Posted on July 10, 2020 3:07 PM

The ROE Act removes medical aide for babies like Melissa

CITATION: "ROE" (S.1209/H.3320) removes section 12P (chp.112) in Massachusetts General Law, which requires life-saving medical attention be provided to infants born alive during late-term abortion procedures.

At 35 weeks, Melissa Ohden's college-age mother, desperate and pressured by scared parents, walked into a hospital where Melissa was aborted. Discarded by the abortion staff, Melissa was left for dead -- until one of the nurses heard a whimper. 

She was taken to the NICU, provided with life-saving medical treatment, and later adopted.

If the "ROE" Act is passed, lives like Melissa's will be discarded by our medical professionals. If a nurse goes against legal requirements, no life-saving medical equipment will be legally required on-site in abortion facilities.

The "ROE" Act would make taking Melissa's life legal.

Call the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Judiciary Committee today.

Ask them to shelve the "ROE" Act, and protect Hope.

Chair Claire Cronin

(617) 722-2396

Claire.Cronin@mahouse.gov

Vice Chair Michael Day

(617) 722-2396

Michael.Day@mahouse.gov

 

For more information on the "ROE" Act, and a call script, click here.

Posted on July 10, 2020 2:31 PM

Dear Maura Healey and Ayanna Pressley: This is "incompatible with life"

When you say, "incompatible with life," is this who you mean?

Baby Hope was diagnosed with what doctors said was a fatal brain abnormality. So they told her mom to end the life of Baby Hope. 

But since when does our society promote killing as a treatment for disability?

She is alive and thriving today, proving the doctors wrong. This is the face of "incompatible with life." And this is what "ROE" Act supporters call "abortion access."

 

 

The "ROE" Act would make taking Hope's life legal.

Call the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Judiciary Committee today.

Ask them to shelve the "ROE" Act, and protect Hope.

Chair Claire Cronin

(617) 722-2396

Claire.Cronin@mahouse.gov

Vice Chair Michael Day

(617) 722-2396

Michael.Day@mahouse.gov

 

For more information on the "ROE" Act, and a call script, click here.

 

 

Posted on July 09, 2020 12:22 PM

Supreme Court confirms religious orgs cannot be forced to support abortion

The Supreme Court of the United States has has ruled again to protect the conscience rights of religious orders and pro-life organizations against the abortion lobby.

The Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Sisters. Earlier this year, the Trump administration created exemptions in the ACA (Affordable Care Act) for organizations whose religious identity or other beliefs would not allow them to pay for the deaths of employees' children. 

In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:

"For over 150 years, the Little Sisters have engaged in faithful service and sacrifice, motivated by a religious calling to surrender all for the sake of their brother. But for the past seven years, they -- like many other religious objectors who have participated in the litigation and rulemakings leading up to today’s decision -- have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs."

While this decision seems natural in light of U.S. declared freedoms, it has been hotly contested for almost 8 years. 

Under the Obama Administration in 2012, HHS mandated that all employers be forced to provide abortion-inducing drugs to employee via their insurance plans. The Supreme Court dealt blows to this mandate twice following Obama's mandate, once in 2016 and once in 2017 (Hobby Lobby Stores v. Burwell and Zubik v. Burwell)

When President Trump took office, his administration redefined rules regarding abortion in the ACA and HHS mandate. These new strictures affirmed the rights of pro-life organizations, and religious orders, to opt out of offering abortion to employees.

The only two justices in dissent were Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomeyer.

While the ACLU -- against its purported mission to secure civil liberties to citizens -- called the decision "shameful", Sister Veit of the Little Sisters of the Poor told media:

"We dedicate our lives to this because we believe in the dignity of every human life at every stage of life from conception until natural death. So, we've devoted our lives -- by religious vows -- to caring for the elderly. And, we literally are by their bedside holding their hand as they pass on to eternal life. So, it's unthinkable for us, on the one way, to be holding the hand of the dying elderly, and on the other hand, to possibly be facilitating the taking of innocent unborn life."

Sister Veit, via Fox News

Posted on July 07, 2020 9:14 AM

URGENT: ROE Act Update - Call Today!

