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 moreMedia report: Abortions Up During Pandemic
Abortions, report USA Today in a recent article, have risen during COVID19. From the phone lines in New York City to the more quiet mid-west, abortion facilities' owners and workers have commented that they have received an uptick in calls, and more and more "desperate" women seeking either surgical or medical abortion.
Far from coming to the obvious conclusion that women seek abortion when they feel unsupported and without other options, the article assumes the same stance as the abortion industry, namely, that abortion is necessary and restrictions damaging.
If desperation and crisis cause a need for abortion, however, is that a sign that women need abortion, or that women deserve and need support -- like all of us -- especially during national crisis?
The stories of women in this article are heartbreaking.
We should not be requiring our fellow citizens, women or otherwise, to undergo surgical manipulation during a crisis to survive. We should not be promoting an act that requires women to choose survival over the life of their child, unless we agree that women are second-class citizens.
“I hear it in my patient’s voices and questions daily,” the article quotes an abortion worker. “They’re worried about how they will make their rent, feed their family, access a ventilator if the need arises.”
If the need arises, we meet it. We do not take an innocent human life, or implicitly tell a woman her family and her survival are based on sacrificing one of her children. Let's not call an act that takes a human life an "essential service." Essential services preserve life.
While we're in a national crisis, we should be offering abundant, life-affirming support to any one in need.
Abortion isn't affirmation of a woman's needs and unique dignity. Abortion is a rejection of her essence and her needs.
Many of our members are posting bulletins online and out their local bus stops listing support services, pregnancy resource centers, and even their own telephone number.
If there's going to be an uptick in need, we're going to be the uptick in offering -- love, hope, and support.
Got 5 Minutes? Do your part to defeat "ROE"
[ This week's column by MCFL's president provides you with an easy to use phone script for calling your legislator, and members of the Judiciary Committee, to oppose the "ROE" Act. It also provides a quick refresher on the proposed law's provisions. ]
By Myrna Maloney Flynn, MCFL President
By raising my voice, I can help the greatest of all causes—good will among men and peace on earth. - Albert Einstein
“Hello, this is Myrna Maloney Flynn from Massachusetts Citizens for Life. I received your voicemail. How can I help?”
On the other end of the line, a longtime MCFL member with a soft trilling brogue humbly explained, “I’m 86 now and can’t get down to the State House to lobby like I used to. So I will call their offices about that bill. I just don’t know what to say.”
Like my new friend, you’ve got the power of your voice. And I’ve got a way for you to use it. Yes, it will take 15 minutes of your day. But it has the potential to save thousands of lives.
We learned this week that the Judiciary Committee extended until May 12 its deadline to report on the ROE Act. This means that they’ve got until then to decide whether or not they will allow legislators to vote on the radical, dangerous legislation. The new deadline may also be pushed back, however, so it is likely that we won't be able to rest easy until the end of the session on July 31st.
Despite our strong showing at last June’s hearing, and subsequent petition delivery last fall—efforts that successfully stalled the bill, we have not defeated it. Yet. To do so, we need to doggedly continue our lobbying efforts. And the quickest, easiest first step lies in your hands and with your voice: call your legislators. We know from experience that these phone calls are important to stopping legislation.
There are six people you have to call to make a difference, and it will only take a few minutes of your day: Your state representative, your state senator, and the four committee chairs. I'm sharing a sample script that you can alter for each one of them. When you call, ask to leave a message for the individual. It’s important to say you are a constituent.
Not sure who your representative or senator is? You can look them up here (https://malegislature.gov/Search/FindMyLegislator).
State Representative/State Senator Sample Script
"Hello, I would like to leave a message for Representative/Senator [name]. My name is [your name]. I live in [your town], Massachusetts and I am a constituent. I implore that [he or she] OPPOSE [If Representative: House Bill 3320. If Senator: Senate Bill 1209] - the ROE Act. It is a horrific piece of legislation that threatens the lives of young girls. It is a setback for women and society, and it further threatens the lives of society's most vulnerable. If the bill comes up for a vote in the state legislature, I expect Representative/Senator [name] to vote against the ROE Act. Thank you for passing along my message. I appreciate your time on this imporant issue."
