It was not a regular day in front of the Boston abortion facility run by Planned Parenthood. For one, it was day 120+ since the COVID pandemic required mass masking, and shut down the busy hustle and bustle on Commonwealth Avenue Hub residents are so accustomed to. But additional to that, something new was going on in front of the abortuary.

Under the glare of sun reflected off the multi-storey layer of glass windows, beside the triangular pop-up signage stating, We care! Abortion care available here! a crowd of young women had gathered.

They weren't ducking into the facility. They weren't in baggy sweats, or darting glances over their shoulders as they dashed for the door.

They held sidewalk chalk buckets, and their eyes above their masks crinkled with smiles.

What does it look like to oppose, change, and replace the abortion business? What does it mean to put women's health over profit? How do you let girls know that  their worth isn't based on a choice that kills their child?

How do you save the women who are trafficked, and the expose the criminals who cover their crime by forcibly killing the child who is evidence of the abuse?

Simple.

Chalk it out.

Abuse can't survive exposure. We need love and respect, not power and abortion. But we also don't need words so much as we need actions -- and that's what these young people proved on Saturday.

You are loved.

A woman who is loved: What can she not do?

A woman who is supported and respected: She does not take the life of her unborn child. 

"This morning we stood as advocates for mother and baby, offering hope and help outside Planned Parenthood," said Abigail Young, MCFL Board member and staff at Students for Life. "We even changed the mind of one passerby who cheered us on thinking we were pro-choice, came back to clarify our position, and returned a third time wanting to learn more! She was surprised to hear that we were not there in judgement and could actually offer tangible resources to women. She continued her run after thanking us for being there and willing to talk with her."

SUPPORT MCFL'S LIFE-SAVING OUTREACH HERE

On July 30th, 2020, a little before noon, C.J. and Maria approached the State House, pulling a suitcase packed with thousands of citizens' signatures opposing the "ROE" Act.

 But even though we had contacted the Joint Committee on the Judiciary offices ahead of time, our team had an unpleasant surprise.

After trying three different angles with the security guards -- and then a fourth ("We have petitions to deliver." "It's time sensitive." "We aren't the general public." "Would you be willing to help us and carry the box upstairs?) C.J. and Maria retreated to the lobby. 

No one was working that day, they were told. Everyone is remote.

But if you really want to get something done -- and when lives, and the future of your state are involved -- you do it. In this case, the lives on the line are those of Massachusetts' women, babies like Hope and like Melissa, and our 13 and 14 year old girls' like Veronica.

Multiple phone calls later, C.J. reached Representative Michael Day's aide.

Thank you, Dan! Not only did Dan take the entire box of petitions, and your signatures opposing the "ROE" Act it contained, he gave us a social-distanced elbow-bump and good luck as well.

The campaign isn't over yet though. Due to the governor's declaration of a state of emergency, the legislature may continue to deliberate on bills past the July 31st date. 

Help us continue to advocate for our women and the unborn babies in Massachusetts by donating here today.

To all of you who have signed the petition, shared on social media, and called the committee offices with us every day, THANK YOU. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MASSACHUSETTS PRO-LIFE CITIZENS DELIVER THOUSANDS OF SIGNATURES OPPOSING “ROE” ACT

Press Contact:

C.J. Williams

857 302 0466

cj@masscitizensforlife.org

July 30, 2020 -- Boston, MA -- Just over a year after rallying more than 1,000 citizens at the State House to oppose the “ROE” Act (S.1209/H.3320) during its 2019 public hearing, Massachusetts Citizens for Life members and staff will deliver thousands of “No to ROE” petitions at noon on Thursday, July 30th.

The bill, heavily supported by abortion rights organizations, including NARAL and the Planned Parenthood Federation of Massachusetts, eliminates significant amounts of text in current abortion law, resulting in legislation that proves too extreme for many citizens to swallow, even those who identify as pro-choice.

