Thursday, November 29, 2012

Pro-life vote in 2012 elections - finally an explanation

David O'Steen, Executive Director of the National Right to Life Committee, is the guru of statistics and analysis.  We all felt that things got out of kilter on election day but haven't know why.  This analysis may not be comforting but it is highly informative and answers the serious questions we have all had.  Please check it over.  Anne

Learning from the 2012 Elections
By David N. O'Steen, Ph.D., Executive Director,
National Right to Life
A determined, one-sided media together with a sequence of most
unfortunate statements by candidates created a  "perfect storm" that
played into and greatly augmented the pro-abortion narrative in this
election.  This effectively neutralized the usual pro-life advantage.
The pro-life movement and pro-life candidates cannot ever let this
happen again.  We must see that the  issue before the public is how
and why abortion is actually used in this country, and, of course, the
baby who dies.  If this is done, then with a majority opposed to
abortion on demand  pro-life political victories will once again be
the norm.
Much has been written about the effect of abortion on the 2012 presidential race and the apparent sudden shift in polls from the pro-life plurality (or majority, which we have seen in recent years) to a plurality or bare majority self identifying as pro-choice. 
What has not been reported is that 1) of those who voted on the basis of abortion, the pro-life vote for pro-life candidates essentially equaled the pro-abortion vote for pro-abortion candidates; and 2) basic attitudes on abortion itself have not changed. A plurality, or even majority, of the public continues to oppose the vast majority of abortions that are actually performed.
While much has also been written about the "women's vote," race and ethnicity was a much greater determinant of how people voted than gender. 
The CNN exit poll found that Mitt Romney won 59% of the white vote while Obama won 93% of the black vote and 73% of the Hispanic vote.  Significantly, Romney won 56% of white women and 51% of young white voters, 18-29.
Church attendance was also a predictor of how one voted.  Fifty nine percent of those who attend church at least once a week voted for Romney while 62% of those who never attend church voted for Obama.
Pew Research reported that Obama won the overall Catholic vote 50% to 48%, but Romney won white Catholics 59% to 40%.  This was an increase of 7% for the Republican candidate over 2008 when John McCain won 52% of white Catholics. This increase may be due to the Obama Administration's mandate that some Catholic and other religious institutions provide insurance coverage for items they find morally objectionable, as well as the very visible pro-abortion campaign for Obama.
On the abortion issue both sides were very active. However the pro-life side was vastly outspent and the pro-abortion side, with substantial help from most of the media, was very successful in defining the abortion issue in terms most disadvantageous to pro-life candidates. They were also aided by unfortunate and politically disastrous comments by some candidates who oppose abortion.
A post-election poll conducted by the Polling Company for National Right to Life found that 25% said that abortion affected their vote and that they voted for candidates who oppose abortion while 24% said abortion affected their vote and they voted for candidates who favored abortion. So pro-life PACs, including the National Right to Life PAC and the National Right to Life Victory Fund, did deliver the pro-life vote. 
In fact 27% recalled hearing or seeing something or receiving something in the mail from National Right to Life.  This represented the largest such recall ever.  And National Right to Life made one of the largest pro-life efforts ever. The NRL PAC mailed almost ten million pieces of mail to identified pro-lifers and the NRL Victory Fund and the NRL PAC collectively ran 41,513 radio spots, with 5,319 of them in Spanish on Spanish language stations.  An additional 14,760 educational spots on the issue were run by NRL.
What changed was that the pro-abortion side greatly increased their vote.  In 2010 22% said abortion affected their vote and voted pro-life while only 8% said abortion affected their vote and voted pro-abortion.  In 2008 the numbers were essentially the same: 25% said their vote was affected by abortion and voted pro-life while only 9% said abortion affected their vote  and voted pro-abortion.
So this year while there was a pro-life vote that was essentially equal to the pro-abortion vote, the pro-life advantage which in the past has consistently been delivered to pro-life candidates was nullified and no net advantage accrued to either side. 
The Polling Company poll found the same result among the 4% who said abortion was the most important issue affecting their vote.  These voters divided evenly between Romney and Obama.
Losing the net gain pro-life candidates have had in the past on this issue obviously hurt Romney, even if there was no net pro-abortion advantage for Obama.  How did the pro-abortion side accomplish this?  By being able to redefine in the public arena what pro-life and pro-choice mean and by being able to have their message amplified by vastly greater resources and a media eager to carry their message.
Early on, the Obama campaign and their allies at Planned Parenthood, EMILY's List, and NARAL sought to define the abortion issue as a "war on women" and link it to contraception and family planning.  This effort was assisted by the media furor that surrounded the campaign to defund Planned Parenthood in Congress.
