'Dead people don't collect disability benefits': Is pause on euthanizing the mentally ill in Canada just smoke and mirrors?



After announcing on Wednesday that it was pumping the brakes on making the mentally ill eligible for euthanasia in Canada, Carney's Liberal government killed Conservative legislation that would have made the pause permanent.

"If the government truly believed in preventing MAID for cases of mental illness, then they would have supported our bill," Conservative MP Tamara Jansen, the author of the defeated bill, said in a statement shared with Blaze News. "But when Canadians needed action, the Liberals chose politics."

'The cost savings associated with [euthanizing] the mentally ill could reach up to CAD $63.076 billion.'

Since Canada legalized euthanasia nationwide under ex-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2016, the resultant Medical Assistance in Dying program has been grossly liberalized, becoming a leading cause of death in Canada and claiming the lives of ineligible victims.

The Liberal government, now headed by globalist Prime Minister Mark Carney, expanded the program in February 2024 to enable euthanizing people suffering solely from mental illness.

While the original plan was for the mentally ill to be eligible for extermination the following month, their eligibility date was pushed back to March 2027.

Sean Fraser, Canada's attorney general, announced on Wednesday that the government would once again hold off on offering MAID to the mentally ill.

"Serious concerns remain regarding the safe and consistent evaluation of marketing authorization applications for mental illness," stated Fraser. "Canada will therefore not proceed with the planned expansion when mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition."

RELATED: Canada kills 83-year-old Christian grandmother without consent, family claims — outrage ensues

Canadian Attorney General Sean Fraser. Arlyn McAdorey/Bloomberg/Getty Images.

Conservative MP Tamara Jansen had a bill ready to codify the government's rejection of MAID for the mentally ill and to affirm that "a mental disorder is not a grievous and irremediable medical condition" that alone would satisfy the eligibility criteria for MAID.

The preamble of "The Right to Recover Act" stresses that "vulnerable Canadians should receive suicide prevention counseling rather than access to medical assistance in dying" and that "Canada’s medical assistance in dying regime risks normalizing assisted dying as a solution for those suffering from a mental disorder."

The bill was, however, defeated in a 187-141 vote in parliament on Wednesday. All but two Liberal members of parliament voted in opposition.

'They can still be killed by euthanasia in Canada if they have another medical condition.'

Fraser cited the bill's use of the term "mental disorder" as opposed to "mental illness" as the primary reason for why the Liberals voted in opposition.

"Mental disorder," he suggested, could be interpreted to include some of the neurologically degenerative diseases that presently can be provided as cause for MAID.

"Disagreement over terminology was not a reason to kill this necessary bill," said Jansen. "Conservatives were prepared to work through those concerns at committee. But with less than six months remaining before the current exclusion expires, Parliament does not have time to let technical disagreements stand in the way of action."

Nicole Scheidl, the executive director of Canadian Physicians for Life, also isn't buying the government's explanation for killing the bill.

Scheidl indicated to Blaze News that it was a way for the Liberals to "shoehorn" advanced consent for MAID into the alternative, yet-to-be produced bill that Fraser suggested will be introduced later in the parliamentary session "so that there's very limited time to debate."

"They want to shut down debate, and so they're going to hold that [mentally ill] population hostage to allow them to push through euthanasia for dementia," said Scheidl.

Fraser, whose office did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment, admitted this week that the government ultimately wants to "allow adults diagnosed with a disease such as Alzheimer’s at an early stage to make an advance request for MAID."

In the meantime, Canada can still kill the mentally ill, Alex Schadenberg, the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told Blaze News.

"Right now under the law, someone who has a mental illness — even if that mental illness is driving them to suicidal ideation — they can still be killed by euthanasia in Canada if they have another medical condition," said Schadenberg. "So if someone, let's say, had a difficult condition of diabetes, it would be the diabetes they'd be approved for."

Schadenberg cited the case of 26-year-old Kiano Vafaeian, who was euthanized on Dec. 30, 2025. His family told Global News that while diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes and partial vision loss, Vafaeian's primary struggle was with mental health issues.

"He said everything the doctors needed to hear in order to approve him," said his mother, Margaret Marsilla. "Was he actually feeling that way? I strongly believe not."

"A large number of Canadians have something that would qualify them for euthanasia," Scheidl told Blaze News. "So then if they're depressed on top of that, and they can't really think straight, and they're more inclined to choose that option, then there's nothing to protect them. There's nothing to stop it. The [MAID] assessments are not really effective at seeing if people are suicidal or depressed."

