And then there was this, September 2025

By J.M. Glover

India’s 2025 March for Life

This may have only been India’s four March for Life, but the August 9 event reflected a joy and creativity, backed by a large contingent of Catholic prelates and religious that other countries may well ponder for their own future March. The day began with Mass at St. Francis Xavier Cathedral in Bangalore, with Archbishop Francis Kalist concelebrating with three other archbishops and two auxiliary bishops. He then delivered a powerful catechesis, referring to the staggering 15.6 million abortions in India in 2015 alone, which translated into an unborn baby being killed every two seconds. He also reflected on Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii encyclical (“On Chaste Wedlock”) and on Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae. The archbishop also sent a warning to his fellow bishops:” How often have you heard the leadership in the Church … speak about the sin of abortion, contraception or gender ideology in their catechesis?” He answered his own question—”Sadly, hardly ever.” The lay pro-life movement has taken the initiative for India’s March for Life, which focuses on the full spectrum of pro-life issues: “contraception, abortion, IVF, surrogacy, sterilization, pornography, chastity, gender ideology, theology of the body, assisted suicide, and crisis pregnancy resources—all presented with both scientific evidence and Catholic teaching.” Thousands participated joyfully in the March wearing brightly coloured-shirts and waving printed and hand-written signs. Groups chanted as they walked; one chant rang out: “Right to Life, We Stand to Fight.” The March concluded with a LIFE Seminar featuring well-known Indian pro-life activists and creative exhibits. One showed a chilling parallel between modern euthanasia propaganda and Hitler’s eugenics agenda. Another challenged IVF, with a freezer stocked with meat boxes and a model baby proclaiming, “Meat belongs in freezers, not children.”

The Big, Beautiful Bill has defunded Planned Parenthood. Not quite.

President Donald Trump was ecstatic that his Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) was going to change the U.S. One of the provisions in his bill was to stop abortionists from receiving Medicaid dollars for every abortion committed. His plan was to knock Planned Parenthood, by far the largest abortion killer in America, out of the abortion racket. But predictably, a “blue” state (governed by Democrats), this time Massachusetts, in the person of federal judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointment, issued a temporary restraining order on the provision of a one-year ban (originally a permanent ban but negotiated down to one year to get it passed in the Senate). The American Center for Law and Justice said that Planned Parenthood had no “constitutional right” to U.S. taxpayer dollars. Legal scholar Tom Jipping of the Heritage Foundation aimed his criticism directly at Talwani, for “trying to exercise power she doesn’t have to force Congress to change.” The ban, explicitly named in the bill, applies to any organization that receives in excess of $800,000 per year from Medicaid, just not for abortion services. Under the congressional bill, a Medicaid provider has only to provide “medical care” and not kill babies. But those organizations which provide abortions, especially Planned Parenthood, reject that idea. They insist that abortion is “medical” aid, when, in truth, they make a lot of money off killing babies and call it “healthcare.” Planned Parenthood predicts that 200 of its facilities could close if the bill comes into law. Its latest annual report 2023-24 recorded the organization committing 402,230 abortions and it received $792.2 million in taxpayer dollars. So, although the pro-life movement celebrated when the bill was passed in Congress, it will have to wait for the outcome of the Talwani court ruling before the champagne glass might be raised. And that could take months, or years.

Do female ‘influencers’ promote extremist views?

Apparently CSIS, Canada’s top spy agency, believes so, but only if they are right-wing. A 2023 report by the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre, a division of CSIS, recently came to light as a result of an Access to Information request by Global News. According to the ITAC report here are some scenarios where women are able to “weaponize femininity”:

Under the guise of expressing concern for children’s wellbeing, certain bloggers promote xenophobic and anti-2SLGBTO1+ rhetoric;

“Grievances related to sexual education in schools or vaccinations led to discussions that began with skepticism and concern and spiralled into anti-government extremism”;

“Discourse about respecting women’s contributions at home often strays into anti-immigration rhetoric”;

Some blogs about “tradwives”—women who promote traditional values—have “devolved into targeting of immigrants”;

Women “co-opt lifestyle content such as health and wellness, food blogging, beauty and motherhood to embed political messages while at the same time appealing to broad audiences.” At one point, the report references “the role of women as radicalizers of others.” The strategy seems to be that women are using motherhood and parenting to lure unsuspecting women to their causes. The report does not name specific “influencers” but refers to “alt-right extremist channels; anti-government rhetoric about covid-19 lockdowns (The report is from 2023); and women-oriented blogs that promote white supremacy.” The intelligence agency reports that, with an estimated 6,600 Canadian alt-right platforms, with about 50,000 users, “it is likely that women are just as present as men on extremist social media platforms.” The report uses toxic words as “coded language,” embed(ed) political messages,” “radicalized strategy,” and “extreme ideas.” All this reads like a high school essay, and it is easy to not take the report seriously. But, seriously, CSIS has very important jobs that it is not addressing—illegal immigration, drug and sex trafficking, crime and public disorder, money laundering, and Chinese Communist infiltration into Canadian politics and society. Our country is slipping into oblivion while the federal government keeps its “elbows up” and its intelligence agency dithers.

Youngest preemie ever celebrates his first birthday

When Mollie Keen, of Ankeny, Iowa, realized that she was having contractions at 20 weeks, she found an online support group who directed her and her husband, Randall, to the neonatal intensive care unit at Children’s Hospital in Iowa City. Once there, she delivered tiny Nash on July 5, 2024, at exactly 21 weeks—133 days ahead of his mom’s due date, and just 10 hours after the 21-week threshold at which the NICU specialists would help him. As Mollie remarked, “Had Nash been born just 10 hours earlier, he wouldn’t be here.” He weighed 10 ounces (283 grams). Nash was resuscitated at birth and doctors were unsure if their tiniest breathing tubes and intravenous lines would be small enough. Neo-natalist Dr. Amy Stafford recorded, “Our NICU team assessed Nash and I was able to place a breathing tube. Once we had the breathing tube in, his heart rate stabilized and his oxygen levels were good. He remained in hospital for the first six months. Today, Nash is home with Mollie and Randall. He still requires oxygen to help him breathe and he is nourished intravenously, although he is slowly being introduced to pureed food. A minor heart defect will resolve itself as he grows. At his one-year mark, the Guinness World Records recorded Nash as the youngest preemie ever to survive. Currently, conventional wisdom says the medical age of viability is 24 weeks, but medical science continues to show that it has the technology and dedicated specialists to help the tiniest preemies to survive and thrive. As Mollie Keen expressed about Nash on his first birthday, “I love waking up to him. He’s truly … the best thing that could have happened to us.” And it’s one of the best things that pro-lifers can rejoice in and announce to the world.