Whether or not the "war on women" theme alone would have produced the results desired by Obama and Planned Parenthood became a moot question when Todd Aiken, the Missouri Republican Senate candidate, made his comments on rape and abortion.  From that point on for the media the abortion issue was ONLY about rape. 
Pro-life candidates were microscopically examined on the question of rape and abortion.  Mitt Romney's pro-life position which contained an exception for rape was at times misrepresented and Paul Ryan's position contained no rape exception. 
The media coverage of the Republican convention was greatly dominated by the media's response to Todd Aiken's comments and the Republican Party platform was sometimes misrepresented as calling for a ban on all abortions with no exception for rape.  In fact the platform is silent on the question of exceptions and states general principles in favor of life, while calling for the reversal of Roe.  Such reversal would allow the state and federal legislative branches to legislate on abortion within their respective jurisdictions.
Obama and other pro-abortion candidates had the luxury of having their position subjected to essentially no media scrutiny at all. Obama was not asked to explain his opposition to the bill to prohibit abortion for sex selection, or his position on late abortion after 20 weeks when the baby can feel pain, or his support for public funding of abortion or even his well documented opposition to protecting babies born alive during an abortion.  All of which are positions at odds with the views of the vast majority of voters.
Why does this matter?  Because an overwhelming majority believes abortion should be allowed for rape and if that is the issue that defines what it means to be pro-choice or pro-life, then a majority will side with pro-choice label.
The Polling Company poll found that only 21% would allow abortion at most for life of mother cases.  Another poll released October 24 by Grey Matter Research found that only 18% would prohibit all abortions and 71% supported allowing abortion in cases of rape.
Such figures are not new.  Support for allowing abortion in cases of rape has been overwhelming throughout the years of the abortion debate.
The success of the pro-abortion side in temporarily redefining what it means to be pro-life or pro-choice has been reflected in numerous recent polls. 
While a May 2012 Gallup poll found that 50% identified themselves as pro-life and only 41% identified themselves as pro-choice, the Polling Company post election poll found 51% now identifying as pro-choice and 43% as pro-life.  The Resurgent America post election poll found 49% identifying as pro-choice and 43% as pro-life.
Does this mean that there has been a fundamental shift in how Americans view abortion?  No!  It means that at the critical time of the election the pro-abortion side and their media allies succeeded in focusing the abortion issue on the single most difficult aspect of it for the pro-life side with enough voters to wipe out the usual pro-life advantage.
The Polling Company found that: 
9% would prohibit all abortions
12% would allow abortion only to save the life of the mother
28% would allow abortion only for life of mother, rape and incest
16% would allow abortion for any reason but only up to 3 months
12% would allow abortion for any reason but only up to 6 months
13% would allow abortion for any reason at any time
11% don't know or refused.
Grouping the first three categories as pro-life and the next three as pro-choice you get 49% pro-life and 41% pro-choice with only 25% actually agreeing with what is essentially the current legal status of abortion.  This is in the same poll in which respondents self identified as 51% pro-choice and 43% pro-life. 
Significantly, 14% of those who identified themselves as pro-choice said they would allow abortion only in cases of the life of the mother, rape, or incest.  At the same time a full 45% of those who identified themselves as pro-life said they would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest.
Clearly the pro-life movement needs this category of people who oppose over 90% of all abortions to be identifying and voting for pro-life candidates and not for candidates with the unlimited abortion position held by Obama and his allies.
Similarly, while Grey Matter Research found that 71% would allow abortion for rape, they also found that only 40% would allow abortion because "the mother just doesn't want to have the child," the true pro-choice position, or because "raising the child would be a financial hardship."  Only 33% would allow abortion because "the mother wants a child of a different gender."
A determined, one-sided media together with a sequence of most
unfortunate statements by candidates created a  "perfect storm" that
played into and greatly augmented the pro-abortion narrative in this
election.  This effectively neutralized the usual pro-life advantage.
The pro-life movement and pro-life candidates cannot ever let this
happen again.  We must see that the  issue before the public is how
and why abortion is actually used in this country, and, of course, the
baby who dies.  If this is done, then with a majority opposed to
abortion on demand  pro-life political victories will once again be
the norm.
While the outcome of 2012 is bitterly disappointing, we can learn from
it and emerge stronger, more focused and more effective.  Fortunately
the actual political balance of power remains much the same and there
are many opportunities for educative and life saving legislation at
the state level, and the U.S. House remains in pro-life hands. 
Most important, recent reports indicate  that the number of abortions
continues to drop and lives are being saved.  That is what this
struggle is really about, why we in the pro-life movement do what we
do and why we will keep doing it--only better.

