Your update on the critical drive to stop taxpayer funding of abortion in Massachusetts. For more in-depth reporting, see the previous year's write up by our past communications team at this link.
The signature drive has taken Massachusetts by storm. If you haven't seen a signature gatherer in your community, how about becoming that signature collector?
- Massachusetts taxpayers spend $1.7 million each year on abortions and over $200 million since 1981
But we don't have to fund abortion in our state.
We now have just 2 weeks to finish collecting signatures and reach the goal number. Sign up here to volunteer.
The campaign is still asking citizens who have volunteered to set a goal of collecting 75 signatures a week. Along with collecting signatures during the weekend, we're also asking that you dedicate 3+ hours this and next week to gathering those "John Hancocks" at your local YMCA, supermarket, or church.
Have you already been beating the bushes to get this life-saving provision on the ballot? You can find instructions for turning signatures in to city and town halls, by clicking HERE. If you have already turned in your signatures to the Town or City Clerk, and they are ready to pick up, the instructions for picking up certified signature are HERE.
The campaign is also looking for drivers in preparation for taking completed signature sheets to and from Town Clerks. Please contact the Field Director for your area if you can volunteer.
Current list of field directors:
Joshua Tavares (Bristol and Barnstable Counties):
Robert Aufiero (Essex, part of Middlesex, Suffolk Counties):
Steve Fruzzetti (Part of Boston, Norfolk, Plymouth Counties):
Kathy Lynch (Middlesex, Worcester Counties, Western MA):
Interested in organizing long-term and for continued action after the drive? Sign up today to receive information on your nearest MCFL chapter, and join the movement to protect human lives at every stage in Massachusetts.
When Stacey Dash began her presentation to our full banquet hall, Thursday night on October 24th, no one knew what was coming. To say we received the gritty and decisive image of courageous love in action would be an understatement.
She did not toss off slogans. She didn't even take the easy route of talking about her challenges working in Hollywood as an African-American, pro-life woman.
She looked us in the eye, and gave us the gift of her story.
Stacey Dash: "I pulled the IV out of my arm and started screaming I'm keeping my baby! My doctor calmed me...Let’s look and see to make sure everything is ok, he told me... I saw the ultrasound. I saw my son’s heartbeat.
"He is 29 now. And that is all I have to say about what happened to bring me here to you today."
This next year, she can be seen on screen as a similarly courageous woman (if in different circumstances): our own Dr. Mildred Jefferson, the first African-American woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School.
Jefferson remains one of the most consistent, intelligent, and clear advocates for human life in our history.
We'd love to share Stacey's full speech with those of you who have supported our mission to protect human life this year in our Commonwealth. If you could not attend but would still like to be included in the legacy of those who have given to end abortion and violence against our vulnerable in Massachusetts, you can still make a secure donation here.
MCFL's Director of Community Engagement, CJ Williams (Left), with Cathy Weikert (Center), and Host of Life Matters TV, Brendan O'Connell (Right)
Chairman of the Board, Dr. Franks (Left), talks ambitious plans for pro-life action this year with MCFL member Dustin Labreche (Right)
Chairman of the Board, Dr. Franks (Left), Stacey Dash, keynote speaker (Center), and MCFL President, Myrna Maloney Flynn (Right).
Set...for life.Read more
In New Mexico, the proposed removal of late term abortion procedures from the hospital setting made by the "R.O.E." Act in Massachusetts is already law. This reduction in standards of care has proved fatal for Keisha Atkins, and deadly or injurious to nearly 25 other women.
By Leslie Palma
Priests for Life Director of Communications
It’s heartbreaking to imagine the last day in the life of Keisha Atkins, a 23-year-old woman who died following a legal abortion, at six months, in New Mexico.
“In our last conversation in the hospital, she said, ‘Mom, I’m going to die,’” recalled Keisha’s mom, Tina Atkins. “And I said, ‘Don’t talk like that, you’re going to be fine.’”
Soon after that, Keisha was taken to the operating room, and Tina never saw her alive again.
