MA Opposes S.1209: Bad Healthcare is Bad Healthcare

In the next few weeks, we will be running a series of citizen responses to the so-called "R.O.E." Act (S.1209/H.3320). From longtime pro-choice voters and longtime pro-life proponents, and from those in-between and on-the-fence, these letters and remarks show a startling consensus in opposing this badly prepared and dangerous legislation. 

 

 

[ To my fellow citizens and to our legislators ]

I had the privilege of sitting in the hearing before the Judiciary Committee on the ROE Act/S1209/H3320 on Monday, June 17. There was an impressive turnout on both sides for supporting and opposing this... bill [sic] before the legislature. 

I am a retired newborn ICU/labor and delivery nurse, and adoptive mother of two. I have, in the past, sat on the sidelines of the abortion issue trying to respect a woman’s personal choice.

However, after hearing of New York’s [extreme] new abortion law, I have left my “comfort zone” to become educated and involved on this very emotional issue. There are many components to this new proposed legislation now coming to Massachusetts that appear, in my opinion, to be anything but health care!  [The text] can be found on the massgov.org website: S1209/H3320 or on masscitizensforlife.org

A number of aspects of this proposed legislation appear to remove safeguards such as permission by a parent for minors. There is no recognition of the human person/baby/infant growing within the womb or provision for [an infant] born alive [during late-term abortions]*. The "R.O.E" Act would eliminate compulsory hospital-based abortions for second and third-trimester pregnancies when the risk for complications is greatest! It was unclear who, if anyone, would be responsible for inspections and/or licensing of the abortion facilities – just to mention a few. 

I left with too many questions and concerns regarding the "R.O.E." Act. This is a hastily contrived bill where nothing I heard before the committee at the State House convinced me that the [proposed law] is in the best interest of women’s health. Let us move cautiously so that we do not put women at risk. 

Elizabeth Knox

Newburyport

 

*according to former abortionists, a common occurrence when the baby is viable post-23 or 24 weeks.

*


Showing 1 reaction

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.