Urgent prayer request for Kati and her unborn baby

We just received this request from Bill Cotter of Operation Rescue.  I knew you would want to be involved. Bless you, Anne

Kati is 25 yrs old, and 17 weeks pregnant.  She was recently diagnosed with an aggressive form of lymphoma that the doctors say will kill the baby--and her if she refuses treatment because of the baby.  

Kati was admitted to the hospital on Sunday night and is awaiting the results of a biopsy (today or tomorrow) taken on tissue from lymph nodes in her neck.  They also found a large mass above her heart (3" by 7"!!).  She has been very, very short of breath for about 3 weeks (she had to take breaks opening her gifts at her bridal shower on Sunday).  She's not been well for quite a while, and had been doctoring for a few weeks.  She is on oxygen and can only breathe, if that's what you call it, if she sits straight up.  

She has already said that if it is cancer, which seems likely, that she will not have treatment because of the baby.  The doctors are basically telling her that without her, there is no baby.  If the lymph nodes in her neck keep getting bigger, and the mass near her heart keeps growing, she won't be around long.  She will die of suffocation.

I am asking for MAJOR prayers for her.  Please pray for a complete cure. 



Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Pro-life Christmas presents

Today, in the parking lot of the local funeral home, the men waiting to help at the funeral stopped me to tell me how much they admire my Choose Life license plate.
What a nice gift a plate would make for a loved one who is pro-life - and what a constructive present!  Please check

We just had a note and check from Jean Armano, Chair of the Greater Lawrence MCFL Chapter with a nice surprise!  

Jean said, "We just had a fundraiser in which a few of us in our chapter made decorative scarves and sold them at local Craft Fairs.  We have some scarves left and are selling them for $15ea. Anyone who wants one can contact me at  <> or call Janet at the MCFL office at 617-242-4199 X230.  All proceeds will go to MCFL."

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Write while you still have the right!

After January 8, 2013, you and I will have no one representing us in DC - no one we can contact.  A very important vote is coming up in the Senate this week.  Thank goodness Sen. Brown is still representing us.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) treaty has been in the Senate since May.  Harry Reid has announced a vote this week.

The treaty could force America to sanction sterilization or abortion for disabled people–at taxpayer expense.

Sen. Marco Rubi's amendment, which would have stopped the treaty from forcing abortion policy on countries that sign, was thwarted by Sen. John Kerry.

Please call (you could write but calling is better)Sen. Brown immediately at 202-224-4543. Ask him to vote against the CRPD treaty.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Please join us in giving thanks

We are all so thankful for the defeat of Question 2 - it is still hard to believe.  We are thankful for all of you who worked and voted.

As we are in the 40th year of the fight for life, we are planning to honor those who paved the way with their hard work and inspiration.

At the Assembly for Life on January 27, 2013, we are going to do what we did at the 25th Assembly.  As the people enter, a young group of Handbell Ringers from St Brendan's Parish in Bellingham will read the names of deceased pro-life activists.  After each name, they will toll the bell. 

So many people have worked so hard to get us to where we are.  As we prepare to recommit and fight harder, it is appropriate to honor them.

In 1998 collecting the names of deceased activists was quite a chore.  This time, John Triolo has set up a page on the MCFL website and it should be a snap.

Please think of people you think we should honor and tell us at

The Board of Directors and the Staff of MCFL join me in wishing you and your family a very Happy Thanksgiving!

PS.  We are delighted to announce that Abby Johnson will be the featured speaker at the Assembly!

Friday, November 16, 2012

Something old, something new, something borrowed...

Let's get to something blue first.  In spite of our magnificent win on Question 2, holding our own in the U S House and the Massachusetts House, and some fine wins in gubernatorial races and state legislatures around the country, we are certainly feeling blue and apprehensive.