The same government that has made it easy for vulnerable people like Vafaeian to check out has boasted of the savings associated with the program.

Canada's Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted in an October 2020 report that 6,465 deaths under what was then a more restrictive MAID program would result in a total gross reduction in health care costs of $109.2 million in 2021.

"Their estimates were very, very low and their numbers were way off because they underestimated the number of deaths we would have," said Schadenberg.

In a study published in February 2025, researchers at Western University explored the "potential economic savings from expanding medical assistance in dying in Canada, where it is currently a leading cause of death, to include vulnerable groups that cost the government more than they contribute in taxes," including Indians, the homeless, the retired elderly, drug addicts, and the mentally ill.

"The cost savings associated with the mentally ill could reach up to CAD $63.076 billion," said the researchers, "while for the retired elderly population, the savings could be CAD $54.2 billion in the voluntary scenario or as high as CAD $1.2 trillion in a nonvoluntary scenario."

"Dead people don't cost money," Schadenberg told Blaze News. "Dead people don't collect pensions. Dead people don't collect disability benefits. And you've got a government, well, provincially and federally, that are running massive deficits. So a lot of incentive."

While the Canadian government has not officially rolled out a nonvoluntary MAID program, Scheidl noted that there is already plenty of "coercion that is happening under the umbrella of this regime."

"There are a lot of individuals who feel they have no choice," said Scheidl. "They are dealing with either caregivers who are completely burnt out and can't care for them [or] they have no other health care options. Hospice is denied to them. Palliative care is not available. Pain care is completely inadequate."

"We're wholly inadequate in our care for those who are suffering or at the end of life. But we're very, very good and very, very fast at delivering euthanasia."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Host of 'The View' reveals she was lone holdout on jury that found cannibal killer not guilty by reason of insanity



Sunny Hostin admitted during the latest episode of "The View" that she was the reason a cannibal killer was found not guilty of his crimes.

She was explaining the insanity defense being employed by attorneys for Lindsay Clancy after Clancy strangled and killed her three young children.

'He did not mean to kill her, and once he killed her, he panicked. He chopped up her body, yes, boiled her body parts, tried to commit the perfect crime, and then ... he fed her body parts to the unhoused.'

"The insanity defense has been around in Massachusetts for 182 years, so I think it's well established, and I thought absolutely that she was not criminally responsible by reason of insanity," said Hostin, an attorney.

"And the reason I felt that, I feel so strongly about this holdout juror is because I was a holdout juror in a case, in the Daniel Rakowitz case. I don’t know if people remember it, the ‘Butcher of Tompkins Square Park,'" she said.

The other hosts were shocked at the admission about the harrowing case from 1991.

"It was before I went to law school. When I brought it up at the Hot Topics meeting, I don’t think everyone believed me. And then my producer looked it up and I’m in the New York Times," she continued.

"Apparently several jurors questioned afterward said one holdout juror was principally responsible for preventing them from returning a guilty verdict," she read from the Times.

"That was me!" Hostin added.

"And it was because I saw clearly that he was psychotic. He was in psychosis. He did not mean to kill her, and once he killed her, he panicked. He chopped up her body parts, yes, boiled her body parts, tried to commit the perfect crime, and then ... he fed her body parts to the unhoused.”

The other hosts expressed their shock at the man's crimes.

"We ended up all 12, unanimously, voting that he was not criminally responsible," Hostin added. "... But he's still in a mental institution being treated."

Video of Hostin's comments was posted to social media, where they quickly went viral.

RELATED: 'The View' co-host has bizarre response to 'lifelong progressive' Whitney Cummings refusing to vote for pedophiles

Rakowitz is still reportedly being held at New York’s Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center. He is 64 years old.

While the 11 jurors in the Clancy trial were reportedly willing to find her not guilty by reason of insanity, the lone holdout on that jury forced a mistrial and a national debate about mental illness.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Cure For Teen Depression Is Giving Your Kids Siblings

What does the fertility rate have to do with mental illness? More than you might suspect.

'Whoa': Black CBS reporter STUNNED by new info about lone Lindsay Clancy juror who defied the mob



The national debate over criminal responsibility and postpartum depression got somewhat derailed after the jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial revealed more details about the lone holdout.

The defense never denied that Clancy strangled her three young children to death in the case that caused a nationwide battle. The defense argued that she sought help for mental illness and postpartum depression but did not get the treatment she needed.

'For people who revel in identity politics, they certainly fit the most awful stereotypes of white liberals.'