Tina described her daughter as “a beautiful, exuberant young lady,” who loved the outdoors and karaoke singing, going to concerts with her mom and just hanging out with family.
“We just had a great life and all of a sudden, it was gone,” Tina said.
The family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the late-term abortion business that started the abortion and the hospital where she died.
“They messed with the wrong black woman, because I am not going to step down,” Tina said during an interview with Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, and Alveda King, director of Civil Rights for the Unborn for Priests for Life. Tina has testified before the New Mexico Legislature and is hoping to talk to President Trump about abortions that are killing women and their children.
“This is a tragedy,” Father Pavone said. “It’s so important to be speaking out about this.”
KEISHA’S ABORTION EXPERIENCE
Keisha went to the University of New Mexico (UNM) twice, on Jan. 23 and Jan. 30, 2017, seeking an abortion. She was given an ultrasound but was ultimately turned away from the hospital and referred to Southwestern Women’s Options, an Albuquerque business that performs third-trimester abortions on healthy babies growing in the wombs of healthy mothers. The UNM staff made the appointment at Southwestern for her. The two businesses often collaborate, both in the training of abortionists and, until last year, in the transfer of body parts harvested from aborted babies.
On Feb. 1, Keisha went to Southwestern, where her baby girl received a shot of digoxin to stop her heart and laminaria were inserted in Keisha’s cervix to begin the dilation process that would, if all went according to plan, result in Keisha delivering her stillborn daughter two or three days later.
Keisha signed consent forms and was instructed, in writing, that if she experienced any problems, she should not call 911 or go to an emergency room, but should just call Southwestern. She was sent home.
Feb. 2, she returned to Southwestern to have the laminaria replaced and was sent home again. Late that night, at about 11 p.m., she called Southwestern to say she was having trouble breathing and experiencing abdominal pain. Tina was with her when she made that call and remembers that Keisha was instructed not to call 911 but just to get to the clinic in the morning.
“I stayed with her all night,” Tina said. “She was in so much pain.”
On Feb. 3, Keisha arrived at Southwestern at 6:45 a.m. with a high fever and experiencing shortness of breath. Her physical symptoms did not improve through the course of that long day.
“That day was horrible,” Tina said. “I was in the waiting room and they finally let me see her for a minute at 2:30 p.m.” Keisha was on oxygen and had a high fever, her mother said.
At 4:08 p.m., almost nine and a half hours after Keisha had arrived at Southwestern, an ambulance finally was called. The abortion was not performed because she was too ill.
Keisha was admitted to the Emergency Room at UNM at 4:53 p.m. Tina remained with her until just before she was taken to the operating room at 10:29 p.m. for a “dilation and evacuation” abortion of her dead baby. That would entail repeatedly inserting forceps into Keisha’s uterus to remove her daughter piece by piece.
On the operating table, Keisha went into cardiac arrest and was declared dead at 12:10 a.m. Feb. 4.
Eventually the remains of Keisha’s baby, whom she had named Mavis, were reunited with Keisha’s body. They were cremated and their ashes, together in one urn, are with Tina.
“I miss my baby,” Tina said. “She should be here with me right now, and my grandbaby.” Mavis would be 2 years old.
Keisha’s sister, Nicole, also had an abortion at Southwestern and suffered complications so serious, she had to have a hysterectomy. She would advise any woman considering abortion to make another choice.
“This has impacted me and my family in ways you could not imagine,” Nicole said. “It has a tremendous amount of loss involved and I wish I had never done it.”
Tina and Nicole both wish Keisha had never set foot inside Southwestern.
WHAT WENT WRONG?
An autopsy performed by UNM’s Dr. Lauren Dvorscak concluded that Keisha died of a pregnancy-related pulmonary embolism - a blood clot in the lungs. The death was listed as “natural” and the autopsy report noted that “pulmonary embolism is the 6th leading cause of maternal mortality in the United States.”
But according to email transcripts obtained by Albuquerque attorney Michael Seibel, who last year filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Southwestern and UNM, some of the hospital’s medical staff were skeptical that it was really a pulmonary embolism that killed Keisha.