Something new.  The MCFL Mission Statement speaks of protecting life from conception until natural death.  Question 2 was a perfect example of the fact that pro-life is broader than "anti-abortion".  When we rank candidates and legislators we look at the full spectrum of life issues.  NARAL and Planned Parenthood look only at abortion and it's accoutrements.  That means there are legislators who vote for abortion but against cloning, against embryonic stem cell research, for aid to pregnant women, or whatever.  We classify those people as "mixed" while NARAL and PP have called them "pro-choice".  A couple of email writers have tried to discredit us because we did not agree with NARAL and PP.  Well, here is another case where we will not agree with them.  There are a number of legislators who are "pro-choice" but who opposed Question 2.  Since doctor prescribed suicide is clearly within our pro-life realm, we have classified them as "mixed" with a footnote.

Something borrowed.  Rai Rojas is the Director of Hispanic Outreach at National Right to Life.  He posted this right after the election.  I am afraid we all know people to whom it applies - doubly.

Something old, so old.  "Social issues are losing issues.".  Gary Bauer has some good things to say about that:

By: Gary Bauer 

Human Events Online,
11/12/2012 06:00 AM 

Republicans' post-election loss ritual of scapegoating and finger pointing has begun, and, as is almost always the case, conservatism, and in particular values issues, is getting the bulk of the blame.


Republican elites will soon join liberal commentators in declaring that the party must moderate on social issues or risk consigning itself to permanent minority status. But while the GOP would benefit from a period of reflection and self-examination, and while the party does need to adjust how it communicates with voters on social issues, its core values cannot change.

It would be difficult to argue that November 6th was a good day for those of us who support traditional marriage. The voters of four states voted for same-sex marriage. But that doesn't mean the GOP should abandon its support of normal marriage.


In a national exit poll of 800 voters conducted on my behalf by the polling company, inc./WomanTrend, 8 percent of respondents said that the definition of marriage was their top issue, while another 20 percent called it one of their three top issues.

Interestingly, 44 percent of voters said they would be less likely to support a candidate who supports same-sex marriage (including 32 percent who said they would be much less likely), while 40 percent said they'd be more likely (including 21 percent who said they would be much more likely).


Other exit polls showed voters essentially tied on the question of whether same-sex marriage should be legal. That corresponds with most opinion polls. And remember, 38 states have voted to ban same-sex marriage, most via constitutional amendment, most recently in North Carolina in 2012. The truth is, America is still divided almost evenly on this question.

Then there's abortion. That the issue motivates voters continues to baffle professional pundits. In our poll, when asked how important abortion was to their vote, 13 percent of respondents said it was their top issue, while another 24 percent listed it as one of their top three issues.

The media consensus seems to be that the election was a vindication of the left's attacks on Republicans' so-called "war on women." But the election wasn't a repudiation of the pro-life position, but rather a repudiation of conservatives who talk about abortion ineptly.


The view that all human life is sacred wasn't what made headlines during the campaign. It was stupid comments about "legitimate rape" and offensive references to a young abortion activist as a "slut" and a "prostitute."


The relevant issues-forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions; Obamacare's coercion of religious institutions into paying for abortion drugs-could have been political winners for Romney and other Republicans, if they hadn't allowed the Democrats to frame any attempt to limit abortion as part of a broader "war on women." But Romney chose to let the attacks go unanswered.

In a bit of good news for pro-lifers, a referendum to legalize assisted suicide lost in Massachusetts, and an abortion parental notification law passed overwhelmingly in Montana.

Even on the broader question of values, the conservative position prevailed. A clear majority, 58 percent, of exit poll voters said that the "decline of American morality and values" was a challenge for future generations. In an ABC exit poll, Romney beat Obama by 13 points among voters who prioritized a candidate who "shares my values."


The upshot is that values issues still matter, and that they are a net positive for conservative candidates who can talk about them with precision and compassion.


Historically, Republican candidates win when they embrace conservative positions on social issues. And it could help them with the group of voters everyone believes the GOP needs to attract: Hispanics.


Hispanics make up growing share of the electorate (10 percent this year), and they vote overwhelming and increasingly for Democrats. But they are also more religious and more socially conservative than most Democrats. They should be a natural fit for the Republican Party.


An under-examined reason why Romney and other Republican candidates lost had to do with the three million white evangelical voters who cast a ballot in 2008 but didn't vote this year. In an election decided by fewer than three million votes, they would have been pivotal. And I think it's safe to assume they didn't stay home because of Mitt Romney wasn't liberal enough on social issues.


