As we reflect on 2025 and launch into a new year, the overall picture for human dignity around the world and here at home is mixed. There are certainly many positive developments, but also some deeply troubling trends.
Last fall, President Trump unveiled a series of policies aimed at reducing the cost of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and expanding insurance coverage for IVF treatments. This was promoted by the administration as a major step toward supporting families and was even described in pro-life terms. But for many observers, the expansion of IVF access does not actually align with a consistent defense of human life. While IVF can result in the birth of children, in its most common practice, it leads to many more embryos being lost or destroyed than carried to term. The IVF industry operates in very ethically troubling ways.
Another startling development last year was the Illinois legislatures passage of a law to legalize physician-assisted suicide. It was attached to an unrelated food safety bill in the early morning hours of Halloween. This measure would permit adults with serious terminal prognoses to access a life-ending prescription after meeting a series of evaluations. Supporters of assisted suicide (now often called “medical assistance in dying) often describe safeguards intended to protect patients, but experience in places like Colorado shows how such “protections” quickly disappear. Colorado’s law has already been expanded to allow nurses to prescribe lethal medication and shorten waiting periods, and litigation could soon remove even residency requirements, potentially turning the state into a destination for those seeking assisted suicide.
However, amid these troubling trends, there are legal developments on the life front that are positive: the Supreme Court ruled that states have the authority to withhold Medicaid funding from organizations like Planned Parenthood. More than twenty states have now enacted policies to exclude abortion providers from these federal dollars. The High Court also has several pending cases with implications for life issues, including whether states can require physicians to inform women about chemical abortion reversal and whether crisis pregnancy centers can challenge restrictive state advertising laws.
These developments give us a window in the battles ahead for life in 2026. If you’d like to join the grassroots action or even walk with us at the March for Life in Washington, D.C., this month, contact us at PhyllisSchlafly.com. Sign up for our emails and get involved – again at PhyllisSchlafly.com. Thanks, and join us tomorrow for the Phyllis Schlafly Report.