After you’ve called your state rep/senator, call each of the four Judiciary Committee Chairs:
Committee Chair Claire Cronin -- (617) 722-2396
Committee Vice-Chair Representative Michael Day -- (617) 722-2396
Committee Chair Senator James Eldridge -- (617) 722-1120
Committee Vice-Chair Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz -- (617) 722-1673
Judiciary Committee member Sample Script
"Hello, I would like to leave a message for Judiciary Committee member [name]. My name is [your name]. I am a voter in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I've contacted my local representatives, and I want to voice my opposition to the ROE Act - House Bill 3320/Senate Bill 1209 - currently being debated in the Judiciary Committee. It is a horrific piece of legislation that threatens the lives of young girls, it is a setback for women and society, and it further threatens the lives of society's most vulnerable. I urge the committee NOT to let the ROE Act be voted out of committee, and, instead, let the deadline pass to stop the bill from being voted on at all. Thank you for passing along my message. I appreciate your time on this important issue."
If any of the staff members try to justify the legislator's positions, simply tell them that there is no justification for this type of legislation and that, as a constituent, the legislator represents you. Therefore, you expect him or her to vote against it.
Your voice matters to them because they know you are a voter in their district! These calls matter, and the other side knows it, too. They’ve been urging their fellow abortion rights supporters to make similar calls. So now, more than ever, raise your voice on this, the greatest of all causes.
Please share this email with like-minded people and urge them to make these important calls as well. If we don't let our voices be heard, everything that Massachusetts pro-lifers have accomplished in the last 47 years could be lost. Beneath my message you’ll find a reminder of what the ROE Act will mean for our women, girls, and infants if it is passed.
Thank you for your time, energy, and passion in protecting the vulnerable in Massachusetts.
Finally, below is a review of the ROE Act’s implications. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with them and use your knowledge to inform others. Most voters simply do not know the impact this legislation will have. This bill would essentially wipe out every common-sense, pro-life law on the books in the Commonwealth.
If passed, the ROE Act will:
- Remove protections for newborn babies who are born alive having survived a failed abortion (opening the door to infanticide);
- Eliminate the requirement that a parent (or at least a judge) consent before a minor girl undergoes an abortion; allowing any adult who may be abusing them to cover up their assault by eliminating the need for a legal guardian to consent to any abortion.
- Allow abortions of viable unborn babies to be performed outside of a hospital, meaning abortions can be done in any facility, even those lacking the most basic of medical standards like hallways wide enough for gurneys if a woman needs to be rushed to the hospital (A woman was recently rushed to a hospital in Massachusetts due to hemorrhaging after an abortion). This further endangers women.
- Increase taxpayer funding of abortion, by diverting money from Healthy Start, a program intended to reduce infant mortality among the poor;
- Eliminate all criminal penalties for the performance of any abortion—whether coerced, sex-selective, eugenic, incompetently executed, performed by a non-physician, inflicted on a victim of sex trafficking, statutory rape, or other sexual abuse, etc.
BREAKING: Ms. Magazine Slanders MCFL
Ms. Magazine Attacks MCFL with Blatant Misinformation
"Anonymous" writer makes outrageous claims about the June 5 press conference, provides no evidence in article titled “I Went Undercover in the Anti-Abortion Movement—and Found Hypocrisy and Misogyny”
Did you see the hit piece? Providing no evidence, and appearing to mix up details from multiple events, the anonymous writer was published by Ms. Magazine.
We released the following press release.
Now more than ever, we need your support.
Please donate $100 today as we encounter national pushback on our extraordinary pro-life efforts this past year.
On Tuesday morning, Dec. 17, our team was alerted to an anonymously-written article that appeared on Ms. Magazine’s website. In this article, the supposed “feminist gender studies major” claims that she went undercover at one of our events and felt it necessary to share her experience.
There is just one problem…multiple actually: the details of Anonymous' story don't add up.
Given that Ms. Magazine felt it appropriate to print an anonymously-written story without fact-checking any of it, or asking our Massachusetts Citizens for Life staff to confirm or comment, we felt it necessary to publicly do so ourselves.
Claim: “It was a sweltering June day in Boston …Attendants were packed into a conference room on the second floor of the state house, creating a sea of “stop infanticide” red shirts.
Reality: Based on the author's reference to the "data set," this was the June 5th, 2019 press conference unveiling the polling results, which are, of course, misrepresented in her piece. The event was held in Room 437 (not the second floor, as the author stated). The location is important to the story because the room does not allow the kinds of interactions the author claims. The room was completely packed, for one thing. It is a hearing room. Organizers were informed ahead of time of capacity, and State House staff helped seat the public before the polling announcements were made to help fit the number of press and audience present without violating codes.
Claim: “I even wore one of those red shirts—emblazoned with the Massachusetts Citizens for Life logo alongside a crudely drawn fetus.”
Reality: Massachusetts Citizens for Life staff did not hand out red shirts at this event. Though MCFL's logo was one of multiple organization's logos, all opposing ROE. It is not on the front of the shirt as stated. Had Anonymous done even a little research, she would have noticed the t-shirts did not place our logo prominently, nor beside a the other image she mentions.
