Posted on December 21, 2020 7:51 AM

Gifts Instead of Bills? MA Residents Hand Out Care Packages at Clinic

Instead of a large bill and an unnecessary surgery, Massachusetts residents were handing out care packages filled with handwritten notes, a list of free healthcare resources in the area, and brownies, to moms in unexpected pregnancies approaching the Boston area Planned Parenthood on Saturday.

"Look, I just came to get this taken care of," said a young woman through her car window, as C.J. (community engagement director for MCFL) waved at her and asked if she could help.

"But what if you were taken care of?" C.J. asked her. The woman just shook her head. But she took the little violet box, and the note with healthcare  options in the area. Later, she and her partner were seen driving away.

A multitude of people, young and old, had gathered that morning to sing Christmas carols at the well-known Boston abortion center. Young and old, secular and religious, they sang or prayed or stood quietly. A large group of Spanish-speaking citizens had bussed in, and had joined with some of the local Franciscans to pray; while a high school student from Arlington High had joined with her mother for the first time.

It was a busy morning. Christmas is often a challenging time for women who are pregnant; and Planned Parenthood doesn't make it any easier. The abortion provider advertises not help but abortion to relieve women of their challenges -- and relieves them of their living, breathing baby at the instead. 

"What I don't get," said Liana, the high-school junior, "Is, I mean, why don't we make having your baby at a hospital free? Like, why isn't there a clinic here to give birth for like $500? We tax-fund abortion, but no one is tax-funding helping moms have their baby. I always hear women say, I can't afford $5000 to give birth and then baby clothes and all that stuff. But so what? How's abortion a choice if it's the only one you give someone?"

Many of the carolers have been working overtime on just that issue, calling the governor and our lawmakers daily, even hourly, demanding they reject the "R.O.E" Act (which would increase pressure to abort a child, and offer no more support to women parenting or giving birth, along with lowering the age of abortion-consent to 16).

In the meantime, though, they stood offering support and song to the many women impacted by the normal vicissitudes of life, on top of COVID-related job losses or stress. 

"Brighton has a pregnancy resource and health center right up the street from here," said one woman, "I always tell moms, it's free. Right up the street. I'll even drive you there."

She has done just that.

But this frigid, 19 degree morning, she -- along with dozens of others -- continued to sing. From 9am to noon, they offering care boxes, hope, support, and song to each woman approaching the abortion center. Because, as a longtime sidewalk counselor quipped, "Empowerment is telling a woman to kill her child and pick up the bill. Empowerment is telling her you have the strategies, the resources, and a helping hand for her to do anything with her child."

Do you hear what I hear... they closed. 

And I think they meant life, life and protection and support, for everyone, born and preborn, mom and child.

 

 

 

For pregnancy resource centers and free healthcare in your area, check out: Resource Spreadsheet for Women's Health Here.

Posted on December 16, 2020 8:13 AM

UPDATE: HOUSE VOWS TO REJECT BAKER'S LIFE-SAVING CORRECTIONS TO BUDGET ("ROE" ACT)

MOST CURRENT UPDATE on the "R.O.E." Act -- refiled as H.5179  (12/17/2020)

"R.O.E." failed to pass committee review after thousands of citizens gathered to oppose it in bth 2019 and 2020. Pro-abortion lobbyists then inserted the provisions found in "R.O.E" into the annual state budget, where house and senate versions were reconciled as "section 40" and sent to Governor Baker for approval or veto. Governor Baker had previously stated that he would veto "R.O.E" and reject any legislation including its provisions that legalize passive infanticide and remove parental consent. Baker rejected most of the pro-abortion provisions, including the lowering of consent for our children to 16 and removing parental consent. He left in provisions that would permit passive infanticide. 

