Author name: Norman Woods

In 2000, the FDA approved Mifepristone, the first of a two-drug protocol used to kill babies through the 10th week of pregnancy, as a “safe and effective” means of abortion. But in their fervor to provide an “easy,” non-surgical option for abortion, did they bypass serious safety concerns that put women at risk?

The in-vitro fertilization (IVF) industry has a heartwarming story to tell you. They will introduce you to their growing community of loving couples who wish to become parents, and show you pictures of the smiling faces who were born because of IVF practices.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case between Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in which the group of pro-life doctors is arguing that the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone was “arbitrary and capricious” and puts pro-life medical professionals in a position of completing elective abortions, violating their moral and ethical standards.

In 2000, the FDA approved mifepristone, the first of a two-drug protocol used to kill babies through the 10th week of pregnancy, as a “safe and effective” means of abortion. But in their fervor to provide an “easy,” non-surgical option for abortion, did they bypass serious safety concerns that put women at risk?

Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, we have witnessed an outpouring of misinformation attempting to discredit the pro-life movement as cold and uncaring toward pregnant mothers. A false narrative has been preached that pro-life laws prohibit doctors from saving the life of the mother,