The autopsy report noted that Keisha “also had a high white blood cell count and other clinical features concerning for sepsis upon her hospital admission.” Keisha’s family believes that sepsis, a widespread infection, is what killed her.
Some hospital staffers seem to agree.
In an email dated July 20, 2017, Dr. Trenton Wray, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at the University of New Mexico Hospital, who was one of the physicians who treated Keisha, said: “Everything about her course was consistent with septic abortion … I have to admit, I was floored by the cause of death being a massive PE.”
Wray was asking for an opinion from Dr. Gary Hatch, a diagnostic radiology specialist, who responded:
“The autopsy report doesn’t make sense to me. Who did the autopsy?” Hatch also insisted “there was no massive PE at the time of the CPTA. Period.”
CPTA stands for computed pulmonary arteriogram, a test that would have detected a pulmonary embolism.
In a subsequent email to Lisa Hofler, who was primarily in charge of Keisha’s treatment in the emergency room, Wray said: “My personal opinion on it is that she had septic cardiomyopathy.”
In an email exchange between Dvorscak, who performed the autopsy, and Hatch, Keisha’s infection was mentioned again.
“I agree that everything makes sense for sepsis, and I’m not denying that she was septic and going through a septic abortion,” Dvorscak wrote.
In his response, Hatch asked: “Could a potential sequence here be PE due to DIC due to sepsis due to endometrial infection?”
DIC stands for disseminated intravascular coagulation, a dangerous blood condition that can lead to hemorrhaging. Retention of a dead fetus is one potential cause of DIC.
“I think the scenario you outlined is entirely plausible,” Dvorscak replied, “that everything may have been sort of a sequence from her underlying infection.”
A month after these email exchanges, on Aug. 23, 2017, the Albuquerque Journal ran a story under the headline “Autopsy Rules Out Abortion as Cause of Death.”
In the story, New Mexico Chief Medical Investigator Dr. Kurt Nolte called Keisha’s death “a rare and tragic case for the family.” Southwestern, in a statement, said “All of us … are heartbroken by her death. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family.”
The Southwestern statement went on to berate pro-lifers who were trying to learn the truth about the death of a healthy 23-year-old during the abortion of her healthy baby:
“For those who oppose women’s reproductive justice to exploit this sad event by putting forth lies about abortion and the patient’s care is sickening.”
Tina Atkins has a different take on what’s sickening about this situation.
“These late-term abortions are killing our children, our mothers, our daughters,” she said. “And they’re just getting away with it. I wanted to raise my grandbaby. I can’t even do that now because I don’t have either one of them here.”
Another set of emails sent two days after the Journal story was published brought up another discrepancy.
Remember that UNM turned Keisha away when she went there seeking an abortion, instead sending her to Southwestern for an elective abortion of her six-month fetus. That makes it curious for Eve Espey, chairwoman of UNM’s Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, to write: “… would you be willing to remove the word ‘elective’ – she qualifies under New Mexico’s definition of ‘medically indicated’ but I would suggest just saying ‘abortion.’ “
If her abortion was medically indicated, why was Keisha sent to an abortion business that, according to files collected by Seibel, had no emergency equipment on hand and whose doctors did not have hospital admitting privileges?
That’s just one of the many questions Keisha’s family want answered when the case is heard in December 2020.
They will also want to know why Southwestern waited more than nine hours before transferring her to the hospital, and why UNM waited more than five hours before sending her to an operating room to remove Keisha’s baby, who had been dead for about 60 hours at that point.
They would like the truth about the cause of death to come out – was it really a pulmonary embolism, or, as their lawsuit contends, did she die due to a septic infection that was overlooked until it was too late?
They want to know if, with better care, Keisha might have lived.
Keisha’s family, working with Elisa Martinez, executive director of the New Mexico Alliance for Life and a candidate for the U.S. Senate, also want to ensure that no more women die from abortion.