Representatives Marc Lombardo and Allyson Sullivan have introduced an amendment to the state budget to protect our infants born alive during an abortion,  “Guaranteeing Medical Care to Babies Born Alive,” which reads as follows:

If an abortion is performed pursuant to section 12-N, the facility where the abortion is performed shall maintain life-supporting equipment, as defined by the department of public health, the physician performing the abortion must use life saving measures to preserve the life and health of a live birth and the patient.

 

Contact your state representative to ask him or to support the amendment, "Guaranteeing Medical Care to Babies Born Alive," and tell them you expect them to support a veto of the budget if it includes the "R.O.E" Act's

abortion expansion.

 You can look up your senator at MALEGISLATURE.GOV/findmylegislator

 

Posted on December 15, 2020 10:23 AM

Pro-Life Billboard Helps #SaveMABabies in Boston Area

The 93 in Braintree is no longer just a highway out of town. Thanks to Choose Life Inc., and generous pro-life donors, the 93 now paves a way to saving preborn lives in the state of Massachusetts.

 

photo of the artwork displayed on the billboard

 

According to The Guttmacher Institute, as of 2020, the restrictions on abortion in Massachusetts are minimal. A woman may obtain an abortion even after 24 weeks if a doctor agrees her health is at risk. Due to the fact that "health" is a broad term, and may be interpreted to mean emotional distress as well as severe or life-threatening complications, this restriction has little impact on protecting women and their preborn babies from the grueling, 3-day late-term abortion.

Additionally, children under the age of 18 may not be subjected to an abortion with prior consent from their parent, guardian, or a judge appointed by the state of Massachusetts (in the event that either parent or guardian is abusive or incapable). 

Recently (December 2020), the annual state budget, section 40, sought to remove all safeguards for our women & babies in Massachusetts. Governor Baker line-vetoed removal of parental consent, and other expansions, but did not suggest removing the expansion of late-term abortion on babies diagnosed with fetal abnormalities in the womb.

 

As a state that prides itself on protecting the vulnerable, progressive dedication to human rights -- from our trailblazing history in the abolition movement to more recent participation in civil and racial rights, we need to be consistent. Human rights are non-negotiable, and apply to every human being. That protection applies to our women in the womb as well as to our women on the street; and to our preborn brothers and sisters of any skin color as well as to our African American brothers and sisters in our communities.

Pave the way for life this season and into 2021! #SaveMABabies


 

Current and recent articles, research, and facts regarding abortion, and those impacted by it, in Massachusetts:

 

 

Check out our online list of Massachusetts-based healthcare facilities that provide resource and support for women:

 

Healthcare clinics and pregnancy resource centers spreadsheet

 

 


To bring this resource to neighbors, friends, and fellow citizens across the state, please share on your social media accounts using the hashtag #SaveMABabies.

Join our daily outreach in Boston at 1055 Commonwealth Ave. by emailing C.J. ([email protected])

Posted on December 15, 2020 9:58 AM

Zero Quantifiable Data to Prove Late-Term Abortions as "Medically Necessary"

The following post is adapted from Secular Pro-Life's  resources, and an article by the extraordinary lawyer and human rights advocate, Kelsey Hazzard. Additional information regarding Massachusetts provided by C.J. Williams.


Despite conventional wisdom, there's zero quantifiable data to support the idea that all or even most late-term abortions are medically necessary.

Defining our terms.

First, the phrase "late-term abortion" is ill-defined. We've had past posts where we were including anything after the first trimester, but to be more conservative, this post is only for abortions performed at 21 weeks or later. [Update 2/8/20: some complain the term "late-term abortion" is not a medical term and/or is made up by pro-lifers. See this thread for examples of abortion providers, Guttmacher, and the media using the phrase "late-term abortion" over the years.]

Second, when we say "medically necessary" we're referring to abortions where the reasons cited were risk to the woman's life, risk to the woman's health, or fetal abnormalities.

Objections to the "medically necessary" definition.

