Opinion
Judge orders 2-year-old IVF baby to be given to biological parents despite being raised by birth mom

From LifeSiteNews
With the rising popularity of IVF, egg donation, sperm donation, and surrogacy, Americans have been fed the marketing line that biology isn’t what makes a family. Yet in cases like Sophia’s, it becomes obvious that biology certainly matters when the adults say it matters.
According to Haaretz, an Israeli court on Sunday ordered that, following a lengthy legal battle over an IVF mix-up, a woman who gave birth to a daughter and raised her for two years must now give the girl to her biological parents.
The woman and her partner underwent IVF treatment at Assuta Medical Center in Rishon Letzion, but as she neared the end of her pregnancy, she underwent testing after it was discovered that the preborn baby had medical concerns. During that testing, it was revealed that the baby she was carrying had no biological connection to her or her partner. She had been implanted with someone else’s embryo.
A report on the situation found that the error was likely due to the heavy workload staff are facing at the fertility clinic following the government’s decision to move fertility treatments to private hospital settings – a move considered a financial benefit to the Health Ministry, hospitals, and doctors, but one that put patients at risk of errors.
Now, two years later, a judge has ordered the woman to hand the child, Sophia, who has a heart condition and developmental delays, over to her biological parents.
Benefits vs. damage
Judge Oved Elias of the Rishon Letzion Family Court said the girl should be given to her biological parents on the recommendation of Dr. Daniel Gottlieb, a psychologist appointed to the case, but against an affidavit from Welfare Ministry social workers and the head of Israel’s Child Protective Service. That affidavit advised that the girl should remain with the woman who gave birth to her, and her partner who have been raising her.
Elias determined that being given to her biological parents was in the child’s best interest because they are her natural parents. “The benefits that will arise from handing the girl over to her genetic parents and her life with them overcome the damage that will be caused by disconnecting her from the parents who have been raising her. The benefits of life with the genetic parents are, among others, in her future identity, connecting her to the family’s genealogy, a shared family story, and matching psychologies and family values,” he said.
He’s not wrong. Research has shown that children who live in a home with their married, biological parents are healthier both physically and mentally.
However, the removal of the child from the only parents she has known both inside and outside of the womb is likely to cause significant trauma. Studies have shown that taking babies from their birth mothers – whether they are biologically related or not – causes immense trauma for the child and can permanently alter her adult brain function later in life. While adoption seeks to heal the trauma that results when a birth mother feels unable to raise her child and lovingly selects a family to raise her baby, artificial reproductive technologies (such as surrogacy) deliberately create a trauma, with a child knowingly created and intended to be separated from his or her birth mother.
In this case, a mix-up during the use of these artificial reproductive technologies has created trauma for the child, the birth parents, and the biological parents.
Birth parents and biological parents speak out
“Given that there was a major error in the IVF process, and given that, with cooperation and in a planned, monitored way it can be rectified with minimum harm, I cannot accept the stance that what’s done is done,” the judge wrote.
The birth parents argued that the biological parents do not know how to care for the child and her health needs properly, and that the situation should be left as is because “the family unit embraces the baby.”
“As a mother, I don’t understand how they can tear my daughter from me after I birthed her with blood, sweat, and tears? She is the fruit of my womb and I’ve been raising her for more than two years. As far as I’m concerned, I’ll wait until justice is done at the High Court of Justice,” said Sophia’s birth mother, who feels as though she’s been reduced to the status of a surrogate.
“I am Sophia’s mother, and she is a sweet girl who only months ago underwent a third life-threatening surgery. I’m not a womb for rent, and with all my grief for the woman who gave the egg, she didn’t make the child. I was implanted with the embryo, carried her, and gave birth to her, and I will not allow my daughter to be uprooted from me. It’s inhumane. I won’t lend a hand in risking my daughter’s life.”
Sophia’s biological parents, however, said that Elias’ decision “rectified” the mistake made by the IVF clinic. That mistake was determined to be that both women were at the clinic at the same time and had been called back for an embryo transfer in the wrong order.
“She is coming home to live with the family she was supposed to be born into. Everything was done to try to protect her privacy and allow her to be raised in peace. We are overjoyed and waiting for the moment we will finally be able to hug our daughter and be hugged by her, which is something we’ve been waiting for for so long,” they said.
