In a recent letter to multiple United Nations member states, the United States government proposed a coalition opposing activist pro-abortion policy in the international governing body. Another clear statement from current administrative officials in U.S. government that abortion is in direct conflict with basic human rights, the letter was nonetheless scooted around media as a "rollback" and sneaky strategizing to disenfranchise women.
What most news sources have not, and will not note, is that women in many countries receiving aid from U.N. sources don't want abortion. In fact, pushing abortion not only undermines their freedom of choice -- and their health -- the act also pushes radical cultural imperialism
For example, women in Ethiopia and Burkina Faso report both that they use traditional abstinence-based natural methods to avoid pregnancy, and that they actually want 5+ children -- if they can support them.
The Population Research Institute writes of a recent survey, that mistakenly left out any form of birth control that didn't use drugs:
"At the end of the day, population controllers really don’t care what the women of Africa want. Instead, they are determined to dictate to them what their fertility will be regardless. And it’s no wonder that they exaggerate “unmet need,” since this number is one of the principal justifications for USAID’s billion-dollar population control budget. “Look at how many hundreds of millions of women have a crying need for more contraceptives,” its lobbyists tell Congress. “We need more money.” " (African Women Turn to Natural Family Planning. Steven Mosher)
Yet the U.N., and abortion lobbyists, insist a U.S. letter to fellow member nations against evangelical abortion exportation is proof that some nations just want to restrict women's autonomy. No matter what.
The letter's text, signed by the secretary of state Mike Pompeo and health and human services secretary Alex Azar, is far from radical itself. An excerpt asks that member nations, " [...]join the United States in ensuring that every sovereign state has the ability to determine the best way to protect the unborn and defend the family as the foundational unity of society vital to children thriving and leading healthy lives.'
It goes on to describe policies that push abortion and chemical contraception as "disturbing". And they are.
For reference, the statement has been signed by the United States, Brazil, Egypt, Ghana, Haiti Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nigeria and Iraq. It notes that the inclusion in U.N. policy currently to "sexual and reproductive health when in fact making directives regarding abortion cause confusion and misunderstanding”.
If anything is common sense, part of the closing of this letter is: “ [let's] focus on terms that enjoy broad consensus among member states”.
There may be a consensus among the elite, and the wealthy, that "we" have a right and duty to force other nations to accept the killing of their children as a contingency to basic aid, or a voice, in international affairs. But if so, that's violence on top of violence. A more believable consensus would be the one that every human being knows without an argument: killing another human is wrong, and pushing cultural norms on other nations is just one more link in the chain of violence.
Boston Mayor Marty Walsh joined mayors from across Massachusetts, October 1st, at the Massachusetts State House, to declare support of legislation removing basic standards of medical care for women and newly born infants. SB 1209/HB 3320, the "ROE Act," abolishes parental consent, eliminates every meaningful constraint on any abortion up until birth (while simultaneously making such abortions even more unsafe by canceling the current requirement that abortions after the first trimester be performed in hospitals), and removes the current requirement that life-supporting medical equipment be on-hand during late-term abortions—in case a child survives the abortion attempt.
The event included Lawrence Mayor Dan Rivera, Cambridge Mayor Marc McGovern, Framingham Mayor Yvonne Spicer, Newburyport Mayor Donna Holaday, and Easthampton Mayor Nicole LaChapelle.
If any one of these officials is your mayor, call them today to express your deep disappointment in their judgment.
Boston - Marty Walsh - Phone: 617-635-4500
Cambridge - Marc McGovern - Phone: (617) 349-4321
Easthampton - Nicole LaChapelle - Phone: (413) 529-1400 ext. 470
Framingham - Yvonne Spicer - Phone: 508-532-5400
Newburyport - Donna Holaday - Phone: (978) 465-4413
By C.J. Williams, Director of Community Engagement, MCFL
I returned from the Let There Be Life Conference in California with more information than my heart or head could properly organize.
