DPS Polls--We're gaining ground!

Poll in Boston Globe yesterday:  support for DPS, 47% - 37% Suffolk poll yesterday, 47% - 41% Remember, a few weeks ago it was 68% - 20% Our work and the ads are working.  We are in a great place for a vote no committee. After the polls came out yesterday, the death lobby bought more ad time - they are worried! No On 2 still needs to raise $15,000 by the weekend http://noonquestion2.org/ We need signs at the polls.  Contact Stephen, q2coordinator@gmail.com Please keep up the pressure for only six more days! Thanks very much! Anne

MCFL State PAC announces endorsements and recommendations

MCFL State PAC announces endorsements and recommendations: According to Madeline McComish, Chair of the MCFL State PAC, the PAC has made its endorsements and recommendations for Nov 6, 2012. If you would like more information on how the PAC made its decisions, the data are on the MCFL website, http://massprolife.com/mcfl_main/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Candidates-table-for-web-site-1.pdf Also, please note the list is in alphabetical order by the name of the legislative district. Please share this information with your friends and neighbors. Thanks, Anne House Endorsements: Randy Hunt Incumbent, Fifth Barnstable Fred "Jay" Barrows Incumbent, First Bristol George T. Ross Incumbent, Second Bristol Alan Silvia, Seventh Bristol Keiko Orrall Incumbent, Twelfth Bristol Elizabeth Poirier Incumbent, Fourteenth Bristol Bradford R. Hill Incumbent, Fourth Essex Frank A. Moran, Seventeenth Essex Jim Lyons Incumbent, Eighteenth Essex Todd M. Smola Incumbent, First Hamden Brian Michael Ashe Incumbent, Second Hamden Nicholas Boldyga Incumbent, Third Hampden Donald F. Humason, Jr. Incumbent, Fourth Hamden Linda Vacon, Fifth Hamden Thomas M. Petrolati Incumbent, Seventh Hamden Sean Curran Incumbent, Ninth Hamden Angelo J. Puppolo, Jr. Incumbent, Twelfth Hamden Sheila C. Harrington Incumbent, First Middlesex Steven Levy Incumbent, Fourth Middlesex Marty Lamb, Eighth Middlesex Michael J. Benn, Fourteenth Middlesex Thomas A. Golden, Jr. Incumbent, Sixteenth Middlesex James R. Miceli Incumbent, Ninteenth Middlesex Marc T. Lombardo Incumbent, Twenty-second Middlesex James J. Dwyer Incumbent, Thirtieth Middlesex Christopher G. Fallon Incumbent, Thirty-third Middlesex Paul J. Donato Incumbent, Thirty-fifth Middlesex Colleen M. Garry Incumbent, Thirty-sixth Middlesex Bruce J. Ayers Incumbent, First Norfolk Walter F. Timilty Incumbent, Seventh Norfolk Richard A. Eustis, Tenth Norfolk John H. Rogers Incumbent, Twelfth Norfolk Vinny M. deMacedo Incumbent, First Plymouth Karen Barry, Sixth Plymouth Geoff Diehl Incumbent, Seventh Plymouth Thomas J. Calter, III Incumbent, Twelfth Plymouth Eugene L. O'Flaherty Incumbent, Second Suffolk Nick Collins Incumbent, Fourth Suffolk Russell E. Holmes Incumbent, Sixth Suffolk Edward F. Coppinger Incumbent, Tenth Suffolk, Angelo M. Scaccia Incumbent, Fourteenth Suffolk Kimberly N. Ferguson Incumbent, First Worcester Richard Bastien Incumbent, Second Worcester Peter J. Durant Incumbent, Sixth Worcester Paul K. Frost Incumbent, Seventh Worcester Kevin J. Kuros Incumbent, Eighth Worcester George N. Peterson, Jr. Incumbent, Ninth Worcester Matthew A. Beaton Incumbent, Eleventh Worcester Bill McCarthy, Fourteenth Worcester Brian J. O'Malley, Fifteenth Worcester John P. Fresolo Incumbent, Sixteenth Worcester John J. Binienda, Sr. Incumbent, Seventeeth Worcester Ryan Fattman Incumbent, Eighteenth Worcester Senate Endorsements: Jeffrey Robert Bailey, Bristol& Norfolk Paul Adams, Second Essex and Middlesex Michael Knapik Incumbent, Second Hamden & Hampshire James J. Buba, 1st Middlesex Sandy Martinez, 3rd Middlesex Gerry Dembrowski, 4th Middlesex Dean J. Cavaretta, Middlesex & Worcester Richard J. Ross Incumbent, Norfolk, Bristol & Middlesex Michael F. Rush Incumbent, Norfolk & Suffolk Thomas F. Keyes, Plymouth & Barnstable Thomas P. Kennedy Incumbent, Second Plymouth and Bristol Robert L. Hedlund, Jr. Incumbent, Plymouth & Norfolk Jack Hart Incumbent, First Suffolk Steven W. Aylward, Second Suffolk & Middlesex Richard T. Moore Incumbent, Worcester & Norfolk House Recommendations: Leonard Mira, Second Essex Joyce Spiliotis Incumbent, Twelfth Essex Dan Bennett, Thirteenth Essex Karen Rhoton, Fourteenth Essex Linda Dean Campell Incumbent, Fifteenth Essex Susannah M. Lee, Second Franklin Joseph Wagner Incumbent, Eighth Hampden Benjamin Swan Incumbent, Eleventh Hampden Thomas Stanley Incumbent, Ninth Middlesex Kevin J. Murphy Incumbent, Eighteenth Middlesex Joseph J. Monjou, Twenty-third Middlesex George Georgountzos, Thirty-first Middlesex Stephen W. Coulter, Fourth Plymouth Angelo L. D'Emilia Incumbent, Eighth Plymouth Robert A. DeLeo Incumbent, Nineteenth Suffolk Stephen A. DiNatale Incumbent, Third Worcester Dennis A Rosa Incumbent, Fourth Worcester Jason M. Petraitis, Fifth Worcester   Senate Recommendations: Richard A. Jolitz, Second Essex Governor's Council Endorsements: Earl Sholley, Second District Mike Franco, Eighth District