Sophia’s birth parents have appealed the decision to the District Court.
Sophia’s case shines a light on the potentially serious harms of IVF and sperm and egg donation. The fertility industry treats children like commodities to be created and destroyed at will with adults as the clients, making decisions that are in the adults’ best interest, not the child’s. With the rising popularity of IVF, egg donation, sperm donation, and surrogacy, Americans have been fed the marketing line that biology isn’t what makes a family. Yet in cases like Sophia’s, it becomes obvious that biology certainly matters when the adults say it matters.
“[…] #BigFertility routinely implants someone else’s biological children into an intended mother or surrogate via donor sperm, egg, or embryos,” said Katie Breckenridge of the organization Them Before Us. “When adults choose to separate a child from their biological parents at conception, we shower those adults with congratulations and often call it ‘progress.’ Only when it’s a case of an IVF mix up is it a problem that babies go home with genetic strangers. In other words, biology matters only when adults want it to matter.”
Reprinted with permission from Live Action.
Business
Who owns Canada’s public debt?

David Clinton
Remember when thinking about our debt crisis was just scary?
During his recent election campaign, Mark Carney announced plans to add $225 billion (with a “b”) to federal debt over the next four years. That, to put it mildly, is a consequential number. I thought it would be useful to put it into context, both in terms of our existing debt, and of some social and political changes those plans could spark.
How much money does Canada currently owe? According to Statistics Canada’s statement of government operations and balance sheet, as of Q4 2024, that number would be nearly $954 billion. That’s compared with the $621 billion we owed back in 2015.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
How much does interest on our current debt cost us each year? The official Budget 2024 document predicted that we’d pay around $51 billion each year to just service our debt. But that’s before piling on the new $225 billion.
We – and the governments we elect – might be tempted to imagine that the cash behind public loans just magically appears out of thin air. In fact, most Canadian government debt is financed through debt securities such as marketable bonds, treasury bills, and foreign currency debt instruments. And those bonds and bills are owned by buyers.
Who are those buyers? Many of them are probably Canadian banks and other financial institutions. But as of February 2025, according to Statistics Canada, it was international portfolio investors who owned $527 billion of Canadian federal government debt securities.
Most of those foreign investors are probably from (relatively) friendly countries like the U.S. and U.K. But that’s certainly not the whole story. Although I couldn’t find direct data breaking down the details, there are some broadly related investment income numbers that might be helpful.
Specifically, all foreign investments into both public and private entities in Canada in 2024 amounted to $219 billion dollars. In that same year, investments from “all other countries” totaled $51 billion. What Statistics Canada means by “all other countries” covers all countries besides the US, UK, EU, Japan, and the 38 OECD nations.
The elephant in the “all other countries” room has to be China.
So let’s break this down. The $527 billion foreign-owned investment debt I mentioned earlier represents around 55 percent of our total debt.¹ And if the “all other countries” ratio in general foreign investments holds true² for federal public debt, then it’s realistic to assume that the federal government currently owes around 11 percent of its debt to government and business entities associated with the Chinese Communist Party.
By all accounts, an 11 percent share in a government’s debt counts as leverage. Given China’s recent history, our ability to act independently in international and even domestic affairs could be compromised. But it could also be destabilizing, exposing us to risk if China’s economy faces turmoil which could disrupt our ability to roll over debt or secure new financing.
Mark Carney’s plan to add another 20 percent to our debt over the next four years will only increase our exposure to these – and many more – risks. Canadian voters have made an interesting choice.
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” – H.L. Mencken
The Audit is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Crime
Operation Take Back America Strikes Chinese Money Launderers in Charlotte Cartel Case

Sam Cooper
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Striking a cell capable of washing $100 million within what U.S. counter-narcotics officials describe as a half-trillion-dollar global enterprise, federal prosecutors have secured convictions against three men tied to a China-based transnational laundering syndicate, exposing how Mexican cartel drug proceeds flowed quietly through Charlotte banks as overdose deaths surged across the Carolinas.
The case, centered in Charlotte, North Carolina, reveals the concealed infrastructure enabling Mexican cartels to convert fentanyl profits into clean capital, aided by sophisticated Chinese professional launderers operating like underwriters and rogue accountants—embedding illicit funds in regional banks using fake identities and a dense lattice of shell companies.