Claim: “Women are dying. Abortion is killing our women.”
Reality: This is the one truthful thing the author wrote! Women like Keisha Atkins, a 23-year-old woman who died following a legal abortion, at six months, in New Mexico due to the very abortion-deregulations the ROE Act is trying to impose on Massachusetts residents. Additionally, more than 30 million pre-born females have died since Roe v. Wade was legalized in 1973. Anonymous may have been quoting someone else, but it is worth applauding that the the one fact she decided to publish was this true statement.
Claim: “My confusion was warranted: MA Citizens for Life’s argument doesn’t make scientific sense. Their claims about protecting women’s autonomy and reproductive health are actually just thinly-veiled covers for their actual view that women should not have decision-making authority over their bodies.”
Reality: Anonymous apparently doesn’t understand basic scientific facts about human development or the concept of autonomy. Every credible textbook on human development states as a proven fact that life begins at the moment of conception. Anonymous doesn’t understand, or perhaps plays ignorant to the fact, that abortion ends the life of a uniquely different human being, oftentimes through painful dismemberment. Half of abortion's victims are defenseless female human beings. Additionally, too many women, like Keisha Atkins, have lost their lives because of legal abortion, and many more have been harmed physically and/or psychologically.
[https://www.masscitizensforlife.org/killing_keisha_roe-act_provisions_results]
Claim: “The supposed shocking dataset was just fluff, too, for what it’s worth. ‘75 percent of Massachusetts citizens do not support infanticide. With this bill, full-term healthy babies will be killed. Reject the infanticide bill!’”
Reality: The dataset Anonymous describes as “fluff” is anything but fluff. The independent survey conducted between April and May 2019 surveyed Massachusetts voters from all political spectrums – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. The survey proved that three quarters of Massachusetts voters reject the ROE Act. In fact, one of the provisions in the law would allow late-term abortions to be done outside a hospital, something 77% of self-proclaimed “pro-choice” in the survey opposed! So, no, Anonymous, the survey is not “fluff." Instead, it proves how out of touch the pro-abortion lobby are with the actual will of voters in the Commonwealth.
Claim: “When there was a call for all young people to come in for a photo-op, two different men pushed me until I stumbled and was able to slink away. “Don’t you want to support the cause?” they were yelling. “What’s wrong with you women?””
Reality: Anonymous first claimed the event was held on the second flood, however, it was held in Room 437. Neither the layout nor the mechanics of the situation would have allowed for the kinds of interactions the author claims. The room was completely packed, and those in attendance were seated or lined up along the back wall. This would not have allowed for a shuffling of the audience for photo-ops. Additionally, those in attendance know full well there was no yelling at any participant. In fact, with half a dozen prominent and reputable media sources reporting on the event, and not one mentioned any grabbing, yelling, or pushing. If there had been any type of altercation, they would undoubtably have reported it.
We know that the media likes to write about any confrontation at any of our events). At the annual Massachusetts March for Life, the media was quick to mention how seven were arrested at the event for acts of violence – two for throwing urine and a slushie at participants. The problem with the report? They failed to mention that all seven arrests were pro-abortion, antifa activists assaulting pro-life advocates.
Biased or otherwise, no news reporter would pass up a chance to report on an altercation in a peaceful press conference.
Claim: “When I initially refused to put on the red shirt, I was booed and sneered at, and the Citizens for Life member handing them out grabbed my arm and yelled that I was too concerned with fashion, and not about “protecting life.””
Reality: No MCFL member handed out any red shirts. In fact, the red shirts were not provided by MCFL. Some of our own staff didn’t even wear red. So this, too, appears to be something the author daydreamed and decided to include in her story. (I personally eschewed the shirts.)
Claim: “The attendees treated children no better. During the photo-op, someone yanked a crying baby out of its mother’s arms to pose for the camera—even though, supposedly, they were fighting for this baby’s safety and happiness. The man smiled for his photo-op while the baby continued crying—and yelled about how we must ‘protect the youngest members of our society.’”
Reality: This also did not happen. We knew the photographer. We also know the number (severely limited by State House request) and names of all attendees. Neither the photographer nor I took any photos of babies.
Claim: “Anti-abortion activists do not care about women—they care about power and subjugation. They care about forcing women into becoming incubators for babies. And they are willing to use force and shame to realize that mission.”