Much like the citizens of Massachusetts, Californians face an abortion-business extremism that is well beyond pro-choice. Laws proposed in the California legislature mirror the "ROE Act" (and newly introduced Bill H.3841, which would force our public universities to include abortion centers offering chemical terminations on their campuses). These bills abandon even the appearance of seeking women’s safety, and push abortion for any reason, at any stage, in any circumstance. These proposals brazenly remove medical standards of care for the abortion-minded mother, putting abortion promotion before her safety.*
California’s pro-abortion university bill inspired the introduction of HB 3841 here. Even my Planned Parenthood-supporting friends have wondered aloud to me why chemical abortions should be forced onto university health centers, when abortion access is so open in both Massachusetts and California--and the proposed laws make abortion more available but less safe.
Just in summary, these pieces of legislation:
--prioritize access over safety*;
--expand and promote abortion businesses but disempower doctors*;
--target viable preborn children; and
--target underage girls and young adults on college campuses*.
If the governor signs the legislation, California will force its public universities to provide chemical abortions on-site to their students. We in Massachusetts don’t yet have these laws on our books. The Committee on the Judiciary has recently informed me they are still taking testimony on the ROE Act (as is the Committee on Public Health for HB 3841, the chemical-abortion bill). The ROE Act, if passed, would remove all adult supervision and protection for a 12- or 13-year old girl seeking an abortion, as well as removing any requirement that grisly, multi-day late-term abortion procedures be performed in a qualified hospital. HB 3841 would require our publicly funded universities to institutionalize abortion centers on their campuses.
Court cases and emergency records in states with laws that remove these basic medical standards and abortion regulations show that countless women per year are maimed or killed by abortionists.*
During the conference, attendees also held a protest at the University of San Francisco. Well-known for its cutting-edge technology programs and medical track, UCSF is less well-known as the premiere late-term abortion training school in the nation. Doctors training there learn to perform abortions by aborting: they dismember human beings in-utero, and the organs of those individuals are then sold for a profit to medical researchers. Neither mother nor child gives consent in this scenario.
I joined other conference-goers outside the university chancellor’s window to expose the heinous human rights abuse.
“How can you have a medical school training late-term abortionists with the specific goal of harvesting human body parts? How many kinds of wrong can you go?” A girl named Ana asked me, as we held signs next to a young man in a mouse costume. (His sign: Don’t experiment on me and don’t experiment on BABIES.)
Loud and clear, even to passers-by, this event showed that we are no longer in a landscape divided at pro-life / pro-choice. Even the pro-choice students who wandered over to ask what we were protesting expressed horror at the flagrant disregard for human dignity.
What was the most valuable takeaway in all of this for Massachusetts?
It gave me a vivid view of what our state will look like for women if the “R.O.E.” Act is passed.
S.1209 (“R.O.E.”) will no not require basic medical standards of safety for the women having the 3 to 4 day late-term abortion procedure. These grisly labor-and-delivery-of-a-dead-child surgeries will be performed outside of hospitals under “R.O.E.”
I encountered a firsthand witness to the fallout of these policies in San Francisco. He is an attorney, whose client is the mother of Keisha, a woman who waited over 17 hours for proper medical care after her late-term abortion left baby parts in her womb. She ultimately died of sepsis -- and the incredible negligence of so-called women’s healthcare providers in outpatient abortion facilities.
This attorney is currently prosecuting the abortion doctors and outpatient abortion facilities in New Mexico for over 17 women’s deaths and countless injuries because of the gross negligence of their laws -- which right now do exactly what “R.O.E.” would do here -- has countless other incidents documented as well.
This event, and these facts are critical to your communication with your legislator, and the Joint Committee on the Judiciary (find their contact information here and submit your testimony to Chair Claire Cronin).
My pro-choice friends and I agree: The "ROE" Act is no ROE v. Wade. Where the Supreme Court decision recognizes a state interest in the life of a viable child, and (after the first trimester) recognizes a state interest in seeing that abortions are given the same attention as other surgeries (at least), the ROE Act would remove the current hedges separating “legal” abortion from an actual back-alley abortion.
So why are legislators and pro-abortion lobbies pushing this in Massachusetts?
An attorney in New Mexico dealing with the human fallout from late-term abortion cases there pulled these key points for us as we scrolled through page upon page of emergency assistance calls and death statements from non-hospital abortion facilities:
-- Outpatient clinics reduce overhead by reducing life-saving medical equipment.
