Jack Rowe, Chair, Massachusetts Citizens for Life Political Action Committee tells us:
"People are terribly upset about health care and asking what to do.
Here is the very exciting part. We in Massachusetts can actually save the whole country from this awful health care.
Our PAC has been supporting Scott Brown because he will be a pro-life vote in the Senate. Scott Brown will also vote against the health care bill.
After the compromise bill comes out of conference, it must be approved again by each house. Brown will vote against the bill. That means there will not be 60 votes in the Senate! That means the bill will be defeated!
Can we do it? We certainly can! Turn-out will be very small. If each of you votes for Scott Brown and gets one other person to vote that should win the election. Also, be sure to arrange for your elderly or house-bound friends to vote. Call your town hall on Monday!
We must be very sure so we are doing a huge pro-life literature "drop" the weekend of January 16 and 17 - right before the election. We need your help! Please contact Janet at Mass Citizens to volunteer: jcallahan@masscitizensforlife.org or 617-242-4199 X 230.
We are the only state that can stop this health care! You and I are the voters who can do it. Contact Janet today!
I pray Scott Brown wins!
ReplyDeleteScott is NOT pro-life...
ReplyDeleteBrown clearly states on his website that abortion is a choice up to a woman. His position is therefore no different than Ted Kennedy's.
ReplyDeleteIs rown is pro-choice, then how can MCFL be so openly supporting him? Are you really willing to trade your advocacy for the unborn for this candidate?
ReplyDeleteScott Brown's respect for life is light years ahead of Ted Kennedy. Brown's respect for life is light years ahead of his Democratic opponent. Scott Brown's view:
ReplyDelete"I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion." Read more here.
And this is what Scott's Democratic opponent has to say about abortion on her website:
"...will continue to be a steadfast champion of Roe v. Wade and its embodiment of fundamental liberty and privacy interests."
Here's what Red Mass Group has to say about Brown's opponent:
Martha Coakley was for partial birth abortion before she was against it...Martha Coakley denied that she is a supporter of Partial Birth Abortion. The facts could be no different though.
Read about Coakley's support of partial birth abortion here.
Would somebody at MCFL please answer this question:
ReplyDeleteIs MCFL aware that Brown is a supporter of Roe v. Wade?
If they are and they've been telling us Brown is pro-life, this a terrible violation of our trust.
I believe Scott Brown is Pro Life except in the case of rape. He is a good man and we need him to win this January 19th!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, Scott Brown is in favor of abortion "rights". From the Globe:
ReplyDeleteOn abortion rights, Brown is basically in favor but with nuance. “Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and I don’t plan on overturning it, but I’ve always felt that, you know, I’m against partial-birth abortions and believe in parental consent, a strong parental notification law,’’ Brown said, adding that he would not apply an abortion rights litmus test in Supreme Court confirmations
From Brown's website:
ReplyDeletebortion
While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.
Brown also supports national healthcare reform but currently opposes elements that siphon money from Massachusetts. In 2006, he supported Massachusetts healthcare reform that included state funding of abortions.
ReplyDeletefrom the globe:
Brown supported Massachusetts health care overhaul in 2006 and favors elements advanced in the congressional debate about a national overhaul. But he said he would oppose the bills now moving through Congress because they would help other states at the expense of Massachusetts.
Is Scott Brown for or against legal abortion?? Do Prolifers have a real choice in the Jan. 19 election? Will somebody please tell us the truth about this? What about the other candidate-where does he stand??
ReplyDeleteDoug:
ReplyDeleteYou're not going to get the truth from MCFL and you haven't for many years.
But - lucky for you, the cat is out of the bag now. Brown has officially said he supports Roe v. wade, that abortion means little to nothing as far as he is concerned:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/needham/news/x1689190524/Brown-I-dont-owe-anybody-anything
While abortion coverage proved a sticking point lawmakers developing federal health care reform, Brown said the positions he and Coakley take on abortion aren't pivotal to the Massachusetts Senate race. Both support Roe vs. Wade, but Brown opposes late-term abortions and lowering the age of consent to have one.
"Abortion really isn't a large part of this race. It's not something that is important at this point, because the major issues are dealing with taxation, deficit spending and where our national security interests are in terms of keeping our country safe," said Brown.
Brown also noted that whether a candidate for a federal judgeship was pro-life or pro-choice holds "very little importance to me" and would have voted to appoint Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. He would not want a judge "legislating from the bench."
For those of you who have been standing in front of abortion clinics saving lives, I'd be careful not to cross the buffer zones when you pass out Vote for Brown leaflets:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/04/abortion_stances_of_brown_coakley_not_so_easily_defined/?page=2
Not all of Brown’s votes are easy to classify, however. In 2007, he cast a vote to create a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics to better distance protestors from patients.
What about the other candidate-where does he stand??
ReplyDeletep.s.
There was a pro-life candidate running opposite Brown in the Republican primary. Jack Robinson.
You know how MCFL is now saying there will be very little turnout and the pro-life vote can win it? Well, back in the primary days, they weren't willing to help Robinson win with the same votes they're now rounding up for Brown.
Though Robinson answered he supported life from the moment of conception to natural death, Anne Fox sabotaged his campaign by saying - get this - Robinson was not pro-life because he wasn't for a constitutional amendment!
She ended the email by saying she would "keep you up to date".
How's she doing?
When will it get to the point where the pro-life community realizes we need new leadership?
# Rep. Brown indicated he supports the following principles concerning abortion:Abortions should always be legally available.
ReplyDelete# Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.
# Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Scott_Brown_Abortion.htm
I repeat:
ReplyDelete# Rep. Brown indicated he supports the following principles concerning abortion:
Abortions should always be legally available.
And his vote FOR the 35 ft buffer zone is very telling.
ReplyDeleteHis position is to control women and allow women to only have abortion if its rape or if her life is in danger.
ReplyDeleteHe obviously thinks it should only be legally available to women of his choice.
I attended Chrch this morning and was appaled that your organization took the liberty to put flyers on Cars in the Parking lots. At one church in the archdiocese the priest appologized for the parties responsible did not seek permission to do this.
ReplyDeleteChurch & State should be separate & should not get involved in telling people who to vote for
Disgusted Voter
Did you seek permission to put leaflets in Church Parking L0ts?
ReplyDeleteI dont know if leaflets were given explicit permission, but pro-life people don't need to be apologetic or cater to every person who is so-called "appalled" at getting an extra brochure on their car.
ReplyDeleteWe can't persuade every voter, and we can't win every heart. We're here to give people information they need in order to make an informed political and election decision in these trying times, I hope our flyer was useful regardless of how or where you found it, and whose 'permission' was or wasn't given.
Frankly, it's just silly and childish that a priest would apologize for information being given to their flock. What a pastoral disgrace.
I really don't see how Mass. Citizens for Life could endorse a candidate who is explicitly pro-choice on his website. Yes, he is against legalizing some (partial birth) abortions, but this is a tiny sliver of abortions over all. Marketing him as a pro-life candidate is unbelievably dishonest, and it plays into the idea that the pro-life movement just provides votes for Republican politicians without ever coming closer to criminalizing abortion. Here is a Republican who doesn't even pretend to be pro-life, and you still endorse him.
ReplyDeleteHere is the entry for abortion listed on brownforussenate.com : (as of today-1-20-10)
ReplyDeleteAbortion
While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.
Sounds like the exact same stance as Rudy Giuliani. Does MCFL consider Giuliani "pro-life" now?
it basically comes down to the lesser of two evils, which one will do the least damage
ReplyDelete