Looking ahead, the Republican Party's strengths are its conservative House and its roster of up and coming conservative party leaders. Rep. Paul Ryan, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Scott Walker and Gov. Bob McDonnell, to name a few, are all across-the-board conservatives.


America remains a sharply divided nation. Obama received only 50 percent of the vote. Republicans retained control of the House and now control 30 governorships, the most since 2000. The Republican Party doesn't need candidates who will ignore values issues; they need candidates who can present their positions on those issues to voters in a reasonable, compassionate and straightforward way.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

You are Invited to a Debate on Roe at Harvard!

Debate at Harvard on the constitutionality of Roe v Wade
Wednesday, November 14, 8:00 pm
Harvard Hall, 1350 Mass. Avenue

Sponsored by Harvard Right to Life and Law Students for Life
Featuring Prof. Teresa Collett, University of St Thomas School of Law and
Steve Aden, Alliance Defending Freedom (previously the Alliance Defense Fund)

rsvp: Tina Whittington at

Friday, November 9, 2012

Endorsements by MCFL PAC's--Results

The PAC's have reported their results.

The Federal PAC did not win any of their races.  As a matter of fact, the Massachusetts delegation is back to 0% support for life.

lists the winners (
36 Democrats and 24 Republicans) who received PAC endorsement or recommendation. Please note the comments following the list.

State Senate

Michael Knapik (R), Second Hampden & Hampshire
Richard Ross  (R), Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex
Michael Rush (D), Norfolk and Suffolk
Thomas Kennedy (D), Second Plymouth and Bristol
Robert Hedlund, Jr (R), Plymouth & Norfolk
Jack Hart (D), First Suffolk
Richard Moore (D), Worcester & Norfolk

State House of Representatives

Randy Hunt (R),  Fifth Barnstable

Fred "Jay" Barrows (R), First Bristol

Alan Silvia (D), Seventh Bristol

Keiko Orrall (R), Twelfth Bristol

Elizabeth Poirier (R), Fourteenth Bristol

Bradford R. Hill (R), Fourth Essex

Frank A. Moran (D), Seventeenth Essex

Jim Lyons (R), Eighteenth Essex

Todd M. Smola (R), First Hampden

Brian Michael Ashe (D), Second Hamden

Nicholas A. Boldyga (R), Third Hampden

Donald F. Humason (R), Jr., Fourth Hampden

Thomas M. Petrolati, (D) Seventh Hampden

Sean Curran (D), Ninth Hamden

Angelo J. Puppolo (D), Jr., Twelfth Hampden

Sheila C. Harrington (R), First Middlesex

Paul Donato (D), Fifth Middlesex

Thomas A. Golden (D), Jr., Sixteenth Middlesex

James R. Miceli (D), Ninteenth Middlesex

Marc Lombardo (D), Twenty-second Essex

James J. Dwyer (D), Thirtieth Middlesex

Christopher G. Fallon (D), Thirty-third Middlesex

Paul J. Donato (D), Thirty-fifth Middlesex

Colleen Garry (D), Thirty-sixth Middlesex

Bruce J. Ayers (D), First Norfolk

Walter F. Timilty (D), Seventh Norfolk

John H. Rogers (D), Twelfth Norfolk

Vinny M. deMacedo (R), First Plymouth

Geoff Diehl (R), Seventh Plymouth

Thomas J. Calter, III (D), Twelfth Plymouth

Eugene L. O'Flaherty (D), Second Suffolk

Nick Collins (D), Fourth Suffolk

Russell E. Holmes (D), Sixth Suffolk

Edward F. Coppinger (D), Tenth Suffolk,

Angelo M. Scaccia (D), Fourteenth Suffolk

Kimberly N. Ferguson (R). First Worcester

Peter J. Durant (R), Sixth Worcester

Paul K. Frost (R), Seventh Worcester

Kevin J. Kuros (R), Eighth Worcester

George N. Peterson (R), Jr., Ninth Worcester

Matthew A. Beaton (R), Eleventh Worcester

John P. Fresolo (D), Sixteenth Worcester

John J. Binienda, Sr. (D), Seventeeth Worcester

Ryan Fattman (R), Eighteenth Worcester

The State PAC also recommended the following people who were elected:

Leonard Mirra (R), Second Essex

Joyce Spiliotis (D), Twelfth Essex

Linda Dean Campbell (D), Fifteenth Essex

Joseph Wagner (D), Eighth Hampden

Benjamin Swan, Sr (D), Eleventh Hampden

Thomas Stanley (D), Ninth Middlesex

Kevin Murphy (D), Eleventh Middlesex

Angelo D'Emilia (R),  Eighth Plymouth

Robert DeLeo (D), Ninteenth Sulffolk

Stephen L. DiNatale (D), Third Worcester

Dennis Rosa (D), Fourth Worcester

The Mass Values Independent Expenditure PAC, a Super PAC espousing abortion rights, which raised well over $75,000 from liberal groups, targeted pro-life representatives: George Ross (R), Attleboro, Steven Levy (R), Marlborough, Peter Durant (R) Spencer, and James Lyons Jr. (R), Andover.
. They managed to defeat Ross and Levy.

QUESTION:  Steve Crawford is quoted as the Spokesperson for Mass Values PAC.  There is also a Steve Crawford who is a spokesperson for Dignity 2012.  Does anyone know if this is the same person?

MCFL wishes to thank George Ross, Steven Levy, Richard Bastien , and Paul Adams (currently a Representative who ran for Senate) for their pro-life support while at the State House and encourages them to run again.

Local people say someone also targeted Geoff Diehl, putting big money and effort against him in the final weeks of the campaign.  Geoff  already had an excellent campaign in place and went on to win.

The pro-death lobby is already bragging that they will be bringing "Death with dignity" to the legislature again, so we'll be working hard on that.  Again, thanks for all your efforts on Tuesday!  Anne


Q2 Victory Party on for tonight

You all worked so hard to defeat Question 2 and keep Doctor-Prescribed Suicide out of Massachusetts.  We did it! Now, let's celebrate.


 "Thank You" Party
Friday, Nov. 9, 2012, 8 p.m.
MCFL Office
Schrafft Center
529 Main Street, Charlestown

please bring a bottle of soft drink,. a bag of chips, a bunch of grapes or whatever

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Laus Deo! Gratias ago vobis propter omne opus arduum vestrum.

 We knew that we had a responsibility to Massachusetts and to the whole country to defeat Question 2.  The count is not yet complete, but, given the precincts which are not reported, it is safe to say we beat off the forces of death and have set the stage to keep them at bay in every state in the nation.  A few weeks ago, the polls accurately showed us down 68% - 19%.  We have won by 51% - 49%.  The same national experts who came in to help us are already gearing up for battles in other states.

Of course, all the experts in the world cannot accomplish anything at the polls without the people on the ground. 
I am so proud of you people on the ground!  The national leaders are so impressed by your work and your dedication.
Yesterday morning, before the polls opened, Stephen arrived in Brockton with signs for those polls.  He was delighted to be met by 20 + people!  The whole No On 2 effort has been like that across the state.  We expected to do well in cities other than Cambridge, Springfield, and parts of Boston.  When the results came in from Springfield, we were amazed at how well No did there.  Peggy Bradford and so many people in the Springfield area worked so hard.  But, then, everyone did!

It will be days before we can even begin to recognize all of you, but a few people come right to mind.  Robin Loughman, RN, the Chair of Massachusetts Against Doctor Prescribed Suicide: No On 2 and Tom Harvey the Treasurer deserve special thanks.  They raised more than $700,000 and Tom handled it all with his usual charming aplomb.

You all did marvelous jobs speaking, writing, telephoning. ..  Ambassador Ray Flynn, John Kelly from Second Thoughts, Dr. Mark Rollo, Patricia Stewart, and Dr Barbara Rockett have been amazing - in the newspapers and out there so many nights and days.  Hope Hallett RN, Mark Carron, Dr John Howland, Henry Luthin, John Rowe, and Joanne Jauron, RN. have been wonderful.  All our speakers seemed to enjoy themselves because the work is so good and they are so effective.  Dwight Duncan and Edward F King were valuable members of the Committee.

Stephen Lombardo, John Triolo, Janet Callahna, and Yvette Ollada are the ideal behind-the-scene crew - keeping things going with calls, writing, designing, printing, raising money - all the things that made it happen.

Many, many of you were very generous to the Committee - I know in some cases it was sacrificial giving.  Please be very proud of yourselves for recognizing the vital importance of this and rising to the occasion!

This has been a brutal campaign - because we started so far back, etc.  But all of you have been wonderful - cooperative, self-starting, diligent.   I think we can all be very proud. 