Noting that even literature supplied to Keisha at Southwestern said the risks of later abortions were much greater than those performed early in pregnancy, Ms. Martinez said: “This is why we have to put an end to barbaric late-term abortion. There are too many women in who are being lied to. We need this story to get out.”
Why young women, particularly women of color, continue to die from legal abortion is beyond the scope of the lawsuit, but it’s a question that needs an answer, especially as late-term abortion spreads to states like New York, Massachusetts, Illinois and Vermont.
“So many of the details sound so tragically similar,” Father Pavone told Tina and Nicole Atkins. “Not only are we praying for you, but we are going to work side by side with you to make sure this tragic loss will not be in vain. We’re going to save more lives as a result.”
press conference and annual State House Celebration of Life this Wednesday
Massachusetts Citizens for Life and partner organizations to illustrate dangerous impact of proposed ROE Act.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - BOSTON, MA - 28 October, 2019 - During the Celebration of Life, an annual lobby day that highlights holistic and life-affirming resources for women and children, Massachusetts Citizens for Life invites media to a press conference at noon on Wednesday, October 30th. National experts from a broad spectrum of political backgrounds, including abortion survivor, Claire Culwell, will speak on the impact of provisions in the ROE ACT(S.1209/H.3320).
Great Hall, Massachusetts State House
Press Conference: 12:00 noon - 1:00pm
Celebration of Life Event: 10:00am - 3:00pm
C.J. Williams, Director of Community Engagement, MCFL: "Massachusetts can do much better than a bill that ditches basic standards of medical care in favor of a burnt-earth push for abortion access over women's safety. In no other medical procedure do we reduce regulations and safety- it's backward. In this case, it uniquely discriminates against women."
Regarding a weeklong campaign launched by MassNARAL that claims, "Massachusetts can do better," MCFL President Myrna Maloney Flynn said, "I agree 100% with NARAL. Massachusetts can do better. But the so-called ROE Act wi make things worse. Instead, let's start talking about prevention, about the facts of fetal development, the effect abortion has on a woman's long-term mental health, adoption, and, especially, universal childcare programs like the one Senator Warren proposes," she said. "That's doing better."
Bill Gilmeister, executive director of RenewMass, said, regarding the showcasing of resource centers, "Pregnancy health centers offer a positive response to pregnant women in difficult circumstances. They provide the resources women need when experiencing tough pregnancies. They are willing to come alongside in support. This is in stark contrast to the abortion businesses that seek to profit from women in need.”
New Mexico attorney Mike Seibel will speak to reporters in the Great Hall Wednesday. Siebel is currently prosecuting the outpatient abortion facility on behalf of his client, mother of Keisha Atkins, who was killed by the deregulation of late-term abortion procedures in New Mexico, the same kind of provision that "R.O.E.” would permit in Massachusetts.
Seibel said, "Massachusetts may take late-term abortion out of hospitals and away from life-saving medical equipment. Let [New Mexico] be a lesson for Massachusetts. You pass that bill, and there will be transports to hospitals for uncontrolled bleeding, uterine rupture, sepsis . . . just like here in New Mexico. Massachusetts will devolve from its first-class status in healthcare to substandard care. There will be deaths just like those in New Mexico."
Depositions, testimony, and other legal documents will be available to press following the speakers’ statements, as will activist and abortion survivor Claire Culwell.
Director of Community Engagement
Massachusetts Citizens for Life
857 302 0466
Are you a concerned citizen or MCFL member? Do you have the resource, but maybe not the ability or energy to spend time or travel to engage in the activism and education MCFL facilitates?
You can still support our work.
To support our digital and local action campaigns to shelve this anti-life bill, you can donate now. Just click through our secure links here: Donate to MCFL.
But what do I do?
You're standing outside the abortion center, and pedestrians pour past. A girl hops out of an Uber, and brushes by, and in a second has vanished behind the glass doors and the sign that says Abortion care offered here.
Or maybe you're not even there, but sitting with your hand hovering over the mouse, your computer screen flickering the schedule for 40 Days for Life volunteers. What if you sign up for 4pm. What then?
What does she need you to do?