Prosecutors say Maoxuan Xia, 29, of China; Shao Neng Lin, 58, of Baldwin Park, California; and Zhou Yu, 42, of China, laundered more than $92 million in drug proceeds through this underground system. Court records show the trio used false documentation and coordinated deposits to move over $700,000 through Charlotte-area financial institutions alone.
Donald Im, a former top DEA illicit finance expert, said the system is designed so that all roads ultimately lead to Beijing’s treasury—with narcotics proceeds flowing back to China through laundering networks, while cartels handle the production and distribution of synthetic opioids sourced from Chinese factories.
The Charlotte case offers a rare, granular view into how that system functions on the ground. Xia served as a primary collector, retrieving cash from cartel-linked operatives across the United States. In less than two years, he laundered over $30 million. Lin and Yu operated back-end accounts, managing shell firms that each moved approximately $20 million. All three men entered guilty pleas this spring.
Investigators describe the laundering structure as part of a wider financial ecosystem anchored in Chinese underground banking hubs—active in cities such as Vancouver, Toronto, Mexico City, New York and Los Angeles. These operations pair U.S. drug money with Chinese nationals looking to move renminbi out of the mainland, exploiting capital flight demand to create an opaque, dollar-based network of cash flow. Funds are then reinvested in electronics exports, real estate, and layered wire transfers—largely beyond the reach of Western regulators.
The Charlotte convictions come amid a regional overdose emergency. In 2023, South Carolina reported 44.7 overdose deaths per 100,000 residents, far exceeding the U.S. average of 31.3. Georgia recorded 2,687 overdose deaths in 2022, a 300 percent increase since 2010. In North Carolina, more than 36,000 people have died from drug overdoses since 2000, with over 4,000 deaths recorded in 2021 alone. Fentanyl now accounts for nearly 80 percent of opioid fatalities in the Carolinas.
Taken together, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia form one of the most intensely affected overdose corridors in North America. Only British Columbia—where Vancouver’s urban fentanyl crisis remains in declared emergency—and West Virginia report comparably higher death rates. British Columbia recorded 48.5 overdose deaths per 100,000 residents in 2024; West Virginia reached 80.9 per 100,000 in 2022.
A parallel indictment in South Carolina, unsealed in April, further illustrates China’s financial blueprint. Prosecutors charged Nasir Ullah, 28, and Naim Ullah, 32, of Sumter, along with Puquan Huang, 49, of Buford, Georgia, with laundering millions in cartel-linked proceeds. According to court filings, the men concealed cash in Sumter-area properties before converting it into overseas electronics shipments to Hong Kong and Dubai. Investigators allege the group was linked to broader laundering cells stretching into Asia and the Middle East.
While no financial institutions were charged in the Charlotte case, the use of fraudulent documents and synthetic identities to move large sums underscores continuing vulnerabilities in U.S. bank compliance systems—particularly in regional markets where oversight mechanisms may lag behind the sophistication of illicit finance networks.
The case was prosecuted under Operation Take Back America, a multi-agency U.S. initiative focused on dismantling the financial backbone of transnational fentanyl trafficking. Officials involved say targeting launderers may yield more strategic disruption than intercepting drug shipments alone—striking directly at the revenue pipelines keeping the trade alive.
Im, who led transnational threat targeting units within DEA’s Special Operations Division, has long studied the convergence of criminal enterprise and state-sanctioned economic leverage. In his assessment, Chinese laundering brokers serve both cartel clients and parallel financial objectives of the state—helping the proceeds of Western fentanyl sales find their way into Belt and Road infrastructure loans, real estate portfolios, and capital-export schemes tied to China’s global influence-building.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
-
Crime2 days ago
Mexican Cartels smuggling crude oil in Texas, Southwest border
-
Economy2 days ago
US strategy to broker peace in Congo and Rwanda – backed by rare earth minerals deal
-
International1 day ago
United Nations on brink of financial collapse
-
Crime1 day ago
Operation Take Back America Strikes Chinese Money Launderers in Charlotte Cartel Case
-
Alberta22 hours ago
Bonnyville RCMP targeted by suspect driving a trackhoe
-
Business1 day ago
BUILD CANADA NOW: An Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada from Energy Leaders
-
Business22 hours ago
Who owns Canada’s public debt?
-
Health9 hours ago
Jay Bhattacharya Closes NIH’s Last Beagle Lab