Everything you need to know to vote - be sure to SAVE

We have put together the positions of all candidates for state and federal office including which candidates are endorsed or recommended by the State and Federal PAC's. http://massprolife.com/mcfl_main/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Candidates-table-for-web-site-1.pdf Janet says to remind you that you can enlarge the information by using the toolbar at the top of the page.  Please share the information with everybody! Anne

Victoria Kennedy opposes Q2!

Victoria Kennedy opposes Q 2.  This is big - please share with as many people - especially liberals -  as you can.  Thanks, Anne PS  No On 2 is looking for people to hold signs at targeted polling places.  Please contact  q2coordinator@gmail.com Thanks, Anne Question2 insults Kennedy's memory By VICTORIA REGGIE KENNEDY October 27, 2012 There is nothing more personal or private than the end of a family member's life, and I totally respect the view that everyone else should just get out of the way. I wish we could leave it that way.Unfortunately, Question 2, the so-called "Death with Dignity"initiative, forces that issue into the public square and places the government squarely in the middle of a private family matter. I do not judge nor intend top reach to others about decisions they make at the end of life, but I believe we're all entitled to know the facts about the law we're being asked to enact. Here's the truth. The language of the proposed law is not about bringing family together to make end of life decisions; it's intended to exclude family members from the actual decision-making process to guard against patients' being pressured to end their lives prematurely. It's not about doctors administering drugs such as morphine to ease patients' suffering;it's about the oral ingestion of up to 100 capsules without requirement or expectation that a doctor be present. It's not about giving choice and self-determination to patients with degenerative diseases like ALS or Alzheimer's; those patients are unlikely to qualify under the statute. It's not, in my judgment, about death with dignity at all. My late husband Sen. Edward Kennedy called quality,affordable health care for all the cause of his life. Question 2 turns his vision of health care for all on its head by asking us to endorse patient suicide — not patient care — as our public policy for dealing with pain and the financial burdens of care at the end of life. We're better than that. We should expand palliative care, pain management, nursing care and hospice, not trade the dignity and life of a human being for the bottom line. Most of us wish for a good and happy death, with as little pain as possible, surrounded by loved ones, perhaps with a doctor and/or clergyman at our bedside. But under Question 2, what you get instead is a prescription for up to 100 capsules, dispensed by a pharmacist, taken without medical supervision, followed by death, perhaps alone. That seems harsh and extreme to me. Question 2 is supposed to apply to those with a life expectancy of six months or less. But even doctors admit that's unknowable.When my husband was first diagnosed with cancer, he was told that he had only two to four months to live, that he'd never go back to the U.S. Senate, that he should get his affairs in order, kiss his wife, love his family and get ready to die. But that prognosis was wrong. Teddy lived 15 more productive months. During that time, he cast a key vote in the Senate that protected payments to doctors under Medicare; made a speech at the Democratic Convention;saw the candidate he supported elected president of the United States and even attended his inauguration; received an honorary degree; chaired confirmation hearings in the Senate; worked on the reform of health care; threw out the first pitch on opening day for the Red Sox; introduced the president when he signed the bipartisan Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act; sailed his boat; and finished his memoir "True Compass," while also getting his affairs in order, kissing his wife, loving his family and preparing for the end of life. Because that first dire prediction of life expectancy was wrong, I have 15 months of cherished memories — memories of family dinners and songfests with our children and grandchildren; memories of laughter and, yes, tears; memories of life that neither I nor my husband would have traded for anything in the world. When the end finally did come — natural death with dignity — my husband was home, attended by his doctor, surrounded by family and our priest. I know we were blessed. I am fully aware that not everyone will have the same experience we did. But if Question 2 passes I can't help but feel we're sending the message that they're not even entitled to a chance. A chance to have more time with their loved ones. A chance to have more dinners and sing more songs. A chance for more kisses and more love. A chance to be surrounded by family or clergy or a doctor when the end does come. That seems cruel to me. And lonely. And sad. My husband used to paraphrase H.L. Mencken: for every complex problem, there's a simple easy answer. And it's wrong. That's how I feel in this case. And that's why I'm going to vote no on Question 2. Victoria Reggie Kennedy is an attorney, health care advocate and widow of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

Message of concern from MCFL PAC

The most accurate tracking of all political polls is done by Real Clear Politics, which is not liberal.  They show Scott Brown down by 5 or 6 points and slipping.  We must send Sen. Brown back to the Senate to repeal O-care and vote for acceptable Supreme Court justices.  Please volunteer to help and please be sure everyone you know understands how important it is to re-elect him.  Contact Stephen, slombardo@masscitizensforlife.org or 617-242-4199 This is really serious!  You can make the difference! John Rowe Chair, MCFL Federal PAC PolicyMic Brown Warren Polls: Mass Senate Polls Show Elizabeth Warren Pulling Away From Scott Brown Brown Warren Polls Mass Senate Polls Show Elizabeth Warren Pulling Away From Scott Brown The latest poll in the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts indicates that Democrat Elizabeth Warren holds a six point lead over Republican Senator Scott Brown. Warren led Brown 50% to 44% in the poll of 516 likely voters conducted by WBUR between October 21 and 22. Just as troubling for Brown is the unpopularity of former Massachusetts Mitt Romney in the state, which leans heavily toward Obama. Romney's favorability rating in Massachuetts is a mere 38%, compared to 54% unfavorable.  Brown won the seat he currently occupies by defeating Attorney General Martha Coakley in a January 2010 special election held to fill the seat vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy. That election was marked by lower than usual voter turnout, as 54% of eligible voters cast ballots. In the 2008 presidential election, when the state went for Obama, 62% of eligible voters voted. Massachusetts is set to go for Obama again, and by a very wide margin. The unpopularity of Romney in the state he used to govern, as well as the fact that turnout is usually higher in presidential election years, could spell the end of Brown's brief tenure in the senate. Conservative media in Massachusetts has attempted to caricature Warren — a professor at Harvard Law School — as an out of touch elitist. Warren has also come under fire for previously claiming Cherokee ancestry despite a lack of evidence beyond what her mother had told her about her family heritage. Although both Brown and the conservative Boston Herald have hammered away at Warren on the matter, Warren has only made headway since the flap began. The charges of academic elitism have likely run hollow in a state where Harvard University is actually located and connected to the broader community, rather than an effective abstract object of ridicule for politicians appealing to anti-intellectuals. The Democratic Party here considers Kennedy's former seat as a virtual birthright of sorts, and are working in overdrive to do everything it can to win the seat back. Republicans are holding on for dear life, hoping it retain this seat while taking over the senate from the Democrats. The GOP will need to pick up four seats to have a majority in the upper chamber, where they currently trail 53 to 47. Courtesy of Real Clear Politics:

A delightful evening!