Reality: Anonymous fails to acknowledge that abortion does not empower women. In fact, since Roe v. Wade passed in 1973, more than 30 million unborn girls (and 30 million boys) have been exterminated in the name of “women’s rights." Abortion is the greatest human rights abuse of our time. Abortion is violence. Women deserve better than the ROE Act and what Anonymous advocates for, and three quarters of Massachusetts voters agree with that statement.
Once thing is certain, the anonymous author of the “I Went Undercover in the Anti-Abortion Movement—and Found Hypocrisy and Misogyny” article that appears on Ms. Magazine’s website came to our event with a message written for what she expected to happen, and she left with that same message in hand– if she even came to the event at all. Her supposed experiences contradict what those who actually attended the event have said – that it was friendly, calm, and educational..
Ms. Magazine deciding to publish this article demonstrates a shocking carelessness in journalistic due diligence: No photos or evidence of any kind; no checking with the organization which the piece attempts to slander. The author doesn’t even want her name tied to her article. Perhaps she knows that her claims are false, and she wishes to get her narrative out to mislead others before the real story was told. Perhaps she doesn’t want to held liable for her blatantly false accusations.
Even more puzzling is that this apparently curious citizen journalist, who reputedly has researched MCFL, was not aware that the female leaders in the organization routinely invite and chat with friends or counterparts in pro-choice circles to these events. We have invited NARAL and pro-choice friends to meet for conversation before the Massachusetts March for Life, and to unite on our common ground that removing standards of medical care is not pro-woman, pro-choice, or pro-life. Instead, we were met with violent counter-protestors who assaulted our event attendees.
If the author or Ms. would like to correct these inaccuracies, I can supply facts. But since no one actually reached out to MCFL prior to, during, or after the event, I'm more than a little dubious about the genuine journalistic search for truth here.
I wonder if the author would like to talk. If so, we are always free to chat.
Perhaps Ms. Magazine would also like to fact check their submissions before publishing so-called reporting on actual events. If they do, they can start with who organized the press conference, who was in attendance, and maybe even look up MCFL on social media.
In the meantime, we are calling on Ms. Magazine to pull this fabricated story from their website, for their own credibility, and for their reader's benefit.
Mass. Citizens for Life is the Commonwealth's solely dedicated pro-life organization, protecting the lives of our fellow citizens from conception to natural death and advocating for human rights everywhere in between.
DONATE today to keep our life-saving work moving
JOIN the movement in Massachusetts
Mass. Mayors Announce Support of Dangerous "R.O.E" Act
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
3 Action Items & Get Up to Date on the R.O.E. Act (S.1209)
by C.J. Williams
Summer is over, and the Fall has brought back the bill that's as problematic for pro-lifers as for those who are pro-choice. This is not the time to give in to apathy or distraction. S.1209 (the "R.O.E." Act) has not been dismissed by the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. The members of the committee are still taking testimony, still counting the numbers of calls they receive, and still undecided on what to do with this bill, whose provisions would radically reduce our medical standards of care for women, endanger our 12 and 13 year old girls, and slash legal protection for infants born during botched abortions.
Neither pro-life nor pro-choice, S,1209 deserves a resounding no from voters, and our legislators.
But those legislators need to hear your voice, because the abortion business lobby is pressuring them fiercely.
Here's your brief update, and 3 action items. Put them on your calendar with a permanent marker.
S.1209 has not been changed, nor has it been approved and sent on to a vote in our legislature.
S.1209's provisions which abolish adult supervision for underage girls entering abortion facilities, and the removal of the requirement that late-term 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions be performed in hospitals continue to cause even our most pro-abortion representatives to waver on this bill.
S.1209 will not be heard again in public, which makes your contacting the committee in-person, via mail, email, and phone essential to educating them on the bill's dangers, and driving home the message you sent when you showed up in the hundreds at the June hearing.
So TAKE 3 THIS WEEK: Completing this list will make a concrete difference in whether Massachusetts promotes abortion even over women's safety, and legalizes the passive killing of infants.
- If you've already submitted testimony, follow up by contacting Chair Claire Cronin and Vice-Chair Michael Day of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary.
- If you have not submitted testimony, submit your statement today.
- Commit to calling each member of the committee one day this week and/or next during our Mobile Callbank (September 25 through October 9).
BONUS: Visit the the offices of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary this week or next.
For easy reference:
Chair Rep. Claire Cronin
Don't walk, run. There is nothing more critical to shelving this deadly bill than your non-stop vocal opposition.
Share the opportunity to reach our legislators with your friends, family, and neighbors, pro-life or pro-choice!
RESOURCES FOR EFFECTIVE ACTION BELOW:
ROE ACT FACT SHEET WITH CITATION OF CURRENT LAW AND CHANGES
Opposition to "R.O.E. Act" Grounded in Science & Common Sense
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.