You know, so far defeating Question 2 seems to be the only bright spot in the country.  I'll be sending out another email about that and what happened in the Massachusetts legislature.

Bless you all!

PS  For those of you wondering, I'll tell you at the "Thank you" party on Friday what the Latin means.

We are getting emails from all over the country about defeat of DPS!

We are getting emails from all over this country and Canada saying, essentially, that Massachusetts' defeat of doctor prescribed suicide is the beacon of light, the bright spot in a dark time.  

Many point out that the win was actually much bigger than it seemed because all the other election results leaned left and we won in spite of that.

We have heard from people praising the work of the Catholic Church on the ballot question.  Now that the election is over, we certainly need to acknowledge the extremely effective effort made by people in the Church.  Janet Benestad organized the efforts in the Boston Archdiocese, including dozens and dozens of meetings and materials.  Allison LeDoux held many meetings in the Worcester Diocese as well as sponsoring an amazing symposium the last weekend in October, Marian Desrosiers organized very effective efforts in the Fall River parishes, and Mark DuPont in Springfield (see below).  Besides educating people they arranged for multitudes of volunteers.

Linda Thayer added DPS to her topics and was out there speaking.

Peggy Bradford writes:
I couldn't have done this on my own down here.  Kudos go to Mark DuPont and the Diocese, especially for working so closely with us. And to Bill Allen and the Springfield Chapter of MCFL. Bill has been my right hand throughout this. Also Dr Cyril Shea who traveled all over Western Mass with and without me educating people on the flaws.  He even damaged his brand new car by backing into my truck on one of those Berkshire trips!

Dick Guerrier,, Executive Secretary, Knight of Columbus writes:
And don't forget the $500,000 the Knights of Columbus donated for defeat of Question #2.


Kevin Jourdain writes:

How about thanking the Catholic Bishops and Catholic Church of MA?

Mary Ann Thomas writes:
The Catholic Church played an enormous role in this as well!
Lots of materials to each Church!

Theresa of the Trinity writes:
What about Cardinal Sean and the other bishops and priests who valiantly spoke up at every opportunity and rallied their forces for the cause of Life?  My hat is off to them in a big way. Yesterday as I stood with my "Vote No On Question 2" sign that I got from our church here in Melrose (with a picture of my Dad attached), I was alone at the major intersection across from City Hall.  The oppression was tangible; the looks, jeers, and comments were painful.  But then at one moment, I could sense the Lord's presence looking down from heaven and assuring me that regardless of what others think, the image of people holding signs for Life, people voting for Life, everything that anyone did for Life is recorded in eternity.  That gave me such joy and comfort.   When I entered City Hall to cast my vote, again the oppression was tangible.  But an amazing thing happened.  Once in the voting booth, as I filled in the little oval to vote for Mitt Romney, the presence of God came into the booth.  As I cast my next vote for Scott Brown, the presence of God was so tangible, all you could do was weep. By the time I got to Question #2, it was pure joy.  Our God, who is Life himself, is not mocked…even if we are.  And He works all things for good for those who love him.  I praise God along with you for all those who worked and prayed for this eternal victory.  God bless you.

Allison LeDoux writes:

The vote against the legalization of physician-assisted suicide is a powerful witness to the dignity of every human person no matter how compromised their lives may seem.  We thank in a very special way all those who helped to get the word out – our priests and deacons who so faithfully preached the truth, our local Catholic media, our Catholic doctors who went above and beyond to help us to defend the integrity of the medical profession and the lives of their patients, and all the faithful who were really the "leaven" by spreading the word, organizing events, volunteering, holding signs on street corners, and so much more.  We also thank all of our brothers and sisters in Christ throughout the country for their prayers and help in getting the word out.  Most especially, we thank Bishop McManus for his courageous leadership, encouragement and support.  The defeat of Question 2 offers a bright light in dark times.  May we continue to be vigilant and prayerful in the days ahead as we work unceasingly to build a Culture of Life  THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR MANY, MANY PRAYERS AND GOOD WORKS!



The win here will have fall-out for a long time, especially in other states where DPS is brought up.
Congratulations to you all!

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

"Thank you" party on Friday!

You are working so hard for this immensely important election! 
The MCFL Board of Directors wants to thank you.

 "Thank You" Party
Friday, Nov. 9, 2012, 8 p.m.
MCFL Office
Schrafft Center
529 Main Street, Charlestown

please bring a bottle of soft drink,. a bag of chips, a bunch of grapes or whatever


People who have voted absentee have told us that the Questions are on the BACK of the ballot. 