 

Our Banquet was really lovely!  It was such a pleasure to see so many of you who packed the room.  Everyone was thrilled with Mary Ann Glendon's talk.  As usual, they wanted more.  I am so grateful to Bea Martins and her wonderful committee for making the evening very special.

Dr Mildred Fay Jefferson, who died two years ago this week, was very fond of young people and always encouraged them in pro-life activities.  In her honor, we recognized the work of the Youth Group from St Brendan's Parish in Bellingham and their inspirational Director, Cheryl Duran.  Here they are receiving their award.

Again, thanks to everyone for a wonderful evening, Anne

Fwd: Listing ID 0814MH5XZSJ has sold out.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Amazon Services <seller-notification@amazon.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:38 PM
Subject: Listing ID 0814MH5XZSJ has sold out.
To: "amazon@benwetmore.com" <amazon@benwetmore.com>



Dear Ben Wetmore,

Your listing, Unsolved: Famous Real-Life Mysteries, has sold out and is now out of stock on Amazon.com.

Listing Details:
----------------
Item title: Unsolved: Famous Real-Life Mysteries
Listing ID: 0814MH5XZSJ
SKU: TQ-0LN5-Z6PP
Price: $1.15
Quantity remaining: 0
Listing closed: 10/19/2012, 15:08 PDT
----------------

To relist the item, do the following:
1.      Log in to your seller account.
2.      In the Inactive view of your current inventory, search for the item that you want to relist.
3.      In the Actions drop-down menu, select Relist.
4.      On the Offer tab, update the Quantity field with the appropriate value.
5.      Click Save and finish.

Thank you for selling on Amazon,

Amazon Services

If you prefer not to receive these notifications in the future, log in to your seller account, and update your Notification Preferences.

(This notification was sent by an automated e-mail system that cannot accept incoming e-mail. Please do not reply to it.)

You can quote Liz Walker

	Liz Walker has a wonderful piece opposing DPS.  A must-read! Robin Loughman, RN PS Please respond to the article with your agreement, support.  Thanks http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/10/18/question-deeply-flawed/xhL78RweFbzDSKTf88dVgI/story.html

www.noonquestion2.org

DPS: Support Jeff Jacoby today!