-- Outpatient clinics do not need to have a doctor perform the procedure (or one with hospital privileges).
-- Outpatient clinics do not hold patients for monitoring as hospitals do.
-- Outpatient clinics send women home carrying a dead or dying full-term baby, effectively leaving her at risk for sepsis, hemorrhage, etc., with no medical attention near to hand.
No matter what end of the ideological spectrum we stand on, we can unite to oppose privileging ease of access over safety, risky abortion over healthcare, and profit over people’s lives, dignity, and well-being. Share these facts with the Joint Committees, and your family and friends -- pro-life or pro-choice.
San Francisco has a political climate similar to Massachusetts in some ways. New Mexico has an abortion extremism that could be Massachusetts in a few years.
They both have dead children being sold for their body parts, and women dying too often from reduction in the medical standards of care.
Let’s learn from both: Massachusetts citizens, get out there and lobby the Joint Committee on the Judiciary against the ROE Act. This isn’t about abortion access or removal of access, as ROE Act proponents have tried to say. It is about removal of care, safety, and a pushing for profit from organizations that make money on procedures that hurt women, and kill preborn people.
*SB 24 (CA) would require campus health services at all 34 public campuses throughout the state — 11 under the University of California system and 23 under the California State system -- to make available "abortion by medication techniques," which involves a regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol.
*The ROE Act would remove the requirement that a doctor have life-supporting medical equipment on-hand for both humans involved in an abortion. This bill even eliminates language recognizing that a woman and child are the relevant patients in an abortion.
*New Mexico is a case in point. You can read testimony from expert late-term abortionists from the ongoing court case in Albuquerque, wherein over 25 women are recorded dead from outpatient late-term abortions.
Stacey Dash will keynote our annual banquet this year. An outspoken advocate for the vulnerable and the preborn who has repeatedly faced a pro-abortion majority in Hollywood, she defies societal stereotypes -- much like the woman she portrays later this year on the silver screen: Dr. Mildred Jefferson.
MCFL's 2019 Banquet is less than 4 weeks away on Thursday, October 24th. Now is the time to reserve your table and tickets before we fill up.
Our theme this year, love in action, could not segue more smoothly with Stacey's headlining the event and her historic role as Dr. Jefferson. For those who do not know the history, Jefferson was the first woman -- and black woman -- to graduate from Harvard Medical School. But she was much more.
She was a woman with a backbone of steel and a deeply passionate heart; whiplash smart; an unerring defender of human rights, which she rightly defended on every front, excoriating racism in the same breath as opposing abortion.
"I am at once a physician, a citizen, and a woman," she remarked, "and I am not willing to stand aside and allow the concept of expendable human lives to turn this great land of ours into just another exclusive reservation where only the perfect, the privileged, and the planned have the right to live."
Sometimes, both love and action are words heard to mean inoffensive or uncontroversial.
But to tell the truth, and to love real human beings -- the privileged and unprivileged, the planned and unplanned, the "perfect" and imperfect, the politically cool and the politically peculiar, is to rock boats and make waves.
Yet Dr. Jefferson promoted protecting the vulnerable with an elegance unmatched by any contemporary, and perhaps by any individual to follow her. Stacey Dash dove into this role, one of the many reasons we are so excited to have her headline our event.
Director of the film, Cathy Allyn, told me in a conversation not long ago, “In our research and speaking to those who knew Dr. Jefferson, she was described as a woman who exuded an elegance that matched her intelligence. Stacey embodied those elements perfectly.“
Including her own work to defend the preborn, and lobbying for authentic women's healthcare, and support, Stacey is set to be one of our highlight speakers in our 40+ year history.
Stacey -- and Dr. Jefferson -- are women who make and made history.
They did it with love, with action, and with elegance, speaking the truth. They did not bow to the popular or the easy, nor to the angry or combative. That's a model we can all follow, and it's one we're looking forward to seeing and hearing in person October 24th for our annual banquet.
We hope to see you there!
Check out the exclusive trailer of the film, Roe v. Wade below, slated for release in April 2020.