If voted into law, the “ROE” Act would deny medical care to babies who survive failed abortions. Girls as young as 12 would be able to have an abortion without any adult knowing about it. Additionally, “ROE” would remove medical standards of care for women undergoing the grueling multi-day late-term abortion procedure, placing these life-threatening surgeries in unregulated clinics. In New Mexico, where this practice is standard, Albuquerque’s abortion facility, Southwest Medical, currently faces prosecution in the wrongful deaths of 13 women.

“Our supporters continue to call their legislators daily, urging them to reject this flawed attempt at ‘care’ for Massachusetts women. Even if the current legislative session is extended indefinitely, we will continue to speak on behalf of our members to oppose this radical and unsafe bill for as for as long as it takes to defeat it,” said MCFL President Myrna Maloney Flynn.

“This bill has, thankfully, received considerable attention since it was introduced last year. Its dangerous implications have raised alarms among both pro-life and pro-abortion voters across the state,” Flynn continued. “We are honored to deliver thousands of petitions to Beacon Hill today, because we know that each one represents a passionate ‘no’ to this bill from residents of Massachusetts who care deeply about the health and safety of our women, our girls, our infants, and the unborn.”

The petition delivery will be made by members of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, who are acutely sensitive to current circumstances caused by the pandemic.

“We wouldn’t come out under other circumstances,” says C.J. Williams, MCFL’s director of community engagement. “But if we value our fellow citizens enough to lock down the entire state to save the most at risk from COVID, shouldn’t we oppose laws that will take those very lives, the lives of the most vulnerable among us?”

“I’ve called every day for the last month to ask the Joint Committee on the Judiciary to consider the dangerous implications of this bill. I’m definitely delivering petitions,” said David Lehr, a member from Everett.

The signatures were collected online, during events, and through a direct mail campaign. This will be the second delivery. Williams, and three others, delivered nearly 2,000 last fall as well.

###

Massachusetts Citizens for Life, founded in 1973 by women such as Dr. Mildred Jefferson, remains the Bay State’s singly-dedicated human rights organization focused on pro-life activism. 

Photo: AP

At the New York flagship Planned Parenthood facility, you could always count on seeing Sanger. No, not in person -- the abortion giant's founder, an adherent of Hitler's philosophy on race and a gung-ho eugenicist, has her name up in lights on that location. Or at least, she did until this last week when the organization finally decided to publicly disavow the woman who called the disabled "undesirables" and said of large families that "the most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

During this current upsurge of awareness around racial violence, Planned Parenthood simply couldn't brush off its founder's legacy any longer.

One Planned Parenthood representative was quoted in a NY Times article saying they had decided to formally remove Sanger's name because of her “harmful connections to the eugenics movement."

But what the decision did not do, and cannot do under contemporary circumstances, is remove Planned Parenthood's clear and present commitment to continuing Sanger's eugenicist and racist agenda.

Clinics under the abortion organization's umbrella are disproportionately situated in minority neighborhoods. A few years ago, Lila Rose's investigative activists at Live Action caught representatives offering to take donations specifically to target black babies in Ohio.  

The women who are most likely to "choose" abortion are black Americans. 

As recently as 2016, Planned Parentood was pushing a fact sheet calling Sanger 'well-intentioned' in her attempt to push birth control and abortion on immigrant communities.

If abortion is a free choice, and a right, why are women with fewer means and more pressure more likely to abort? Why is Planned Parenthood pushing it -- and why did they wait this long to throw out Sanger? Many fellow citizens here in Massachusuetts will ask us why, when they meet us at sidewalk outreach or during an event like the March for Life -- why don't you support PP? They do so much good work.

When Planned Parenthood jettisons not just the Sanger's name, but her bitter commitment to destroying the vulnerable, targeting minorities, and her sick philosophy on genetic purity, perhaps we as a nation should reconsider. But honestly, can we simply jettison Planned Parenthood at this point, Sanger's name, legacy, and all?

Let's support, not abort. Let's create new systems, and new organizations like Guiding Star and Stanton Healthcare that see women as strong, offer support and resource and information. Because a free choice is one that gives life; a decision coerced almost always diminishes and demeans.