We understand that many pro-life people object to characterizing some or all of these situations as "medically necessary abortions." Some people don't consider a procedure that destroys a fetus an "abortion" if the procedure is done to save the woman's life. Some don't believe there are any scenarios where a woman's life or health is better protected by late-term abortion than by induction of labor or c-section. Some view abortion due to fetal abnormalities as a type of involuntary euthanasia, not medically necessary to the woman and not clearly in the best interest of the fetus. Some especially object to calling abortions "medically necessary" for fetal abnormalities because not all such fetal abnormalities are life-threatening to the fetus (possibly the most controversial example being the very high rate of abortionwhen the fetus has Down syndrome).

SPL recognizes some relevant points here (click through to "Further Reading" for more thoughts on these subjects). But for this blog post, we leave all that aside. Here we're not debating whether and when abortion is justified for maternal health and life or for fetal abnormalities. We're demonstrating that even if you believe all of these reasons constitute medically necessary abortions, most late-term abortions are still not medically necessary.

In reality, most women seek 21+ week abortions for non-medical reasons, such as:

  • Not realizing sooner that they were pregnant, 
  • Struggling to find the time and money for later abortion procedures (which are more complicated and expensive than earlier procedures), and 
  • Difficulty deciding whether they wanted to continue carrying the pregnancy.
Here is a list of further resources, including data and studies, interviews of abortion providers and other pro-choice sources, and interviews of women who obtained non-medical late-term abortions.
For citations and further data, please click through here to Secular Pro-Life's web page.
meme credit: Secular Pro-Life/Kelsey Hazzard
In Massachusetts, abortion is legal up-to-birth if a doctor designates it "medically necessary" for the life/health of the mother. But as you can see from the data, most "medically necessary" reasons are not matters of medical necessity. Women who report upset, are struggling to find money, or are having difficulty deciding if they want  an unintended child are often given doctor's a-ok to abort. This means that abortion is legal de-facto up-to-birth in our state. This also means that the recent provision promoting abortion in the event of a fetal abnormality diagnosis, and added to our state budget bill (expected to pass before the end of the year), will add yet another not medically necessary point in our law encouraging women to abort rather than seek authentic support.
The bullet points above denote three vitally important areas in which our society fails women. They are not medically-justifiable reasons to take a preborn human's life. They are, however, three glaring examples of where our laws and our communities promote violence over empowerment and support.
Pro-choice friends, here's our common ground: Where are the "section 40's" (the abortion-promoting piece of the 2020 state budget proposal) that funnel public money to parenting women returning to school? Where are the "section 40's" that add money and plans to ensuring our universities have housing for women-with-children? Where are the "section 40's" that increase maternity leave, offer free or at-cost prenatal and post-natal care?
And pro-life friends, on this same ground: Where are you able to build a community that puts people before profit? Where do you support treating pregnancy and parenting like gifts, not disabilities? Do you have an intentional relationship with your legislators, and an ongoing conversation with them about proposed laws such as "An Act to Remove Obstacles And Increase Access to Abortion" (S.1209), or positive laws such as "An Act to Promote Adoption" (H.2638) or "An Act Relative to Parental Leave" (H.865) (2013)
These are questions -- not to batter ourselves with -- but to consider seriously, and then to act on the answers we find decisively and promptly. 
Abortion is not medically necessary. In Massachusetts, we have an obligation to protect our women and our preborn children from violence packaged as healthcare.
Posted on December 11, 2020 6:15 PM

BREAKING: BAKER LINE VETOES MAJORITY OF ROE ACT PROVISIONS IN STATE BUDGET BILL

BREAKING: GOVERNOR BAKER LINE-VETOES ABORTION SECTION OF STATE BUDGET (ROE ACT)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- DECEMBER 11, 2020 -- This afternoon, Massachusetts governor, Charlie Baker, approved the 46B state budget bill but line-vetoed segments of Section 40, which contained egregious provisions, expanding abortion.