Today, abortion supporters, led by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, are rallying virtually in an effort to bring about a vote on the "ROE" Act. 

Legislators need to hear that you do not support this radical bill. 

WE NEED YOU TO CALL YOUR LEGISLATOR & THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TODAY

The "ROE" Act would remove protections for newborn babies born alive during an abortion; risk our women's lives by removing hospital care for those undergoing grueling late term abortion; and endanger our young girls by denying them parental or adult support supervision at an abortion clinic.

√√ Use this main State House number (617) 722-2000 and request the offices of the Judiciary Committee

 

Even if you've already called: Your voice today could reroute a radically abortion-promoting event into a day of nonstop advocacy for life and the preborn.

 

√√ Share this call to action with your friends and family -- forward it to at least 6 friends with a personal invitation to join you in calling the State House today.

√√ Get on social media and share the State House number and this easy to use call script with key dangers included in the "ROE" Act. 

 

Our whole team will be calling at NOON today during the virtual rally. But please feel free to email CJ with questions or needs anytime today. ( CJ@masscitizensforlife.org)

Send us photos of your pro-life rally via phone! We may be physically distanced, but social media can keep us loud, clear, and connected for life!

 

Pro-life women making the call this morning

Posted on July 02, 2020 2:00 PM

At the Corner of Command and Conviction

At the Corner of Command and Conviction

by Sonja Morin, MCFL Communications Intern


It’s safe to say that the June Medical Services v. Russo decision was a startling piece of news to wake up to this Monday morning. In a 5-4 split, the Supreme Court declared that a Louisiana law - which required abortion-providing doctors to have hospital admittance privileges - was unconstitutional. Not only is it a scathing decision that defeated hopes for a case that could ultimately lead to the Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, but it endangers women by preventing these additional checks on abortion. This case and its consequences warrant much discussion and consideration within the pro-life movement, as it deliberates the best course of action in the coming months. 

One may wonder why a reflection on a SCOTUS decision belongs in a column that focuses on culture and abortion. While law and culture are distinct entities, they have an intersecting, mutually-effective relationship. The formation of laws guides the public conscience, dictating what is right and wrong. People look to their government - and thus their laws - for moral guidance. These beliefs are cemented in culture with ease. On the other hand, culture can help shift or progress laws. When people realize that a law is unjust, their use of cultural means - such as art, demonstrations, and persuasive writing - allow for a shift in public conscience against those laws. Politicians are meant to be inclined to the will and well-being of the people. When they see a strong movement against a law, they are likely to follow the pressure from the people and remove or alter the law. This intersection of command and conviction is incredibly crucial to understand and to use within a movement. 

The June case demonstrates the need for the pro-life movement to strengthen its positive relationship to law and culture.

Read more
Posted on July 02, 2020 1:36 PM

Planned Parenthood Partners Admit Under Oath: "We harvest living baby parts."

The Center for Medical Progress released a video this week in which Planned Parenthood partners ABR (Advanced Bio Research Inc.), describe harvesting human body parts from babies born with still-beating hearts.

 

"Sometimes, they just fall out," reports one representative of ABR. When answering, "Do they have a heartbeat, when they just fall out?" she goes on,  "I can see hearts...that are beating...independently."

Under the Fetal Born Alive Protection Act, a living fetus is defined as a "fetus with a beating heart."

The Planned Parenthood partners also re-define viability as a fetus/human being "not able to survive outside the womb" as "dependent on the circumstances..."

Center for Medical Progress project lead David Daleiden urged authorities to take action immediately based on the horrific new evidence.

To review the history of CMP and David Deleiden's ongoing investigations into Planned Parenthood's sale of human baby parts for profit, you can access the full video and summaries of previous findings here; while the ongoing exposure of UCSF's complicity in harvesting living human body parts without consent can be followed here.

 

Posted on June 30, 2020 12:11 PM

#SaveBabyMyles Campaign already reaching out with support to women

MCFL launched a small-scale social media campaign last week with the hashtag #SaveBabyMyles. Referencing the baby in Western Massachusetts whose mother chose life after having a video from Live Action shared with her, the campaign's goal has been to raise awareness gently and to reach women where they are with support, information, and affirmation.