Jeff Jacoby has written a powerful piece on DPS.  Please write in support.  You may simply pick out a point you agree with, say you agree and why or write more, The polls are definitely heading in our direction.  Your letter/comment will keep them moving! Thanks, Anne What about do no harm? Suicide is not health care, and prescribing death is not a doctor's role If Hippocrates, the "father of Western medicine," were alive today, would he favor Question 2, the Massachusetts ballot initiative to authorize doctor-prescribed suicide? Presumably not: The celebrated code of medical ethics that bears his name, which physicians for centuries took an oath to uphold, flatly forbids assisted suicide. "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked," the Hippocratic oath avows, "nor will I advise such a plan." Some things never change, and one of them is the beguiling idea that doctors should be able to help patients kill themselves when incurable disease makes their lives unbearable. The advocates of Question 2 speak feelingly of the anguish of the terminally ill, suffering from awful symptoms that will only grow worse, and desperate to avoid the agonies to come. Not all of those agonies involve physical pain: Even worse for many people is the loss of autonomy, the mortifying collapse of bowel and bladder control, the intense unwillingness to be a burden to others, the existential despair of just waiting for death. Question 2's supporters call their proposal the "Death with Dignity Act." As a matter of compassion and respect, they argue, we should allow dying patients to choose an early death when they decide their suffering is more than they can endure. "People have control over their lives," says Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and lead petitioner of the Massachusetts ballot measure. "They ought to have control over their deaths." There is nothing new about this contention. The claim that assisted suicide can be an appropriate aspect of patient care, especially when the alternative is drawn-out misery inexorably ending in death, has been made since antiquity. Hippocrates heard the arguments too; then as now they exerted an undeniable emotional pull. There is a reason the Hippocratic oath obliged new doctors to stand firm against it. Civilized societies do not encourage people to commit suicide, or seek ways to make it easier for them to do so. Individuals may choose, out of pain or heartache or hopelessness, to end their lives; tragically, thousands of Americans do so every year. But "tragically" is the operative word. A libertarian purist might insist that human beings have the right to dispose of their lives as they see fit. That doesn't change the fundamental principle that life is precious and suicide is a tragedy. Only a moral cretin yells "Jump!" to the man on the high bridge who wants to end it all. No matter how compelling and genuinely desperate that man's reasons are — even if he is suffering from an incurable disease, with just months to live and only physical pain, nausea, and the loss of bodily control awaiting him — we don't seek ways to facilitate his suicide. On the contrary, we seek ways to avert it. "High bridges often have signs encouraging troubled individuals to seek help rather than jump," writes Greg Pfundstein in an essay at Public Discourse, the Witherspoon Institute's online journal. "Suicide hotlines are open 24 hours a day because we hope to prevent as many suicides as possible." Question 2 would turn that premise inside out. Massachusetts voters aren't just being asked to authorize doctors to prescribe fatal drugs for the terminally ill. They are being asked to endorse a view that our ethical culture at its best has always abhorred: that certain lives aren't worth living. That there are times when people should jump — indeed, that there is nothing wrong with making it easier for them to do so. Question 2's provisions are highly arbitrary, as even its proponents acknowledge. It allows only one kind of suicide to be prescribed: drugs that can be swallowed, but not a lethal injection — let alone a bullet or a noose. It requires a prognosis of no more than six months to live. It is available only to patients who can both speak and write — thereby excluding, for instance, a paralyzed victim of Lou Gehrig's disease. Why such capricious line-drawing? Because, says Angell, that is the only way to make assisted suicide "politically acceptable." Her candor is admirable. But it doesn't extend to Question 2, which provides that death certificates for patients who commit doctor-prescribed suicide will falsely list the underlying disease as the cause of death. Suicide is not health care, and prescribing death is no role for a doctor. Hippocrates would reject Question 2. Massachusetts voters should too. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @Jeff_Jacoby.

Banquet with Mary Ann Glendon this Friday – reserve now!

	Please join us at the MCFL Banquet this Friday night, the 19th.  We are very excited about having Mary AnnGlendon speak.  You can find out more andreserve you space: http://www.masscitizensforlife.org/mcfl_main/?page_id=16 It will be so nice to see you! Anne

Is there any difference between Elizabeth and Barak on abortion?