He retained the section permitting abortion at and after 24 weeks in cases of so-called "fatal fetal abnormalities", even though that term is ambiguous and not defined in the bill and opens the door to fatal error. Hope Dupell, who just celebrated her first birthday, was diagnosed with a lethal condition while in the womb. Fortunately, she thrives today as a living example of a life that a deadly mistake under this provision would have extinguished.

"Although there remains much in this bill with which to take issue, we thank Governor Baker for the common sense recommendation to raise the age for consent to abortion to 18,” said MCFL Executive Director, Patricia Stewart. Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

 

Massachusetts Citizens for Life
http://www.masscitizensforlife.org/

Massachusetts single solely-dedicated pro-life human rights organization since 1973.

Posted on December 05, 2020 4:23 PM

RECAP: Memorial & Demonstration for the Preborn at the State House

Hundreds of citizens gathered today on the State House steps, despite a Nor'easter the dumped sheets of rain on demonstration. Why were there out in frigid wind and pouring rain on a December weekend? 

This past couple of months, abortion lobbyists--having failed to convince the public or our lawmakers to approve of the "R.O.E" Act, underhandedly inserted it as an amendment to our state budget. Both state and house versions of the budget were approved; and the bill was reconciled by committee and sent to the governor's desk as section 40 of our annual state budget.

This section, a slightly repackaged "R.O.E.", has now --

  • made legal doctors allowing to die a baby born alive during an abortion
  • removed parental consent for underage girls entering an abortion clinic
  • removed all penalties in current law for violations of the law in regard to abortion; an abortionist cannot be prosecuted for harming the woman
  • expanded late-term abortions up to birth

These provisions directly contradict our national and state principles of protecting the vulnerable, defending individual human lives, and supplying the highest level of medical to patients regardless of their background or resources. Under these extreme abortion-promoting provisions, women like Melissa will be left to die. Under these provisions, women like Keisha Atkins will continue to be abused, used, and die from late-term abortionists like Curtis Boyd. Under these provisions, an abortion can be performed by any medical worker, without having a license or MD.

Who wouldn't rally in the hundreds and thousands to oppose "R.O.E."

The gathering included citizens from across the state.

Because, as Fernando--one of the many young demonstrators--said: "#SaveMABabies!"

As MCFL members, fellow pro-lifers, and citizens who would have identified as pro-choice under other circumsances, dropped roses on the steps, they asked Governor Baker: Please veto section 40.

Massachusetts can do better. Massachusetts deserves better.

To all of you who showed up in the driving rain, thank you.

To all of you who called tirelessly, sent letters, and posted on social media, thank you!

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

"We must participate, as citizens, inongoing activities to replace the discriminatory and lethal solution of abortion with support, love, and authentic equality,"  said C.J. Williams, MCFL director of community engagement, "And Governor Baker, thank you for opposing legislation that promotes violence, that removes authentic care, from our state law. We need to reject access over safety, and reject section 40."

 

Keep calling now through next week! 617 -725-4005. Ask him to veto section 40. 

Posted on December 01, 2020 1:48 PM

Diagnosed Disabled? That Means Nothing About Your Current Worth or Ability

Collette was born, which is more than can be said of 100% of her peers in Iceland, where if you're diagnosed with this syndrome in the womb you're scheduled for immediate termination. But due to the fact that in the United States some safeguards still exist to protect the preborn, Collette was born. She grew up in Ridgefield, CT, completed a 3 year degree at Clemson University in just 2 years -- and developed a cookie that friends and family raved about, calling it, "amazing!"

Down syndrome had not stopped her from living a full life, or even one that those without her different-abilities would have called standard. But when she moved to Boston, she was stunned to run through day after day of friendly but condescending rejections from potential employers. Messages usually ran, "It was great to meet you, Collette, but at this time we feel you are not a good fit for our company.”

Because she was determined not to let rejection stop her from earning a living and doing meaningful work, Collette decided to turn her passion for baking into a business.

"I was not only determined to show everyone how capable people with (dis)abilities are, but my mission is to open production facilities across the country and employ thousands of (dis)abled people!"

