Join the Fall 2020 40 Days for Life Campaign.
The last two years, MCFL has partnered with and sponsored the multiple 40 Days for Life campaigns in Massachusetts. The national movement, whose call to action has brought countless women hope and thousands of peaceful witnesses to use their presence to protect the unborn, returns on this Fall. "COVID, of course, was a concern," said one local leader, "But we can be safe and still show up for the unborn."
Scheduled for Sept. 23 through Nov. 1, the twice annual pro-life campaign strives to protect unborn babies from abortion through peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities, community outreach, prayer and fasting.
This year, while our members gear up to stand out for the children at Boston, Worcester, Beverley, and Western Massachusetts locations, we're also providing training on how to witness during a pandemic. A few key practices our members will be paying special attention to this Fall are:
- Social distancing. [ Keeping at least 6 feet distance between themselves and others ]
- Masks. [ All vigil participants will be wearing masks to reduce exposure to airborne pathogens. ]
- Signs, no literature. [ Instead, members will print local pregnancy help numbers large on their signs. ]
- Digital media. [ Our members have made signs with lists of apps, such What to Expect , or Little One Pregnancy App, both pregnancy tracking applications for iPhone or Android smartphones. The in-app ultrasound images provided by these apps have saved many lives. ]
Since it began in 2007, witnesses with 40 Days for Life have seen over 17,226 babies rescued from abortion and 107 abortion facilities close, with nearly 206 abortion workers quitting during the campaigns as well.
What is crucial to these campaigns is their foundation: 40 Days is community-based and compassion-focused. The grassroots, as Martin Luther King Jr. remarked, is the only foundation for social movement that builds lasting societal hope and change. Some ways members and witness continue to offer support to women and families is by throwing baby showers, holding diaper drives, and by both referring women in-need to safe community support (food banks, housing, etc) or by offering it themselves.
“It’s important to be there because it really can help the women realize that they don’t have to choose abortion, that there are other options that aren’t going to be so detrimental,” said one woman, Jaylyn Smith, who now leads campaigns in Utah.
We could not agree more. Our culture is one that shouts out options! in every arena, from the supermarket to the Planned Parenthood clinic. But when it comes to offering women true equality and support to choose their health and the health of their child, it just has one word: Abortion.
With 40 Days for Life, we continue to demonstrate that health and healthcare include both mother and baby. We make a list of countless options, and just our presence will repeatedly show women like this one that there's hope -- we we're there to support her before, during, and after the birth of that baby.
Go to 40 Days for Life today and search for your town/city to sign up for the Fall vigil as an MCFL member!
Donate to support the MCFL 40 Days For Life team.
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?
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
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.
Despite Massachusetts' Gov. Baker's ban on elective surgical procedures during the state of emergency surrounding the COVID-19's outbreak, Planned Parenthood has again put abortion promotion before women's safety. And not just women's safety -- the abortion industry giant has decided it's more important to abort than maintain safe social distancing during the pandemic.
In the New Boston Post report, MCFL is quoted:
We were disheartened to learn that, upon Governor Baker’s approval, elective abortion will still be permitted in the coming weeks, even while other elective surgeries have been prohibited due to the coronavirus pandemic. Women’s health and safety should be our top priority now, as always. Risking exposure to the highly contagious disease during visits to abortion clinics not only puts our women at risk but their families and those of clinic workers as well. This is yet another indication that the once-popular abortion-rights mantra ‘safe, legal, and rare’ is a complete farce. In the face of a global pandemic, the abortion industry once again demonstrates that protecting women’s health has never been its priority. Instead, the abortion lobby’s singular goal is to increase the bottom line, even at the expense of risking the health and wellbeing of those who enter their clinics and those who work at them during these unprecedented times.
MCFL President, Myrna Maloney Flynn, also spoke with reporters from The Daily Caller, where she offered a similar comment. It is critical to note the following:
We would like to invite you to write the governor in these challenging times, expressing your concern.
His office can receive email and phone calls at the following address:
ATTN: Governor Charlie Baker, Massachusetts State House, Beacon St #280, Boston, MA 02133
Planned Parenthood, in their healthcare capacity, should be doubly aware of the risks during COVID-19. To insist on performing abortions is to insist that a woman's life has less value than that of the male population. That is not the spirit of our Commonwealth, and it is radically opposed to the fundamental fact of equal rights.
Whether pro-life or pro-choice, we have an obligation to speak out and speak up. One voice--yours--could very well save hundreds of preborn lives, along with as many lives of our born fellow citizens.
Will you join us at a Pro-Life Christmas Carol this Saturday?
With just a few days until Christmas, many of us are preparing to celebrate life.