There were nine women and three men on the jury. One lone juror, a male, held out against the 11 others who wanted to acquit Clancy of the charges by reason of insanity.

Some jurors have gone to the public to plead their case that the lone juror was obstinate and refused to listen to the others, but their arguments have only led to more support for the holdout.

An interview with one juror in the case led to the revelation that the holdout was a black man.

On "CBS Mornings," juror Paula Devlin was asked by Gayle King to describe the racial makeup of the jury, and Devlin revealed that only one member was not white.

"One person of color. Was the person of color a woman or a man?" asked King.

"A man," she replied.

"A man. Is the holdout juror a black man?" she asked.

"Yes," Devlin said.

"A black man is the holdout juror?" King repeated.

"Yes," Devlin said.

"Whoa. I have to sit with that for just a second," King replied.

Video of King's stunned reaction was posted to social media.

Devlin went on to say that two jurors initially believed Clancy was guilty, two were undecided, and eight said she was not guilty.

She believes that the lone juror felt personally attacked, and for that reason, he refused to go along with the rest of the jurors after they deliberated and 11 were ready to find Clancy not guilty.

Critics online saw the irony in the demographic revelation.

"The liberal white women who tried to lecture him and shame him into acquiescing literally knew better than him," said one critic.

"Holy heck, for people who revel in identity politics, they certainly fit the most awful stereotypes of white liberals."

"This is AMAZING! Why didn't the black man listen to the white priveledged [sic] saviors!?? How dare he not bow down and submit to their supremacy?!?" said another sarcastically.

"So there was a gaggle of white Karens hectoring a black man. Who didn’t care about all the other s**t, only that the mother had strangled her children," said another.

RELATED: Hundreds of women rally outside courthouse show support for mother who killed 3 children

Devlin went on to explain her own process of arriving at a not-guilty verdict.

"I was leaning towards not responsible, from all the evidence I had heard," she said. "And I had certain things I wanted to look at when we got into deliberation. Everything that we talked about and every point that everybody in the room made just kind of reinforced that more and more."

The case ended in a mistrial and may go to trial again.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Allie Beth Stuckey warns against ‘empathy-based justice’ in Lindsay Clancy trial



The trial of Lindsay Clancy has become a boiling point in the national debate over mental illness, motherhood, and criminal responsibility — and while BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey doesn’t dispute that the mother was struggling psychologically, she doesn’t agree that it should excuse such an alleged horrific crime.

Especially considering almost no one who commits murder is mentally sound.

“Jeffrey Dahmer, probably not super sane. Ted Bundy, probably not the most mentally composed guy,” Stuckey says.

“If you are going on a[n] [alleged] killing rampage, especially one as relentless as this one, you probably are not firing on all cylinders mentally, of course,” she explains. “But if we were to dismiss every person who had some kind of mental illness as not being criminally liable, then most of our prisons would be empty, and that wouldn’t be a good thing.”


The world, she notes, would “be a lot less safe.”

“So this case is really not about whether Lindsay Clancy was suffering mentally. Nearly everyone agrees that she was. I agree that she was,” Stuckey says.

“This case is not about our mental health system or how it treats women or what’s in the DSM5 and what’s not. That’s a distraction to get you angry and passionate about an important issue, but an issue that’s not on trial here,” prosecutor Jennifer Sprague said at the trial.

However, none of this has stopped women from voicing their support for Clancy — which prompts Stuckey to address them with a question.

“Would you show the same mercy to Lindsay if she had killed your children? Would you feel the same deep empathy for her mental struggles? Would you opt for keeping her out of prison because, well, she was having a hard time mentally and she had been taking pills on and off?” she asks.

“Hopefully not,” she continues. “I’m just afraid that too many women left and right think justice is dictated by how deeply we can relate to the people involved. Because some of you can see yourself in Lindsay’s depression or anxiety and can’t relate to her children, you feel compelled to defend her.”

But if these women ask themselves these questions and remain steadfast in their belief, Stuckey explains that’s “beyond” where she can reach them.

“Empathy-based justice is not justice at all,” she says. “Again, it’s partiality, which God calls evil."

“We don't make these decisions based on whether or not we can relate to someone,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Jason Whitlock: Lindsay Clancy has become the OJ Simpson of angry housewives



The debate surrounding Lindsay Clancy has become about far more than one criminal case. While prosecutors argue that Clancy intentionally killed her three children, many supporters have rallied around the Massachusetts mother as a victim of mental illness, postpartum struggles, and impossible expectations placed on women.

While the supportive response from such a large number of women has confused Americans, Dre Baldwin believes he has the answer as to why it’s happening.