Bridget said she almost turned in her ballot without voting on Q2.  Q2 may be on the back of your ballot as well--please check.

We cannot win with blanks!  Please be sure to turn over your ballot!

And please spread the word.



Don't let the polls keep you from voting.

This was just posted on Hot Air.  The same tricks used to cause us to stay home in the Presidential race are being used in other races.  Be sure to vote!  Anne

CNN Polling: 2 + 2 = 11?

posted at 1:59 pm on November 5, 2012 by

CNN has decided to throw in with Marist and Quinnipiac for the 'Which Pollster Can Be The Most Wrong" contest, funnily enough being decided tomorrow night as well. They've got the race tied at 49 all, but with a very interesting sampling number that stands out in their methodology.

Among those likely voters, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 29% described themselves as Independents, and 30% described themselves as Republicans.

You read that right. CNN, the night before the election, has a turnout model in their poll that is 57% higher for the President than it was four years ago. So the economy hasn't improved, wages haven't improved, energy production hasn't improved, the Middle East hasn't improved, Defense hasn't improved, health care costs haven't improved, the debt hasn't improved, the deficit hasn't improved, partisanship hasn't improved, MSNBC's ratings haven't improved, Iran hasn't been deterred from their march towards nuclear weaponry, and we're still heading towards the entitlement fiscal cliff.

But CNN is happy to report that the country is no longer a 50/50 country, and that the spread in turnout Barack Obama got in all his hopey changey glory is now half again wider? And the race is still tied?

By the way, Scott Rasmussen finished October with a report that shows party ID favoring the Republicans by 5.6%. That's almost a 17 point swing from what CNN shows. Just a reminder for today and tomorrow. Do not let what a poll tells you cloud your decision on whether to turn out or not.

Monday, November 5, 2012

Latest poll, Q2 - fabulous news

44% support, 42% oppose.  Undecideds should break for us, which brings us to at least 51%!!!!!!!!
A short tome ago, this was 68% - 20%.
We have come this far because of all your hard work.
Educate two more people and get them to the polls. 

We must keep up the pressure until 8:00 tomorrow night.

Sunday, November 4, 2012

MCFL Federal PAC endorses and recommends

John Rowe, Chair of the Federal PAC announces that the PAC endorses:

Mitt Romney for President
Sean Bielat for Congress in the 4th Congressional District

During the past session of Congress, 2011-2012, 11 of the 12 members of the Massachusetts delegation voted 100% anti-life.
Of them all. only Sen. Scott Brown voted pro-life.  With that in mind, the PAC recommends voting for him and for the opponents of the others.
The PAC recommends:

Scott Brown for U. S. Senate

Richard Tisei for Congress in the 6th Congressional District.  As a state legislator, Tisei voted against tax funding of abortion and for parental consent laws.

Joseph Selvaggi for Congress in the 8th Congressional District

Christopher Sheldon
for Congress in the 9th Congressional District.

Selvaggi and Sheldon both answered the National Right to Life Questionnaire 100% pro-life.

NB from Anne: Some bloggers have been saying that Richard Tisei is endorsed by NARAL and Planned Parenthood.  I need you to know this is false!

When you check their political sites, you will see that NARAL says they know nothing about his position and Planned Parenthood gives him a thumbs down.


Saturday, November 3, 2012

DPS Globe poll. Please vote immediately!

We are doing very well in the real polls.  We need to continue to look good in these newspaper polls.  The Globe poll will be read by many.  It may close early on Sunday, so please vote right away.  Thanks, Anne

Post Election "Thank You" Party! Your Invitation

You are working so hard for this immensely important election! 
The MCFL Board of Directors wants to thank you.

 "Thank You" Party
Friday, Nov. 9, 2012, 8 p.m.
MCFL Office
Schrafft Center
529 Main Street, Charlestown

please bring a bottle of soft drink,. a bag of chips, a bunch of grapes or whatever

Friday, November 2, 2012

Massachusetts media opposes Question 2!

Listed below are Massachusetts newspapers and magazine, which have editorialized against Question 2 - so far.

The Atlantic
The Bay State Banner
The Boston Globe
The Boston Herald
The Cape Cod Times
     The Fitchburg-Leominster Sentinel and Enterprise.
The New Bedford Standard Times
The Salem News
The Springfield Republican
The Worcester Telegram and Gazette