Reserve your seats by going to the events tab above
for the 2019 Annual MCFL Banquet -
Love in Action
October 24th, 6-9pm at the Norwood Four Points Sheraton.
by C.J. Williams
Summer is over, and the Fall has brought back the bill that's as problematic for pro-lifers as for those who are pro-choice. This is not the time to give in to apathy or distraction. S.1209 (the "R.O.E." Act) has not been dismissed by the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. The members of the committee are still taking testimony, still counting the numbers of calls they receive, and still undecided on what to do with this bill, whose provisions would radically reduce our medical standards of care for women, endanger our 12 and 13 year old girls, and slash legal protection for infants born during botched abortions.
Neither pro-life nor pro-choice, S,1209 deserves a resounding no from voters, and our legislators.
But those legislators need to hear your voice, because the abortion business lobby is pressuring them fiercely.
Here's your brief update, and 3 action items. Put them on your calendar with a permanent marker.
S.1209 has not been changed, nor has it been approved and sent on to a vote in our legislature.
S.1209's provisions which abolish adult supervision for underage girls entering abortion facilities, and the removal of the requirement that late-term 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions be performed in hospitals continue to cause even our most pro-abortion representatives to waver on this bill.
S.1209 will not be heard again in public, which makes your contacting the committee in-person, via mail, email, and phone essential to educating them on the bill's dangers, and driving home the message you sent when you showed up in the hundreds at the June hearing.
So TAKE 3 THIS WEEK: Completing this list will make a concrete difference in whether Massachusetts promotes abortion even over women's safety, and legalizes the passive killing of infants.
- If you've already submitted testimony, follow up by contacting Chair Claire Cronin and Vice-Chair Michael Day of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary.
- If you have not submitted testimony, submit your statement today.
- Commit to calling each member of the committee one day this week and/or next during our Mobile Callbank (September 25 through October 9).
BONUS: Visit the the offices of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary this week or next.
For easy reference:
Chair Rep. Claire Cronin
Don't walk, run. There is nothing more critical to shelving this deadly bill than your non-stop vocal opposition.
Share the opportunity to reach our legislators with your friends, family, and neighbors, pro-life or pro-choice!
RESOURCES FOR EFFECTIVE ACTION BELOW:
Are you wondering: Why go walk for life Saturday?
During the Civil Rights era, walking was the walk, and talk came after. Love is the only answer to the lie that women need violence to obtain equality. Killing is not care. So what is?
Love is a positive, not a negative reaction; and not just a label of pro-life that I pin on my sleeve.
In his speech, "Walk for Freedom", Martin Luther King Jr. stated, "Love must be at the forefront of our movement if it is to be a successful movement. And when we speak of love, we speak of understanding, good will toward all men. We speak of a creative, a redemptive sort of love, so that as we look at the problem, we see that the real tension is not between the Negro citizens and the white citizens of Montgomery, but it is a conflict between justice and injustice [...]"
Our real tension is not between the people who label themselves pro-life or pro-choice. Our real tension lies in the conflict between commitment to love, or commitment to fear and violence, and the cycle of abuse.
So why walk this Saturday?
Because the power of presence is a power greater than any statement of fact, and any argument. It's the power of presence -- not argument or counseling -- that makes Planned Parenthood's no-show rate skyrocket to 70%+ when someone is simply standing on the sidewalk during abortion hours. Because presence is love. I'm here for you, is a statement that your life matters and has dignity. And that can only be acted; it cannot just be talked.
When I go out to walk for life, or to sidewalk counsel, I often speak to a fellow millennial who is pro-choice.
More often than not, we agree: Violence isn't how you solve problems. Equality can't be based in violence. Freedom can't be based in violence.
Abortion is violently dangerous to women subjected to it; and terminally dangerous on every level to the in-utero child subjected to it. But violence you don't see, or know about, is hard to oppose. That's why dialogue, and walks, make a difference.
Walks provide us, and our communities, with three integral ingredients for success in saving lives and changing society:
-- Break from isolation: Every movement for justice has had to unite at a massive level to oppose and expose systemic violence and injustice.