“Lindsay Clancy is to overwhelmed mothers what O.J. Simpson was to the angry black person in 1995,” Baldwin tells BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock on "Fearless."

“People didn’t identify with O.J. Simpson because they thought O.J. didn’t kill Nicole and Ron Goldman,” he explains. “They identified with O.J. Simpson because they were angry black people who felt like America as an institution and the police as an institution had been terrorizing black people.”


Like Clancy has become a symbol for postpartum mothers, “O.J. was a symbol for some get-back for black Americans.”

“That’s why people celebrated when he got found not guilty,” Baldwin says.

“It’s the same thing that a lot of women, mothers who see themselves as overwhelmed housewives who are doing too much, and this is not the role that was supposed to be for them,” he continues. “And they just feel themselves being overwhelmed through all the challenges of motherhood and being a wife and taking care of a home.”

While Baldwin doesn’t believe these moms would ever actually murder someone, let alone their children, he does believe that Clancy is being propped up as a “symbol of ‘somebody is finally seeing this.’”

“And if it means a woman beating a murder charge, then so be it. The same way that people looked at people celebrating O.J. with incredulity back then, 30 years ago, is the same way that many people are looking at this Lindsay Clancy case and her supporters today,” he adds.

Whitlock couldn’t agree more, commenting, “That’s a brilliant take.”

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A growing number of women are siding with admitted killers — and the reason is darker than you realize



As thousands of women continue their support of Lindsay Clancy, and after Luigi Mangione’s guilty plea failed to stop female supporters from romanticizing him as a hero, Conservateur editor Bethany Miller has one question: “What is the state of American women today?”

This was the central question that underpinned her recent article “Lindsay Clancy, Luigi Mangione, and the State of American Women.”

On a recent episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Miller joined the Blaze Media co-founder to unpack her theory about what’s causing a growing number of women to support confessed killers.

Miller explains that women’s disturbing advocacy surrounding people who have admitted to killing innocents is multifaceted and long-simmering.

“From the Millennial movement of the #MeToo and the therapeutic culture and ‘my truth is the only truth’ — this has been brewing for some time,” she tells Glenn.

These movements, Miller says, are the result of the divinely fashioned female psyche — with its bend toward empathy and relationality — being “weaponized” by “secular politics.”

“The left is capitalizing on [female instincts], manipulating women's lenses of empathy and of relation and using that to get them to respond empathetically in a weaponized empathy to what's happening with Lindsay Clancy,” she says.

“So instead of going, ‘Hey, what's black and white here? This woman killed her children, therefore justice must be served,’ they're saying, ‘Hey, actually, she struggled with postpartum depression, and she was anxious, and so let's blame the man,’ or, ‘I can see myself in her; therefore me condemning her is condemning myself.”’

Glenn was particularly struck by Miller’s argument in her article that women have been conditioned to allow their instinctual empathy to lead them to dark outcomes. In the piece, she wrote, “I see her becomes I understand her. I understand her becomes I cannot judge her.”

“The blurring of that line, I mean, that's what has ... women holding newborns and posting “Same, Lindsay” or pushing a stroller outside of her trial, chanting that she's innocent,” he sighs.

People must be able to tell the difference between understanding someone’s pain and agreeing with how they handle it, Glenn urges.

“Mental illness is real, and I can understand [Clancy] because my mother went through really bad mental illness ... but that doesn't mean I agree with her,” he says.

“Luigi Mangione — that is terrifying to me that they're practically throwing themselves at this [alleged] murderer because they're like, ‘Yeah, well, he's been abused by the system, and I've been abused by the system.’”

Another factor playing into this issue, says Miller, is women’s obsession with true crime and fantasy.

“This is the type of entertainment and narratives that they inherit and consume on a daily basis and that we've seen ... weaponize the way that they're thinking about these things,” she says.

Add to that social media and the dawning of the AI age, where what’s real is quickly becoming impossible to know, and it’s no wonder, says Miller, so many young people especially are struggling to differentiate between genuine reality and “digital reality.”

“Beyond just the gender wars, discernment is something we're losing as the American public,” she warns.

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

America’s Obsession With Mental Illness Is A Mental Illness

Thank You For Sharing exposes how the mental health industry thrives off of telling people that their worst behaviors can be excused because of 'illness.'

Trans person brags about hitting children — and says he'd do it again



A recent picnic in the park turned violent when a child allegedly called a transgender-identifying person named Leanne Lawson a name he didn’t like — and he reacted by allegedly hitting the child.