She founded Collettey's Cookies that year.

In late 2016, the Boston CBS TV affiliate featured Collette and her company on their nightly news program. Soon, she was flooded with orders. The national news picked up her story, and Collettey’s Cookies went viral. She has been featured on CNN, Good Morning America, MSNBC, Inside Edition, BBC, and many other print and television media outlets around the world. She has sold over 180,000 cookies to date and Collettey’s Cookies now employs 13 people, several with disabilities. Collette travels around the country to share her inspiring story, and constantly encourages people to focus on their abilities rather than what they can’t do. Her ultimate goal is to work with lawmakers in Washington, D.C. to create policies that would increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities. 

Collette sets a challenging example to us -- and to our abortion-distorted society -- one that forces us to look into the face of a woman whom our legislature might legally declare better off dead, and our employers called unemployable, not a good fit.

 

 

Posted on November 30, 2020 9:09 AM

Debate: Stephanie Gray & Peter Singer to the resolution, "Abortion Is Immoral."

 

 

VIEW THE FULL RECORDING NOW 

First Annual Dr. Mildred Fay Jefferson Symposium
VIRTUAL DEBATE
Hosted by Harvard Right to Life
Sponsored by Massachusetts Citizens for Life
Resolution: Abortion is Immoral
Pro: Stephanie Gray Connors,
international speaker and pro-life advocate. 
 Stephanie is well known for her  “Talks at Google” presentation in 2017, as well as numerous debates around the world with philosophers, doctors and lawyers.  
She provides a steadfast, brilliant and precise voice defending life in all stages and is the author of Love Unleashes Life.
 
Contra: Professor Peter Singer,
Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University Center for Human Values.
Probably one of the world’s best known philosophers, Professor Singer enjoys widespread influence for his support and writing on utilitarian ethics and applied ethics. Notable writing includes his Animal Liberation and his master’s thesis “Why Should I be Moral?" 

Posted on November 30, 2020 9:01 AM

Season 5, Episode 9

President's Column

By Myrna Maloney Flynn, MCFL President  


         Those who have a voice must speak for those who are voiceless.                         

   - Bishop Oscar Romero

 

As Thanksgiving approached last week, all I wanted to do was laugh at something. In keeping with the season, I recalled trusted Thanksgiving-themed episodes of two TV sitcoms that I knew would do the trick: season 5, episode 9 of both Cheers and Everybody Loves Raymond. (Coincidentally, both shows premiered extra silly 9th episodes in their respective 5th seasons, just so you know where to find them after you read this.)

Medicinal mission accomplished. Chortles, giggles and even a couple guffaws escaped our mouths as my family and I enjoyed the plots’ utter ridiculousness. 

While I prepared Thanksgiving dinner on Thursday, I recalled the high points of each of the two shows and acknowledged, with gratitude, the self-proclaimed pro-life actors in each one: Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton. A few years ago, Grammer told a reporter that, “If you have respect for life, and respect for choice, then you can’t take life away from an infant. . . . Little makes me angry, but injustice does.” 

Heaton is even more outspoken, very frequently on Twitter and in the press. She’s got a lot of good lines as an actress. But this is one of my favorites of hers as an advocate: “I find it impossible to subscribe to a philosophy that believes that the destruction of human life is a legitimate solution to a problem that is mostly social, economic and psychological. In reality, most women ‘choose’ abortion because they believe they have no other choice.”

What is admirable about Grammer and Heaton is that they speak within — and in spite of — Hollywood. Imagine the number of fans whose minds they've changed because of their bravery! There are so few in L.A. who use their powerful voices to defend the voiceless. I’m pretty sure “minority” doesn’t even apply. Pro-lifers in Hollywood? Barely countable. 

It’s easy to feel the same way if you live in Massachusetts. Pro-lifers? Here? 

