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.
By Dwight G. Duncan
The following article originally appeared in the Spring 2018 issue of the MCFL News magazine, a perk of membership mailed out quarterly to all members.
One of the biggest cases in this year’s Supreme Court term is National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California. Petitioners, a group of pro-life Crisis Pregnancy Centers in California, are challenging on First Amendment free speech grounds the California law which requires them to provide information on whom to contact in order to obtain an abortion.
The lower federal courts in California, including the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has the distinction of being the Court overturned most often by the U.S. Supreme Court, held that the unprecedented California law was constitutionally consistent with the First Amendment.
Petitioners’ brief was filed on January 8, and amicus briefs supporting petitioners’ First Amendment argument were filed by January 15. The government’s brief is due February 8, with amicus briefs in support thereof due a week later. Oral argument is set for March 20. Along with the Masterpiece Cake case out of Colorado, which challenges on First Amendment grounds Colorado’s fining a bakery for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, these cases both raise the issue of freedom not to speak—one in the abortion context, the other in the same-sex marriage context. Decisions are expected by the end of the Supreme Court term around June 30.Read more
We are continuing our review of the presentations given at 2017 Convention in April. You may also find these presentations in our quarterly member publication, MCFL News.
“Roe v. Wade was an unprincipled decision that cannot be reconciled with our history, legal traditions, and practices which form the touchstone for determining whether or not an unenumerated liberty interest will be recognized by the Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment,” said Paul Benjamin Linton, author of Abortion Under State Constitutions and Constitutional Law expert, at the MCFL 2017 Annual Convention at Boston College on April 8. Linton explained this as the reasoning for framing the discussion in terms of when Roe is overruled, not if it is overruled.Read more