Rather than expressing regret, he doubled down in multiple follow-up TikTok videos, arguing that anyone who uses certain language toward him should expect a violent response.

“So I was just minding my business here in Lewis Park, just having a little picnic, you know, just minding my own business, having a picnic. And then this group of kids came up and started hassling me,” Lawson began in the first video.

“Talking s**t to me, calling me a t*****,” he explained.


“They used words they weren’t supposed to, and I smacked one of them upside the head. And yeah, they didn’t like that,” he added.

In a second video, he continued, saying, “I smacked a couple kids upside the head for saying words they shouldn’t be saying.”

“But I’m going to be honest with you: It wouldn’t have mattered if they were kids. Anybody talks to me like that now, and I’m going to react like that. Any person that starts using language that requires me to justify my existence for just sitting there, eating some charcuterie in the f**king park,” he said.

“I’m going to smack them upside the head,” he added.

“Sir … are you denying that you are a t*****?” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales comments.

“You’re not fooling anyone,” she adds.

Lawson even posted a follow-up video, explaining that the “kid's mom came up and apologized” to him.

“This kid’s mom came up and like, ‘I’m so sorry about my son,’ and I was just like, ‘Yo, your son better not talk crazy like that or he’s going to get his head knocked off.’ Like, I didn’t lie about what I did,” he said.

“Who could have predicted that maybe trans and mentally ill people could be violent, right?” Gonzales asks. “Like, boy, we’ve never seen that happen before.”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Was Perez Hilton’s bloody live stream a case of demonic possession? If so, his conversion wasn’t genuine, says Allie Beth Stuckey



In March this year, openly gay celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton, who built his cruel empire on crude photoshopped doodles on faces, relentless body-shaming, outing people, and gleeful pile-ons, had a dramatic public conversion to Christianity after a severe case of sepsis left him on death’s doorstep. Hilton claimed he encountered God in the hospital and vowed to change his wicked ways, including ceasing his mean-spirited tabloiding, reading the Bible, taking his three children to church, and being a more present father.

Tragically last week, Hilton was hospitalized after a TikTok livestream captured him naked and covered in blood while self-harming. Thousands of people witnessed the gruesome spectacle before TikTok shut down the live stream.

The questions immediately began pouring in. Was this the lingering fallout from his recent sepsis battle? Was he under spiritual attack? Is he suffering from mental illness?

On this episode of “Relatable,” Allie Beth Stuckey examines whether Perez Hilton’s disturbing live stream was a mental health crisis or a case of demonic possession.

Many Christians speculate that Hilton’s self-harming was due to demonic possession. Allie acknowledges this possibility — but only if Hilton’s conversion was not genuine. If he is truly indwelled by the Holy Spirit, then demonic possession is not in the cards, she argues.

But from what she’s seen of Hilton in the months since his public conversion, Allie isn’t certain he really understands the gospel.

She highlights his continued celebration of his gay identity, his comment from a recent post claiming that he “[doesn’t] believe in everything that the Bible says,” and his new line of spiritual-themed merchandise as “red flags.”

Further, self-harm, Allie admits, is a “hallmark” of true demonic possession in the Bible.

“I don't think that this means that it is always demonic possession, but it seems that when a demon is possessing someone, there is violence done to their bodies,” she says, citing Mark 9, where Jesus heals a demon-possessed boy who kept throwing himself into fire and water, and Mark 5, where Jesus healed a man possessed by legions of demons who cut himself with stones.

While Allie acknowledges that no one knows for certain what really happened to Perez Hilton that horrible night, the circumstances do seem to fit the biblical description of demonic possession.

“The Perez Hilton live stream looks more like demonic possession. ... As soon as I saw the description of it, it reminded me of the man walking among the tombs who was cutting himself with the stones every day who was possessed by Legion,” she says.

If it’s true that he was indeed possessed by a demon, then Allie believes Hilton was never saved to begin with.

“Scripture has repeated serious warnings about those who claim to have accepted Christ as their savior but persist in this kind of unrepentant sin. ... That unrepentant attitude of stubbornness of ‘This is my identity. This is how I'm going to live. I know what the Bible says. I don't care. I am my own authority’ — the Holy Spirit is not going to allow you to continue in that if He lives in you,” she argues.

She then reads from Hebrews 10:26-27: “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.”

“I think that we can say in confidence the Holy Spirit is not living inside [Perez Hilton]. He doesn't have the fruit of the Spirit, and we want that for him,” says Allie, urging her audience to pray for him and his children.

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.