After the VP debate, John McCormack tried to get a straight answer from the Obama people about his abortion position. It is of interest to MA because, while she ducks stating her positions, Prof. Warren seems to share those of Obama.   Campaign Denies Obama Supports Abortion-on-Demand, But Can't Name One Restriction He Supports   2:08 AM, OCT 12, 2012 * BY JOHN MCCORMACK   Danville, Ky   At the end of the vice presidential debate Thursday night, Joe Biden and Paul Ryan lobbed charges of extremism at one another on the issue of abortion. "The Democratic party used to say they want [abortion] to be safe, legal, and rare," Ryan said. "Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding, taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized or wouldn't second-guess their one-child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That, to me, is pretty extreme."   Biden shot back, saying that Ryan has "argued that, in the case of rape or incest, it was still--it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend." Debate moderator Martha Raddatz followed up with Ryan, asking if pro-choice Americans should be "worried" about Romney, but she didn't follow up with Biden.    In the spin room following the debate, I asked top Obama officials, as well as Planned Parenthood chief Cecille Richards, if Obama's position on abortion is as extreme as what Ryan claimed. The Obama campaign denied the president favored abortion without restriction, but top Obama officials Jim Messina, Stephanie Cutter, and David Axelrod could not name a single restriction the president supports.   TWS: Mr Messina, the issue of abortion came up tonight with both sides trying to paint the other as extremist. Can you say, are there any restrictions that the president supports at any stage of pregnancy on the issue of abortion?   MESSINA: Look, we have been absolute[ly] clear. I think as you saw an absolute difference between the president and Romney on this. Romney's position has been on four different sides. But I take him at his word that he says he will be happy to sign a bill outlawing all abortions in the United States of America. That's not our position that's not where the American public is. And I think it's going to be a very difficult position for them to defend in the battleground states. Swing women voters in places like Colorado in Virginia looked at that exchange tonight that you talked about and said we cannot support this guy.   TWS: So the president doesn't support any restrictions on abortion?   MESSINA: Look, we've been very clear. You know our position on abortion.   TWS: No. I asked, can you say what it is?   MESSINA: Look, don't put words in my mouth. I've been very clear about our position. And that's what it is.   TWS: Can you name one restriction?   Messina ended the exchange and moved on to another question.   Stephanie Cutter also said Obama supports some restrictions on abortion, but wouldn't say what they were:    TWS: Are there any restrictions he supports at any stage of pregnancy? Or there's no restrictions whatsover? Is that the president's position?   CUTTER: No, that's not his position.   TWS: Then can you name one restriction that he supports on abortion?   CUTTER: He has several votes on this. We can get them to you.   David Axelrod similarly ducked questions. So I turned to Cecille Richards, the head of Planned Parenthood. "There already are restrictions on the books," she told me. But does the president support any of them? Richards said she didn't know. "I haven't spoken to him about those," she replied.   In 2003, Barack Obama was asked if he was "all situations including the late term thing?" He answered in the affirmative.    The record doesn't appear to show that the president has ever supported any restriction on abortion. He opposes the Hyde amendment, which means he favors taxpayer funding of abortion. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion. And he opposed parental consent laws. We'll let you know if the Obama team is able to come up with any evidence showing that Obama's position is anything short of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy.   http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-officials-deny-obama-supports-abortion-demand-cant-name-one-restriction-he-supports_654276.html?nopager=1

Press Release: Bielat endorsement by Massachusetts Citizens for Life Political Action Committee

For immediate release                   John Rowe, 617-242-4199   Charlestown, October 11, 2012 The Political Action Committee of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, the oldest and largest right to life organization in the state, has endorsed Sean Bielat for Congress in the 4th MA District.   According to John Rowe, Chairman of the MCFL PAC, "Sean Bielat takes the mainstream, common sense positions on the life issues. He opposes tax-funding of abortion and partial birth abortion. He supports parental consent and conscience rights. Bielat will work to overturn Obamacare.   "Bielat's opponent takes exactly the opposite position on each of these issues. As a matter of fact, Joe Kennedy has been endorsed by NARAL Pro-Choice America, which endorses only candidates who take extreme pro-abortion positions."   Rowe continues, "We will be urging all our members in the 4th CD to vote for Sean Bielat"

Congratulations! Nobel Prize has caught up with you. Also something very sad.

For more than a decade, right-to-lifers have maintained that embryonic stem cell research was unethical because it killed human beings and that ESC research was also foolish because there were no successes and ESC proved very dangerous in the few cases where they were used on people. Here we have another one of those situations where we have been vilified over and over. Yet, in the end, reality has caught up and it cannot be denied. We were right all along!   Eventually this will happen with abortion and euthanasia. We just have to keep working as hard as we can and reality will vindicate our positions. This is a wonderful piece on the Nobel Prize. You'll be delighted when you read the motivation for Dr. Yamanaka's work. http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/09/ethical-stem-cell-researcher-wins-nobel-prize-for-medicine/   Many evil results of the anti-life philosophy are obvious. Some are beyond our imagination. We now discover that women who were born prematurely have more serious complications with their own pregnancies.     Previous abortions are a main reason for premature deliveries in subsequent pregnancies. Women are having abortions, which are causing many of their daughters to be born prematurely, which is causing them to have pregnancy problems which are dangerous for them and their babies. Talk about things spinning out of control...   http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120924142440.htm  http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/12297/20120924/mothers-born-premature-higher-risk-pregnancy-complications.htm     If you haven't heard our friend John Kelly deal with doctor-prescribed suicide, you are in for a treat and a real education! http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T01123&video=131337   Thank you for all you do for life! Anne

Tuesday is the best day.