-- Break into the wider community: Every movement for human rights has had to reach, re-educate, and relate to the community at large.
-- Break the chain: Every movement for truth and restoration has had to break an entrenched system of thought and action rooted in a lie, and replace it with bonds of freedom and love. Your walk is a concrete way to re-forge relationships on the basis of love, not violence; openness, not fear; hope, not despair.
This weekend, do something that...
- Connects you with a like-minded community that puts love in action into action for the preborn, women, the vulnerable and marginalized
- Introduces you to the positive resources in your region for women facing unexpected or difficult pregnancies
- Demonstrates to the wider area and state the massive, loving, visible presence of the movement for human rights in the womb, and out of it, defying stereotypes
Walk with me in Western Mass.
For the preborn.
For the women.
Because we all suffer in a society based in violence; and we all deserve a world built in love and justice, free from violence.
Abortion rates have declined in the state of Massachusetts by 24% (2011-2018).
While abortion proponents, including Planned Parenthood's research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, propose various reasons for the steep decline, one obvious foundation for a drop in abortion is left out.
Women are receiving the support they need, and thus don't feel coerced into terminating a child.
This record-breaking drop in abortion could also be related to the growth and expansion of pregnancy resource centers, as well as a wider spread cultural shift that has more and more access to positive media, visual aids to the what humans look like, developing in-utero, and a millennial ethos that shies away from violence.
Massachusetts has opened 3-6 new pregnancy resource centers since this study began, including ClearWay Clinics in Worcester and Springfield.Read more
We have a critical update about an action all health care providers in Massachusetts can take to stop the legalization of doctor-prescribed suicide and to save lives. Please respond to this urgent update if you are a doctor, nurse, social worker, physical therapist, or pharmacist.
The time is of the essence. You have the opportunity to end this assault on human life before it begins.
Please respond as soon as possible so that we can contact you. Our longtime board member (and a director of The Patients Rights Action Fund in Massachusetts) Anne Fox, will be in touch.
You can offer your help by emailing ACTION@masscitizensforlife.org.
Yours for life,
The MCFL Team
Proceedings in the California's criminal case against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt continue as prosecution tries to prove the investigative journalist was in the wrong, filming abortion providers who admit to selling human organs and body parts removed from still-living abortion children.
Special Agent Brian Cardwell, who was originally tasked with investigating the claims of illegal recording of the "does," admitted under oath that he never challenged or properly investigated the claims, even when many of these conversations were held in busy settings like hotel lobbies and elevators. There was a total stranger present in the elevator with Daleiden and Doe 4, yet that video still became a part of this court case! It was also revealed that Cardwell didn't watch the videos he seized from Daleiden's apartment in full, yet he signed off on an arrest affidavit that said he saw no evidence of criminality on the part of Planned Parenthood.
Why do citizens across the political spectrum oppose S.1209, the "R.O.E. Act"? Dr. Kerry Pound, Vice President of MCFL, illustrates why briefly and clearly in the following response to Rev. Robinson's strange conflation of religion with biology, and misunderstanding of the human development. The text below was published in The Cape Cod Times.
By Kerry Pound, M.D., Vice President, MCFL
I appreciate the Rev. Edmund’s Robinson’s Aug. 16 My View in response to my June 15 op-ed, “Two patients? Not according to the proposed ROE Act.” But I am unclear why he believes I have asserted any religious perspectives, given my arguments arose from science. I did not mention religious teachings in either my op-ed or in my testimony at the Statehouse.
Science recognizes the beginning of life as conception. The journal Nature published a study with the opening statement: “The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”
Perhaps Robinson’s argument was that I have conflated life with personhood. If we agree life starts at conception, what constitutes the claimed profound difference between a zygote and an adult? Only time and development. Clearly, a human conceptus is not going to become a “wart” or a cancerous growth, and certainly ought not to be treated as such.
Our law in Massachusetts already allows for abortion throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy for concerns of mother’s health and life. The NASTY Act passed last summer guarantees that abortion will remain available in the commonwealth even if federal law changes.
Why then is the ROE Act necessary? Plainly, it isn’t.