The flip-side of this kind of quiet outreach is that loving one person gives one person power to love another.

That is what we saw in Baby Myles' story, and in his mom, Veronica. 

But the other vitally important aspect of Veronica and Myles' story was the availability of the information.

Visual, scientific, presented clearly and honestly, Live Action's video describes what happens to babies in each trimester during an abortion.

"The video...opened my eyes to the truth," said Veronica,  "I had no idea that was what abortion really looked like. I couldn’t believe that people did that to their babies, and after seeing that I certainly wasn’t going to do that to mine. I cried after seeing that video, realizing if I had not found it that could have been my baby."

But the video, presented by former abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, is neither graphic nor fear-mongering. No one needs to overemphasize what abortion is or does: The procedure that takes the baby's life speaks for itself.

This week, MCFL members have been quietly passing along social media posts, resharing content like the Live Action video with the hashtag #SaveBabyMyles and #abortionhelp.

Already, we have had phone calls. One member emailed in to say: "I didn't think a poster at the bus stop and FaceBook post would make any difference. But I had a girl message me saying she had been searching #abortionhelp desperately but found my post instead. She was in tears but just wanted to know what she could do? she was scared. So I told her MCFL's number and the Boston pregnancy resource center and listened to her for a while and messaged her I'd support her too if she didn't get help from the center. She kept her baby."


Will you join the quiet #SaveBabyMyles campaign with us? Abortion will someday be illegal, but if it's going to be unthinkable, we're going to need to continue loving, changing, and sharing the truth and support. Like Veronica told Live Action, "My son did not take away from my future — he gave me a new one. He is the light of my life."

Support the #SaveBabyMyles Campaign by donating here.

Pledge to join and share here.

Posted on June 29, 2020 2:45 PM

BREAKING: SCOTUS Rules Against Life Advocates in June Medical v. Russo

29 JUNE 2020 -- Abortion providers need not have hospital admitting privileges that would ensure women’s safety during or after the procedure, according to today’s ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States in the closely-watched June Medical v. Russo case

Instead, the Court determined that the Lousiana law at the heart of the case, Act 620 (“The Unsafe Abortion Act”) is unconsitutional. The 5-4 decision was weighted by Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with the liberals of the court. As the first abortion-specific case to be heard by both Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, it was one which observers believed could signify whether the Court could potentially be willing to reconsider Roe V. Wade. 

Although the case drew much national interest, in speaking to how it impacts Massachusetts, MCFL Executive Director, Patricia Stewart, Esq., said,”The Court's decision will have minimal impact in Massachusetts. The Department of Public Health has already removed the requirement for abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges when servicing patients insured by MassHealth, and Massachusetts case law rejects the requirement for abortions to be performed in a hospital, thus, eliminating the need for abortionists to obtain admitting privileges."  

Stewart continued, saying, "In finding the Louisiana law unconstitutional, the Supreme Court guts the abortion safety net, threatening the life and health of women who feel compelled to seek abortion, by denying them the protection of a medical standard of practice that has been shown to avoid lifelong medical complications and save lives in an emergency."

MCFL President Myrna Maloney Flynn said, “Requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges is simply a way to ensure women's safety. Sadly, Chief Justice Roberts and four other justices today maintained that abortion clinics do not have to meet the same standards as other surgical providers. True ‘abortion care’ and ‘women's health’ -- terms often utilized by abortion rights supporters -- should prioritize a woman's best interests.”

Throughout the court session, pro-life adovcates held a strong presence outside, holding signs like that of a woman who came from San Francisco to demonstrate in favor of both women’s safety and a baby’s right to life. “Health regulations do not equal undue burden,” read her poster, referencing the fact that the Lousiana act had required physicians performing abortions to have hospital privileges.

A decision in favor of Louisiana’s Act 620 would simply have been common sense, protecting women’s health from poor standards of care and ensuring a consistent application of safety measures to all surgical procedures in the state.

###

 

Massachusetts Citizens for Life, founded in 1973 by women such as Dr. Mildred Jefferson, remains the Bay State’s singly-dedicated human rights organization focused on pro-life activism. 

