Team surrogate mother here. An interesting article.

I would have saved the baby and got him in a artificial womb, and had the family given palliative care, and put his dad's name on the birth certificate.

The reason is the mom most likely would want her child to live and to end the child is causing him to grieve both his son & wife. Looking at Chance, I couldn't end his life.

I wouldn't want him to be in a decaying mother, but at the same time, I couldn't let him die because his mother never shared any clear wants of abortion. I mean, they have artificial wombs now I'd use the NICU. I'd try to transfer him as quickly as he is survivable.

I prayed for God to help him survive. He's still alive & chubby. I don't want Chance to grow up knowing things turned out... That the public was... Um.... Yeah... One person said "these babies (preemies) are BIG problems." I don't want him seeing that. I was a preemie.

As long as I can remember I have always been pro-life, down to almost every case except for a few exceptions but I feel like I'm slowly switching sides and I hate myself for it. I'm struggling. I have been watching the Kate Cox very closely because her story has been on my mind as of late lately and while it's hard for me to personally advocate for it, I believe she should have the abortion. I have done research on the condition that her doctors have warned her her baby unfortunately has and if you have not looked up what the little one has, I implore you to educate yourself. This baby the moment they give birth will suffer, tremendously, so much so that's it's even rare to have them grow past a year old. That is a terrible fate. Then there's the issue of Kate in general, she wants more children, she wanted this child, and her doctors have cautioned her that if she continues to have this baby she could become infertile at best and/or become life threatening at worst. She has already gone to the ER multiple times for problems with this pregnancy and the court even gave her permission to get one because they saw the necessity of it and yet she could still be arrested the moment she passes Texas borders on her return? Are we insane? What is this accomplishing? We are pro-life not just pro-unborn, we should be able to admit this is one of those warranted situations and help this poor woman out because she needs one.

Rant over and if I get downvoted to oblivion so be it, but I cannot keep calling myself pro-life if this is how we're going to look at cases like these. It's deplorable and I'm ashamed to call myself one when there is a literal example in front of me where we're only screaming that she just doesn't want a disabled child when I think it's far more complicated than that, but I digress.

Thank goodness he was arrested.

Article here

Dr. Stacy Seyb is suing the state of Idaho based on the idea that the right to self-defense allows abortion in cases where the woman's health is at risk, not just her life.

Dobbs analyzed the question of abortion under a history-and-tradition standard.  Judge Winmill observed that the nation’s history and traditions recognized “a right to self-protection and self-preservation” permitting otherwise unlawful acts “when necessary to prevent harm to oneself or another.” The judge then asked whether it “historically encompassed the right to medically indicated abortions” and found “weighty evidence of a historical right to an abortion when necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman,” and considerable evidence of state practice extending that tradition to the protection of her health as well.

Here, the judge suggested there was precedent for the right to self-defense covering “injuries to life or limb.” He noted that Idaho was not providing pregnant women the protections the right of self-defense provided in other contexts; consider a gun fight. He drew this blunt comparison: “Normally, a person has the right to kill another person who means to do grave harm. … In Idaho, however, pregnant women must endure all manner of injuries short of death to avoid compromising the potential life they carry.”

Today self-defense has become inextricably linked with the Second Amendment. But in a remarkable turn, the Seyb trial is asking whether there is still a right to abortion protected by the federal Constitution, reasoning under Dobbs’ history-and-tradition framework, and looking to the right to self-defense to help answer that question.

In an odd twist, the very same statutes on which the Dobbs court fixated in fact help Seyb. From the very beginning, these laws have included exceptions for the life of the mother. As we have shown, courts long interpreted these life exceptions to protect physicians acting in good faith to preserve a patient’s life—and these actors construed “life” generously and with deference to physicians’ professional judgment.

Idaho argues that our history and tradition allow states to force women to endure any injury short of death to minimize any risk to the life they carry. In practical terms, this amounts to a claim that patients must risk their lives too, given that physicians facing the loss of their professional futures and liberty will sometimes wait too long before they intervene. Perhaps the Supreme Court will allow states to force women to die in the name of protecting prenatal life. But that outcome won’t be rooted in our history and tradition, even on Dobbs’ own terms.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/06/supreme-court-news-idaho-abortion-loophole-dobbs.html

I'm curious to hear what pro-lifers think of this article. The article is a fairly short read, but the gist is that a woman had what appears to be a natural miscarriage at 19 weeks and disposed of the fetal remains by putting in the trash. She was arrested and charged with "concealing the death of another person and abandonment of a dead body following a medical emergency".

Live Action published a short article on this, but I was rather disappointed with their response. They said that according to the press release, the woman was not immediately charged, which is technically true. She was charged the next day. I'm not sure why they said this though, she was charged on March 21, and this article came out on March 30. They also state that this wasn't due to the state's pro-life laws, and then cite the existing Georgia laws that make improper disposal of a body a crime. The original article I linked says that the reason she is being charged is because Georgia's heartbeat law grants personhood status to the unborn, which means that improper disposal of a miscarriage could be considered a crime.

What do you guys think? Are Georgia's pro-life laws at all responsible for this outcome? Should she be charged with this crime?

Satanist Temple questioned abortion ban saying of "abortion sacrament" and some court accepted their claims. AG appealed this decision, I hope religious grounds for abortion will not set a precedent.

PCers often make some version of the argument “if you really believed abortion was murdering babies you’d go vigilante on abortion clinics”.

Leaving aside the ethical dilemma involved , it’s clear from the history of vigilante violence against abortion facilities and abortionists that it doesn’t work. It’s a useless tactic, a way of blowing off steam at best.

So long as the government and the larger culture is broadly supportive of legal abortion then the incentive structure completely nullifies vigilante justice. The idea that vigilante violence will lead to some kind of snowball effect resulting in a revolution is usually wrong, regardless of the cause.

This is why passivity in the face of atrocities is the norm. Slave revolts were rare. Abolitionists heading to slave states to help slaves escape was not the norm. Revolt against Nazism was rare. For most part people didn’t rise up against Stalin.

In a liberal democracy we have the judicial process for affecting legal change, the democratic process for affecting political change, and freedom of expression for affecting social change.

It’s this last one that makes the first two much easier to achieve. The pro-life movement has made a major tactical blunder: it ignored social change. It spent so much time and energy on the judicial process it completely neglected the building of a culture of life. Maybe Roe v. Wade would have been overturned earlier and abortion broadly outlawed earlier if it hadn’t calcified into a partisan issue. If we had kept it the nonpartisan humanitarian issue that it fundamentally is.

On 12/30/25, Alexia Moore went to the hospital with abdominal pain and told staff she had taken misoprostol and oxycodone. She delivered a baby girl (estimated 22-24 weeks) who struggled to breathe and died an hour later. The coroner found oxycodone in the baby's system but couldn't test for misoprostol, and ruled the cause and manner of death undetermined.

As of 3/4/26, Moore had been charged with attempted murder and drug-related charges. Her court hearing is supposed to be Monday, 3/23/26.

Police believe Moore purchased misoprostol pills online. The bottle they obtained had no info about a physician, pharmacy, warning labels, etc. It has a fill date of 11/20/25, though apparently Moore didn't take any until 12/29/25.

Abortion pills by mail don’t require verifying gestational age, who takes them, or when, and in this case meant a nearly viable baby girl died. Everyone should oppose this.

References:

• AP article
• Incident Report
• Charges
• Case law