The fact is, it isn't complicated. The answer is love, and that looks like the simple step of showing up, speaking up, and asking a question.
1) Start with a "Hi," and introduce yourself.
2) Ask her a question.
3) Ask if she's been there before, and mention if you or a friend has.
One of the best lists of more detailed suggestions comes from the Sisters of Life.
Read them below, and then suit up and show up. Your standing up on the sidewalk will save lives. (Suggestions below are adapted from an article originally printed in Imprint, 2019)
Listen: Often, everyone else is telling her what to do, but no one is listen- ing. So first, listen. Listen to her story, her experiences, her fears, hopes, worries, and desires.
Notice: She is good. Let yourself be honestly, spontaneously in touch with her -- her personality, her presence. Meet her.
Reflect: As you listen, reflect back to her what you are seeing and hear- ing: what she is saying, yes, but also her own value and goodness. She is not a project. She is not someone or something to "be good to" and "fix." In this situation especially, she needs to see that she's worth it, just for being herself. We all do. Not for what she's done, will do, hasn't done. Not for her education, looks or gifts, but for herself. A woman who knows that she is cared for and loved can do anything.
Connect: We are not meant to be alone. She needs a friend who will put faith in her and who will commit to walking with her in overcoming the obstacles, interiorly and exteriorly. This act of unconditional acceptance from you allows her to choose her own flourishing, for herself and for her child. It’s what opens her up to living from her heart.
Over 70% of women submit to abortion because they feel unwanted, alone, or unsupported.
That's the first problem you encounter on the sidewalk. And remember -- she's not a problem or a project. Don't solve her.
Solve the injustice.
That injustice is that she's been told she can't maintain her life, or equality, if she protects herself and her child.
Your presence directly confronts that lie and puts in the trash bin.
So don't refuse to show up because you're unsure. Simply stepping out on that sidewalk is the step that makes space for life.
Reserve your seat today for the MCFL's 2019 Annual Fundraising Banquet
This year, we have the exciting opportunity to feature Stacey Dash
who portrays Dr. Mildred Jefferson in the upcoming film,
Roe v. Wade.
2019 Annual Banquet: Love in Action
with Stacey Dash
24 October, 2019
Four Points Sheraton - Norwood
Click the link below for an exclusive first look at a film that confronts the startling behind-the-scenes
drama surrounding Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, and
Ms. Dash's elegant portrayal of trailblazing advocate for life, Dr. Mildred Jefferson.
Don't forget to reserve your seats at our secure link here.
Your sponsorship offers you an opportunity to support the life-saving work of MCFL year-round,
and an unforgettable night learning from Dr. Jefferson's unmatched example of pro-life heroism.
Massachusetts Citizens for Life condemns any form of violence against another person, including domestic violence. Last week, when I wrote to you about actress Stacey Dash, then scheduled to deliver the keynote address at our upcoming banquet, my colleagues and I were truly concerned about her wellbeing, since we knew she is a survivor of past domestic abuse. We also recognized the need to keep you, one of our ardent supporters, promptly informed of happenings that affect MCFL.
As would be true for anyone in her situation, our primary intent was to ensure Ms. Dash’s safety. Then we wondered about the ethics of expecting a vulnerable person to appear before hundreds just weeks following a traumatic experience. And we asked ourselves if it was fair to expect Ms. Dash to speak on behalf of the unborn, when she and so many like her have found themselves without a voice. Yes, the banquet is our lifeblood for fundraising, but people are our first priority.
You have heard us frequently talk this year about Love in Action. How ironic that those of us who’ve repeated it met a challenge to consider what those words mean, especially when the stakes are high. At one point, despite knowing we’d be unlikely to replace Ms. Dash in such a short time frame, we all agreed that it would be in her best interests not to attend the event, because the value of a life is paramount.
Since my last email, however, I’ve spoken with Dash’s team repeatedly. Ms. Dash was extremely grateful to all of you who wrote and shared your well wishes and prayers with her. Your words encouraged her, and she has expressed that she still wants to attend this year’s banquet to meet all of you and be our keynote speaker.
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.