Planned Parenthood Ditches Title X Funds in Favor of Abortion
According to their own estimates, Planned Parenthood performs over 330,000 abortion procedures per year. Apparently, that act of violence is their non-negotiable, because they've just voluntarily withdrawn from the program granting them funds through Title X. The organization receives approximately $60 million a year through Title X (which is less than 15% of the overall public funds given to the abortion giant); but in refusing Title X, Planned Parenthood is brazenly stating that abortion matters more than women's healthcare.
Most of other government funding comes through Medicaid, which does cover human abortions.
Despite what leadership in Planned Parenthood has stated, no part of the current federal administration is forcing PP to forgo Title X funds. The rule does not target any particular organization; the rule is a blanket policy that guarantees Title X monies (federal funds) follow rules instated already by the HHS which bar abortion funding. The recent decision follows the ruling that now separates abortion from actual healthcare, and prohibits any organization providing healthcare from receiving federal funding if they also provide abortion. As of the writing of this article, courts support the decision, despite lawsuits from PP.
Unbiased observers have made a good point quietly between the shouts on both sides of this news story: Does PP have a deeper commitment to making a profit off killing the preborn, or to women's health? Is it "Care. No Matter What." or "Abort. No Matter What."?
Read more
Doctor prescribed suicide gives doctors the right to kill
Doctor Prescribed Suicide does not give patients the right to die; it gives doctors the right to kill
By Dr. Mark Rollo, Board of Directors, MCFL
Giving doctors the right to kill is dangerous.
Take Kate Cheney for instance. She was an eighty five year old Oregonian with terminal cancer. Her daughter, Erika, brought Kate to her physician to ask about assisted suicide. However, Kate had mild dementia and her physician refused to prescribe suicide pills because he felt she lacked the capacity to understand the process.
Erika then engaged in "doctor shopping." She took her mother to see a psychiatrist who rejected the request for assisted suicide on the same grounds as the former doctor, saying that Kate lacked the ability to weigh options about assisted suicide. The psychiatrist noted that Erika seemed coercive.
Undeterred, Erika continued to shop and took her mother to an “ethicist” at the HMO who determined that Kate was cognitively able to request suicide pills. Thus, poison was prescribed despite the obvious conflict of interest. You see, Kate would no longer be an expense for the HMO if she were dead. After initial reluctance, Kate consumed the suicide cocktail. She had just spent a week in a nursing home, alone.
Kate is one of many people in Oregon who have been steered toward suicide. This has been documented in the New England Journal of Medicine where patients doctor-shopped for suicide until they got what they wanted . . . . or what their family wanted for them.
It is estimated that about 10% of the elderly in Massachusetts are subject to abuse. Doctor prescribed suicide is the perfect recipe for carrying out that abuse while simultaneously saving money for the health insurance carrier and providing the lure of a quick inheritance to family members.
All patients have the right to refuse care and take advantage of palliative care or hospice. Doctor prescribed suicide is different. This act corrupts medicine by making the doctor, who should be committed to healing, complicit in killing.
Doctor prescribed suicide is dangerous indeed.
Who would be the first Kate Cheney of Massachusetts to die at the hands of a “healer?”
Bills that are before the Massachusetts joint committee on public health, S.1208 and H. 1926; “An act relative to end of life options,” would fuel elder abuse in Massachusetts and must be defeated.
Mark J Rollo, MD
Seeking Peace, Protecting Life: Weekly Thoughts from MCFL's President
Our president reflects on the attitude and actions we to need to create a culture based in relationship, valuing the humanity of the other, no matter the cost. Foundational to ending violence is a proactive personal commitment to generosity and peace.
by Myrna Maloney Flynn, MCFL President
How is it they live in such harmony, the billions of stars, when most men can barely go a minute without declaring war in their minds? ― Thomas Aquinas
I spent the summer before my senior year of high school as an exchange student in Japan. When I arrived, my host family gave me a choice between two weekend destinations that we could visit at the end of my stay: the beach or Hiroshima.
Now, if you’ve spent each of your 17 years in Minnesota, with its countless, albeit beautiful, lakes, hanging out on the exotic sands of Okinawa is a no brainer. After all, I reasoned, I was on vacation; I preferred the thought of lounging comfortably. Plus, the prospect of being an American in Hiroshima wasuncomfortable.
Yet as my return trip to the U.S. approached, I changed my mind. I’d find comfort back home soon enough, I thought. So the week before I left, we embarked on a road trip to Hiroshima: my non English-speaking host parents, their teenage daughter, and me.
Read more