The Supreme Court of the United States has has ruled again to protect the conscience rights of religious orders and pro-life organizations against the abortion lobby.

The Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Sisters. Earlier this year, the Trump administration created exemptions in the ACA (Affordable Care Act) for organizations whose religious identity or other beliefs would not allow them to pay for the deaths of employees' children. 

In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:

"For over 150 years, the Little Sisters have engaged in faithful service and sacrifice, motivated by a religious calling to surrender all for the sake of their brother. But for the past seven years, they -- like many other religious objectors who have participated in the litigation and rulemakings leading up to today’s decision -- have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs."

While this decision seems natural in light of U.S. declared freedoms, it has been hotly contested for almost 8 years. 

Under the Obama Administration in 2012, HHS mandated that all employers be forced to provide abortion-inducing drugs to employee via their insurance plans. The Supreme Court dealt blows to this mandate twice following Obama's mandate, once in 2016 and once in 2017 (Hobby Lobby Stores v. Burwell and Zubik v. Burwell). 

When President Trump took office, his administration redefined rules regarding abortion in the ACA and HHS mandate. These new strictures affirmed the rights of pro-life organizations, and religious orders, to opt out of offering abortion to employees.

The only two justices in dissent were Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomeyer.

While the ACLU -- against its purported mission to secure civil liberties to citizens -- called the decision "shameful", Sister Veit of the Little Sisters of the Poor told media:

"We dedicate our lives to this because we believe in the dignity of every human life at every stage of life from conception until natural death. So, we've devoted our lives -- by religious vows -- to caring for the elderly. And, we literally are by their bedside holding their hand as they pass on to eternal life. So, it's unthinkable for us, on the one way, to be holding the hand of the dying elderly, and on the other hand, to possibly be facilitating the taking of innocent unborn life."

Sister Veit, via Fox News

Today, abortion supporters, led by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, are rallying virtually in an effort to bring about a vote on the "ROE" Act. 

Legislators need to hear that you do not support this radical bill. 

WE NEED YOU TO CALL YOUR LEGISLATOR & THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TODAY

The "ROE" Act would remove protections for newborn babies born alive during an abortion; risk our women's lives by removing hospital care for those undergoing grueling late term abortion; and endanger our young girls by denying them parental or adult support supervision at an abortion clinic.

√√ Use this main State House number (617) 722-2000 and request the offices of the Judiciary Committee

√√ Share this call to action with your friends and family -- forward it to at least 6 friends with a personal invitation to join you in calling the State House today.

√√ Get on social media and share the State House number and this easy to use call script with key dangers included in the "ROE" Act. 

Our whole team will be calling at NOON today during the virtual rally. But please feel free to email CJ with questions or needs anytime today. ( CJ@masscitizensforlife.org)

Send us photos of your pro-life rally via phone! We may be physically distanced, but social media can keep us loud, clear, and connected for life!

Pro-life women making the call this morning

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.

The Center for Medical Progress released a video this week in which Planned Parenthood partners ABR (Advanced Bio Research Inc.), describe harvesting human body parts from babies born with still-beating hearts.

"Sometimes, they just fall out," reports one representative of ABR. When answering, "Do they have a heartbeat, when they just fall out?" she goes on,  "I can see hearts...that are beating...independently."

Under the Fetal Born Alive Protection Act, a living fetus is defined as a "fetus with a beating heart."

The Planned Parenthood partners also re-define viability as a fetus/human being "not able to survive outside the womb" as "dependent on the circumstances..."

Center for Medical Progress project lead David Daleiden urged authorities to take action immediately based on the horrific new evidence.

To review the history of CMP and David Deleiden's ongoing investigations into Planned Parenthood's sale of human baby parts for profit, you can access the full video and summaries of previous findings here; while the ongoing exposure of UCSF's complicity in harvesting living human body parts without consent can be followed here.

MCFL launched a small-scale social media campaign last week with the hashtag #SaveBabyMyles. Referencing the baby in Western Massachusetts whose mother chose life after having a video from Live Action shared with her, the campaign's goal has been to raise awareness gently and to reach women where they are with support, information, and affirmation.