But what you may not know, is that this is one of the biggest business times for the abortion business. New mothers in unexpected or difficult pregnancies ask: Where will I live if I have a child now? What if she comes home from school with the announcement, "Mom, I have to tell you something..."
Your voice outside the Planned Parenthood can give a small new life a welcome he won't receive otherwise. Your voice will give love and hope to a mother who thinks she has no option.
Will you do whatever it takes?
Join us 8am-10am, Saturday, December 21st at 1055 Commonwealth Ave. Boston!
Your gift gives us the means to be there, to offer gifts of baby clothes and supplies to mothers approaching the clinic, and to reach out to the clinic workers.
Spotlight on Local Resources for Women in Massachusetts
Springfield and Worcester Area
Thank you again for forwarding this to a friend, financially supporting our life-saving work, and doing whatever it takes to protect and respect human lives in Massachusetts. At the end of the calendar year, your support is all the more critical as I look ahead to plan for the new year.
Keep an eye out for photo updates and the report on the event after the holidays!
By C.J. Williams, Director of Community Engagement, MCFL
I returned from the Let There Be Life Conference in California with more information than my heart or head could properly organize.
Much like the citizens of Massachusetts, Californians face an abortion-business extremism that is well beyond pro-choice. Laws proposed in the California legislature mirror the "ROE Act" (and newly introduced Bill H.3841, which would force our public universities to include abortion centers offering chemical terminations on their campuses). These bills abandon even the appearance of seeking women’s safety, and push abortion for any reason, at any stage, in any circumstance. These proposals brazenly remove medical standards of care for the abortion-minded mother, putting abortion promotion before her safety.*
California’s pro-abortion university bill inspired the introduction of HB 3841 here. Even my Planned Parenthood-supporting friends have wondered aloud to me why chemical abortions should be forced onto university health centers, when abortion access is so open in both Massachusetts and California--and the proposed laws make abortion more available but less safe.
Just in summary, these pieces of legislation:
--prioritize access over safety*;
--expand and promote abortion businesses but disempower doctors*;
--target viable preborn children; and
--target underage girls and young adults on college campuses*.
If the governor signs the legislation, California will force its public universities to provide chemical abortions on-site to their students. We in Massachusetts don’t yet have these laws on our books. The Committee on the Judiciary has recently informed me they are still taking testimony on the ROE Act (as is the Committee on Public Health for HB 3841, the chemical-abortion bill). The ROE Act, if passed, would remove all adult supervision and protection for a 12- or 13-year old girl seeking an abortion, as well as removing any requirement that grisly, multi-day late-term abortion procedures be performed in a qualified hospital. HB 3841 would require our publicly funded universities to institutionalize abortion centers on their campuses.
Court cases and emergency records in states with laws that remove these basic medical standards and abortion regulations show that countless women per year are maimed or killed by abortionists.*
During the conference, attendees also held a protest at the University of San Francisco. Well-known for its cutting-edge technology programs and medical track, UCSF is less well-known as the premiere late-term abortion training school in the nation. Doctors training there learn to perform abortions by aborting: they dismember human beings in-utero, and the organs of those individuals are then sold for a profit to medical researchers. Neither mother nor child gives consent in this scenario.
I joined other conference-goers outside the university chancellor’s window to expose the heinous human rights abuse.
“How can you have a medical school training late-term abortionists with the specific goal of harvesting human body parts? How many kinds of wrong can you go?” A girl named Ana asked me, as we held signs next to a young man in a mouse costume. (His sign: Don’t experiment on me and don’t experiment on BABIES.)
Loud and clear, even to passers-by, this event showed that we are no longer in a landscape divided at pro-life / pro-choice. Even the pro-choice students who wandered over to ask what we were protesting expressed horror at the flagrant disregard for human dignity.
What was the most valuable takeaway in all of this for Massachusetts?
It gave me a vivid view of what our state will look like for women if the “R.O.E.” Act is passed.
S.1209 (“R.O.E.”) will no not require basic medical standards of safety for the women having the 3 to 4 day late-term abortion procedure. These grisly labor-and-delivery-of-a-dead-child surgeries will be performed outside of hospitals under “R.O.E.”
I encountered a firsthand witness to the fallout of these policies in San Francisco. He is an attorney, whose client is the mother of Keisha, a woman who waited over 17 hours for proper medical care after her late-term abortion left baby parts in her womb. She ultimately died of sepsis -- and the incredible negligence of so-called women’s healthcare providers in outpatient abortion facilities.
This attorney is currently prosecuting the abortion doctors and outpatient abortion facilities in New Mexico for over 17 women’s deaths and countless injuries because of the gross negligence of their laws -- which right now do exactly what “R.O.E.” would do here -- has countless other incidents documented as well.
This event, and these facts are critical to your communication with your legislator, and the Joint Committee on the Judiciary (find their contact information here and submit your testimony to Chair Claire Cronin).