Posted on June 25, 2020 12:46 PM

MCFL Member on Assisted Suicide, "The Opposite of Love"

Writing to the Berkshire Eagle, MCFL member, Gabriel Greenspan recently addressed the committee vote on Massachusetts' assisted suicide bill (S.2745), noting a state promoting physician assisted killing is "the opposite of love."


"End of Life Act" is the opposite of lovepublished in The Berkshire Eagle, June 19, 2020

Holocaust Survivor Elie Wiesel stated, “The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.” I cannot help but think of this quote as I consider the misnamed End of Life Options Act (S.1208 Brownsburger/H.1926 Kafka).

The End of Life Options Act forbids physicians from ending their patients’ lives through assisted suicide. However, it allows physicians to “contact a pharmacist, inform the pharmacist of the [life-ending] prescription, and deliver the written [life-ending] prescription personally, by mail, or by otherwise permissible electronic communication to the pharmacist, who will dispense the [life-ending] medications directly to either the patient, the attending physician, or an expressly identified agent of the patient.” At least physicians aren’t assisting in suicide.

This obvious disingenuity aside, I commend the authors of this legislation for including safeguards which seek to prevent abuse. These safeguards include mandating that two physicians attest that the patient is terminally ill (meaning that s/he will most likely die in six months), mandating that a mental health professional certify that the patient isn’t depressed or suffering from a psychological or psychiatric disorder, and mandating that two witnesses affirm that the patient isn’t being coerced.

However, notice all the parties here who ought to care about and protect the patient but who are indifferent as the patient seeks to take his/her life. Two physicians, who are trusted to do their patients no harm, are certifying that a patient is ‘qualified’ to end his/her life. A mental health professional, who specializes in preventing self-harm, is attesting that a patient is ‘competent’ to commit the worst kind of self-harm, namely suicide, and, in a nation with laws which recognize that every life has worth, two witnesses are legally paving the way for the patient to end his/her life forever because s/he is “acting voluntarily.”

In theory, all of this can only happen if the patient has six months or less to live. However, both the life experience of multitudes and common sense indicate that, when a doctor says how long a person is expected to live, s/he is only estimating and could quite possibly be wrong. If this legislation passes, assisted suicide may still be banned, but something far worse, indifference in the face of suicide, will be allowed. Please join me in calling State Sen. Adam Hinds at 413-344-4561 or 413-768-2373 to urge him to oppose this radically unloving piece of legislation.

 

Posted on June 25, 2020 7:41 AM

June Medical vs. Russo

BREAKING UPDATE:

COURT RULES -- Check the press release and details here.

 

Perhaps as early as today, the U.S. Supreme Court will pass down its decision on June Medical Services vs. Russo, a case that pits safe medical practices and women's health against the for-profit abortion industry. If the decision is made in favor of the abortion business, doctors in abortion facilities will not be required to have hospital privileges to perform even late-term abortions.

There could not be a less commonsense decision, or one more opposed to protecting human life.

Planned Parenthood and NARAL claim that a decision that requires abortionists to provide the best care will close the majority of Louisiana abortion clinics. But if those abortuaries are not equipped to save the lives of the women who trust them, what is the point of being open in the first place?  Abortion always takes the life of a child. If it risks the mother's life, there is not even a pro-choice justification for its legality.

A similar case was brought to the court just a few years ago (Whole Woman's Health vs. Hellenstadt). The court struck down the requirement that abortion providers maintain hospital privileges in Texas. The fact that they are now willing to hear a similar case from Louisiana is an encouraging sign that the justices as a group are more willing to review out-dated, irrational and dangerous pro-abortion laws.

Whatever the outcome, we continue to stand in the gap protecting our women and infants in Massachusetts by opposing the "ROE" Act (S.1209/H.3320). 

A decision may be made as early as June 25th, 2020. The final day for the court to hand down a decision is Monday, June 29th.  Keep in touch for updates, and use your social media to support our friends on the Supreme Court steps all this week, and speak for the women and children targeted and used by the abortion industry. 

An excellent review of the background of this case is provided by Kelsey Hazzard, esq., here

Watch the video below for on-the-ground coverage from a diverse

range of pro-life activists standing up for life in D.C.

"Patients before profits! Deadbeat doctors have got to go!"