Of course we’re here. And because of you, and your courageous voice throughout nearly two years of the current legislative session, the original ROE Act withered. Whatever happens in the next few weeks with a similarly-written but slightly altered budget amendment, the ROE Act, unveiled in January 2019, esteemed and heralded by dozens of legislators, could not get past YOUR voice! That is the truth. 

But please don’t rest just yet. 

My MCFL team and I continue to keep a close watch on the state legislature and its serious consideration of the proposed amendment that would irresponsibly expand abortion in Massachusetts. Not unlike Hollywood producers, legislators are leaning on a costume, the proposed budget, to change the appearance of the ROE Act. 

But they’ve failed again. You and I know what they’re trying to pass. It’s up to us to use our voices to stop them. If you have emailed or called your legislators in the last month, thank you! If you have contacted Governor Baker to ask him to veto this item once it gets to his desk, thank you! If you have not yet called him, please do so this week. Yours is the voice that matters now. 

Governor Charlie Baker: 617-725-4005 

There’s a chance that this amendment can still be stopped, even though many say pro-abortion legislators have a veto-proof majority.  

But the first thing that needs to happen is for Governor Baker to veto it. And, like quality TV, he is more likely to tune in to this critical episode if he hears your voice.

Posted on November 16, 2020 4:02 PM

WQPH (affiliate of EWTN) features Board Member Dr. Mark Rollo + NO to the "R.O.E" Act

Talking Catholic Medical Ethics with Dr. Mark Rollo

WQPH, our local EWTN affiliate, will host MCFL board member, Dr. Mark Rollo, speaking about life issues on a unique and brand-new radio show / podcast for the remainder of the year!

In the first episode, Dr. Rollo addresses the "R.O.E." Act, medical ethics, and the physicians commitment to "first, do no harm."

EWTN was excited to announce this entirely new show in the WQPH lineup from a man of unique perspective and experience.

Dr. Rollo's show, “First, Do No Harm,” will continue throughout the year on Sundays at 11am and 11pm.

From EWTN's radio network:

 

WQPH: Can you tell us a little bit about your background as a doctor and how you came to the Faith?

Dr. Mark Rollo: I am a cradle Catholic.  Our Catholic Faith was central to our life as a family.  We were regular church goers and we six children attended Catholic schools for much of our education. My parents were staunchly pro-life.

My mother entered the fray to oppose abortion when Roe v Wade was decided in 1973.  Her pro-life beliefs were clearly made known to all of us well before 1973 but in that year she joined Massachusetts Citizens for Life and helped start a local crisis pregnancy center. She regularly picketed planned parenthood.

My father was a surgeon and was president of the medical staff when Roe became law.   As president he could not vote on whether or not to allow abortions to be done at our local hospital.  He resigned so that he could vote against it.

I belatedly followed in my father’s footsteps to become a physician when I was 30 years old. I joined the USAF to defray the cost of medical school and as an Air Force Physician I was very blessed to work with many dedicated and mission oriented individuals. My wife and I are Fitchburg natives and after separating from active duty in 1991 we returned to this area where I practiced family medicine until this year when I retired.

The show’s title is taken from the ancient Hippocratic oath for the medical profession. With so many scientific advancements today, how do you see such history informing us?

Over the years of my practice I have seen the abandonment of the Hippocratic Oath.  2500 years ago the Oath specifically rejected abortion and physician assisted suicide.  These abominations are currently corrupting medicine.  Contraception, which is the separation of love and life, helped usher in the culture of death which I gradually came to understand.  As a result I dedicated much of my practice to modern methods of natural family planning which is fully in accordance with the Catholic Church.

What are you hoping to help your listeners appreciate better?

Ethics must form the basis of treating the whole person and it is my hope to shine a light on the medical ethical issues of the day from a Catholic perspective.  This will include not only contraception, abortion and assisted suicide but also such important issues as IVF, hospice, palliative care and end of life decision making just to name a few.  I am looking forward to delving into these issues.