My pro-choice friends and I agree: The "ROE" Act is no ROE v. Wade. Where the Supreme Court decision recognizes a state interest in the life of a viable child, and (after the first trimester) recognizes a state interest in seeing that abortions are given the same attention as other surgeries (at least), the ROE Act would remove the current hedges separating “legal” abortion from an actual back-alley abortion.
So why are legislators and pro-abortion lobbies pushing this in Massachusetts?
An attorney in New Mexico dealing with the human fallout from late-term abortion cases there pulled these key points for us as we scrolled through page upon page of emergency assistance calls and death statements from non-hospital abortion facilities:
-- Outpatient clinics reduce overhead by reducing life-saving medical equipment.
-- Outpatient clinics do not need to have a doctor perform the procedure (or one with hospital privileges).
-- Outpatient clinics do not hold patients for monitoring as hospitals do.
-- Outpatient clinics send women home carrying a dead or dying full-term baby, effectively leaving her at risk for sepsis, hemorrhage, etc., with no medical attention near to hand.
No matter what end of the ideological spectrum we stand on, we can unite to oppose privileging ease of access over safety, risky abortion over healthcare, and profit over people’s lives, dignity, and well-being. Share these facts with the Joint Committees, and your family and friends -- pro-life or pro-choice.
San Francisco has a political climate similar to Massachusetts in some ways. New Mexico has an abortion extremism that could be Massachusetts in a few years.
They both have dead children being sold for their body parts, and women dying too often from reduction in the medical standards of care.
Let’s learn from both: Massachusetts citizens, get out there and lobby the Joint Committee on the Judiciary against the ROE Act. This isn’t about abortion access or removal of access, as ROE Act proponents have tried to say. It is about removal of care, safety, and a pushing for profit from organizations that make money on procedures that hurt women, and kill preborn people.
*SB 24 (CA) would require campus health services at all 34 public campuses throughout the state — 11 under the University of California system and 23 under the California State system -- to make available "abortion by medication techniques," which involves a regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol.
*The ROE Act would remove the requirement that a doctor have life-supporting medical equipment on-hand for both humans involved in an abortion. This bill even eliminates language recognizing that a woman and child are the relevant patients in an abortion.
*New Mexico is a case in point. You can read testimony from expert late-term abortionists from the ongoing court case in Albuquerque, wherein over 25 women are recorded dead from outpatient late-term abortions.
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."?
This past week, the abortuary in Fitchburg run by Planned Parenthood and forty miles outside Boston, closed.
Despite raucous claims of being a key provider of women's healthcare in Massachusetts and beyond, this facility and most others serve to perform abortions. Inconvenient? Not to the women and children who enter Planned Parenthood looking for care, and get a sales pitch for killing their preborn son or daughter. Yet in hearings on S1209/H3320 ("An Act to Remove Obstacles and Expand Access to Abortion In MA"), NARAL and Planned Parenthood representatives repeatedly decried the restrictions and hardships involved for women desperately seeking abortions in the state.
This is why, they argued, we need to legalize abortion up-to-birth for any reason, remove parental consent for minors seeking abortion, and cut the part of our law that ensures women are treated in hospitals by an MD during the grueling sometimes 3-day late-term abortion procedure.
But are adults obstacles?
In a state with perhaps the best healthcare in the nation, and leading healtchare in the world, are hospitals obstacles?
Not obstacles to the safety of our women, or of our girls.
But both are obstacles to Planned Parenthood's profit margin, since abortions form the majority of their services and cash-flow.Read more
by Anne Fox
Today marks 46 years since the infamous Supreme Court abortion decisions (Roe v. Wade) - more than 60,000,000 babies have died, and more than 60,000,000 families have been shattered.
Planned Parenthood celebrated by filing "The Roe Act" in Massachusetts. This act would remove any age limits on abortion and expand the availability of post-viability abortions in Massachusetts.
Under current Massachusetts law, minors need a parent’s permission to get an abortion or she can petition a judge, a process known as judicial bypass.
Under the new law, a 12 year old could take herself into an abortion facility where they would happily perform the abortion.
By Anne Fox, President of Massachusetts Citizens for Life
Planned Parenthood's latest Annual Report has come out just in time for the March for Life. The number of abortions is down slightly; other services, including clients, are down by a various amounts. Yet their revenues have risen to $1.5 billion. How can this be?
According to Randy O'Bannon, National Right to Life’s expert on Planned Parenthood, "This is a clear indication that Planned Parenthood has been able to turn well founded criticism against their reputation and their industry to their own financial advantage. It also illustrates, ironically, that there are non-governmental sources that PPFA can tap into if states chose to prioritize health funding to full service clinics."
We still have a big job here!