensuring that their baby receives the medical care that he vitally needs and that they, as his parents, are able to spend every precious moment they can with him,” Budner added.
In court filings, Gabriel’s biological parents accused West of initially agreeing to terminate the pregnancy before reversing course, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/couple-surrogate-claims-wanted-baby-aborted-break-silence-as-red-state-steps-in?author=Amanda+Harding&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=11&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=Couple+Surrogate+Claims+Wanted+Baby+Aborted+Break+Silence+As+Red+State+Steps+In">The Daily Wire</a> reported. 
“It is undisputed that West initially agreed and that she herself made the initial appointment. She then unilaterally changed her mind, cut off all contact with A.B. and C.D., and withdrew medical releases allowing A.B. and C.D. to have contact with all medical providers,” the filing said.
A Dallas judge granted the biological couple’s request for a temporary restraining order against West and blocked her from making any medical decisions for the child she was carrying.
A California court ruled that Gilkar and Ahmed are the legal parents of the baby. But Lincoln Wilson, an attorney for West, said that his client “is lawfully the parent because she gave birth to this child that she carries in Texas, then she should control custody as well.”
A hearing is scheduled for August 25.

03472245-d5f3-4d06-86f8-c7c45e404491

Trump Admin Steps Into Surrogate’s Fight For Newborn’s Life-Saving Care

The biological parents of a baby born via surrogate in Texas are speaking out following the birth of the son they wanted to abort.
Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed said through their attorneys that the case has become “political theater” due to the actions of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. The surrogate mother, McKenna West, claims that the couple tried to convince her to have an abortion when it was discovered that the child had a heart defect.
The unborn baby was found to have hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a rare birth defect where the left side of the heart does not develop properly. According to <a href="https://www.nyp.org/pediatrics/heart/hypoplastic-left-heart-syndrome-hlhs/treatment">New York-Presbyterian</a>, surgical intervention is required with a 72% survival rate to age 5. Of those that survive that benchmark, 90% of people with HLHS reach the age of 18.
Gilkar and Ahmed’s lawyer confirmed the baby was born in Texas.
&#8220;Our clients&#8217; child was born earlier this morning and he is now receiving medical care provided by a team of pediatric experts,&#8221; attorney Lee Budner said in a <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/12/texas-surrogacy-california-alaska-parental-rights/">statement</a> to The Texas Tribune. &#8220;McKenna West&#8217;s baseless attempts to intervene in the child&#8217;s medical care have been soundly rejected by the courts.&#8221;
&#8220;Our clients&#8217; only focus at this time is ensuring that their baby receives the medical care that he vitally needs and that they, as his parents, are able to spend every precious moment they can with him,&#8221; Budner added. 
On Tuesday, a Dallas judge ordered that the child be given life-saving treatment when he was born. The judge also granted the couple’s request for a temporary restraining order against West and blocked her from making any medical decisions for the child she was carrying. 
West’s attorney said she had a positive relationship with Gilkar and Ahmed until they tried to pressure her to abort the child following the diagnosis. 
&#8220;She described it as fear because basically she was going to be asked to do something to the child that she carried that was fundamentally offensive to her, and she couldn&#8217;t imagine ending the life of the child that she carried inside her,&#8221; Lincoln Wilson told the Texas Tribune.
Gilkar and Ahmed’s lawyers are now pushing back on the allegations that they forced her to have an abortion. In court documents filed July 20 in Alaska, the couple said West agreed to have an abortion at first and even scheduled the appointment, but then later changed her mind.
&#8220;After heartbreaking consultations with medical providers and their own research about the suffering and quality of life HLHS babies endure, A.B. and C.D. (birth parents) made the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy,&#8221; the filing says. 
&#8220;It is undisputed that West initially agreed and that she herself made the initial appointment. She then unilaterally changed her mind, cut off all contact with A.B. and C.D., and withdrew medical releases allowing A.B. and C.D. to have contact with all medical providers.&#8221;
Gilkar and Ahmed allegedly requested that the baby, whom they are calling Rumi, be born in California. They claim West went against their demand and moved to Texas instead, a state where family law holds the birth mother to be recognized as the legal mother of the child.
West has been referring to the baby as Gabriel, a name which the biological parents refuse to recognize.
&#8220;West is harming Rumi by relocating to Texas, requiring him to be born in Texas, away from his parents and the specialized cardiac team in Los Angeles that will provide his lifelong care,&#8221; the filing says. &#8220;Her actions are forcing Rumi to begin treatment (including critical heart surgery) in one state and be transferred to another.&#8221;
A California court ruled that Gilkar and Ahmed are the legal parents of the baby. But Wilson said that his client &#8220;is lawfully the parent because she gave birth to this child that she carries in Texas, then she should control custody as well.&#8221;
A hearing is scheduled for August 25.

Surrogate Texas case

Couple Surrogate Claims Wanted Baby Aborted Break Silence As Red State Steps In

Menu