The flip-side of this kind of quiet outreach is that loving one person gives one person power to love another.

That is what we saw in Baby Myles' story, and in his mom, Veronica. 

But the other vitally important aspect of Veronica and Myles' story was the availability of the information.

Visual, scientific, presented clearly and honestly, Live Action's video describes what happens to babies in each trimester during an abortion.

"The video...opened my eyes to the truth," said Veronica,  "I had no idea that was what abortion really looked like. I couldn’t believe that people did that to their babies, and after seeing that I certainly wasn’t going to do that to mine. I cried after seeing that video, realizing if I had not found it that could have been my baby."

But the video, presented by former abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, is neither graphic nor fear-mongering. No one needs to overemphasize what abortion is or does: The procedure that takes the baby's life speaks for itself.

This week, MCFL members have been quietly passing along social media posts, resharing content like the Live Action video with the hashtag #SaveBabyMyles and #abortionhelp.

Already, we have had phone calls. One member emailed in to say: "I didn't think a poster at the bus stop and FaceBook post would make any difference. But I had a girl message me saying she had been searching #abortionhelp desperately but found my post instead. She was in tears but just wanted to know what she could do? she was scared. So I told her MCFL's number and the Boston pregnancy resource center and listened to her for a while and messaged her I'd support her too if she didn't get help from the center. She kept her baby."

Will you join the quiet #SaveBabyMyles campaign with us? Abortion will someday be illegal, but if it's going to be unthinkable, we're going to need to continue loving, changing, and sharing the truth and support. Like Veronica told Live Action, "My son did not take away from my future — he gave me a new one. He is the light of my life."

Support the #SaveBabyMyles Campaign by donating here.

Pledge to join and share here.

29 JUNE 2020 -- Abortion providers need not have hospital admitting privileges that would ensure women’s safety during or after the procedure, according to today’s ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States in the closely-watched June Medical v. Russo case. 

Instead, the Court determined that the Lousiana law at the heart of the case, Act 620 (“The Unsafe Abortion Act”) is unconsitutional. The 5-4 decision was weighted by Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with the liberals of the court. As the first abortion-specific case to be heard by both Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, it was one which observers believed could signify whether the Court could potentially be willing to reconsider Roe V. Wade. 

Although the case drew much national interest, in speaking to how it impacts Massachusetts, MCFL Executive Director, Patricia Stewart, Esq., said,”The Court's decision will have minimal impact in Massachusetts. The Department of Public Health has already removed the requirement for abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges when servicing patients insured by MassHealth, and Massachusetts case law rejects the requirement for abortions to be performed in a hospital, thus, eliminating the need for abortionists to obtain admitting privileges."  

Stewart continued, saying, "In finding the Louisiana law unconstitutional, the Supreme Court guts the abortion safety net, threatening the life and health of women who feel compelled to seek abortion, by denying them the protection of a medical standard of practice that has been shown to avoid lifelong medical complications and save lives in an emergency."

MCFL President Myrna Maloney Flynn said, “Requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges is simply a way to ensure women's safety. Sadly, Chief Justice Roberts and four other justices today maintained that abortion clinics do not have to meet the same standards as other surgical providers. True ‘abortion care’ and ‘women's health’ -- terms often utilized by abortion rights supporters -- should prioritize a woman's best interests.”

Throughout the court session, pro-life adovcates held a strong presence outside, holding signs like that of a woman who came from San Francisco to demonstrate in favor of both women’s safety and a baby’s right to life. “Health regulations do not equal undue burden,” read her poster, referencing the fact that the Lousiana act had required physicians performing abortions to have hospital privileges.

A decision in favor of Louisiana’s Act 620 would simply have been common sense, protecting women’s health from poor standards of care and ensuring a consistent application of safety measures to all surgical procedures in the state.

###

Massachusetts Citizens for Life, founded in 1973 by women such as Dr. Mildred Jefferson, remains the Bay State’s singly-dedicated human rights organization focused on pro-life activism.