They say people are more likely to open emails on Tuesday.  This is very important, so I am sending it today. The Nov 6th election is four weeks from today.  We plan to be very busy from the Thursday before the election right through election night. . We have people gearing up to do the on-the-ground work to defeat the doctor prescribed suicide ballot question, to distribute literature comparing Sen. Brown and Prof. Warren on the life issues, and to do the same for many other candidates. As you know, Massachusetts will not have an impact on the Presidential election - as exciting as that is! We will make our huge impact by defeating the suicide ballot question, re-electing Brown, and electing other pro-lifers! I need you to: write Letters to the Editor, now, talk to every one you know, now, distribute literature before the election, hold signs at the polls, drive fellow pro-life voters to the polls, and recruit your friends to help for life. Please seriously consider the importance of each of these responsibilities. Please decide which - one or more - you can do.  Then contact Stephen at  slombardo@masscitizensforlife.org or call him, 617-242-4199 X 221. The winners and losers on Nov 6th will not be the candidates.  The winners and losers will be the babies, the elderly, the ill, and the disabled. You'll like working with Stephen!  Bless you for all you do, Anne

Trouble: poll today confirms...

As he has since early September, Sen. Brown trails his challenger Elizabeth Warren, 50% - 45% according to The Hill today, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/260663-warren-maintains-slight-edge-over-brown    The American Thinker looks at Senate races nationally and concludes: high confidence Republican wins, Nebraska, North Dakota, Wisconsin; Probable Republican wins: Montana, Nevada, Florida, Virginia; REPUBLICAN LONG SHOTS: Connecticut, Missouri, and MASSACHUSETTS Here is their analysis,      Republican long shots:  Massachusetts - The contest is a donnybrook; Scott Brown (R), the incumbent, versus Elizabeth Warren (D).  Warren, a devotee of the very liberal/progressive left, has claimed Native American heritage to gain an employment preference and subscribes to the "you didn't build that" philosophy.  Nevertheless, Warren has a 4% lead in the RCP {Real Clear Politics}average polling, which is nonetheless very volatile.  Warren has a significant Democrat registration majority, an Obama approval rating over 55%, a decent economy and an anti-war/defense constituency.  Scott Brown needs a second miracle.  He did it once; can lightning strike twice? Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/fourteen_critical_races_could_determine_our_future.html#ixzz28Wwa5gnG Please keep these four things in mind:     1.. Justice Scalia just turned 78   2.. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year   3.. Justice Breyer turned 76 in August   4.. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 recently.   In addition,   * Justice Ginsburg has Pancreatic Cancer.   * Justice Stephens has already said he would retire and is just waiting for Obama to be reelected.   The next president could appoint as many as 4 new Justices over next 4 years. This election is about repealing O-care and about Supreme Court justices!  The U S Senate is the key!    The Right to Life vote made the difference for Sen. Brown in 2010.  It will make the difference again!  Anne

Banquet -is the announcement is in your Church Bulletin? Please check.

We are very excited about our Banquet coming up on October 19th! I sent a notice to each of the churches and asked them to put it in their Bulletins. Many churches are very gracious but I know they are more responsive to a parishioner.   Would you please check your Bulletin this weekend and, if the notice is not in, please be sure it gets in the weekend of Oct 13/14? It is printed below.   Thanks very much! I hope to see you at the Banquet! Anne     Massachusetts Citizens For Life 40th Anniversary Banquet: Mass. Citizens for Life (MCFL) has been defending Life from conception to natural death for forty years. Come to the Anniversary Banquet at Lantana's in Randolph, Friday, October 19, 2012. Prof. Mary Ann Glendon will be the keynote Speaker at this special event. Individual tickets are $60.00, Table of 10 - $500.00 special rate, Student tickets - $30.00.  Information or registration: 617-242-4199 or  http://www.masscitizensforlife.org/

"Preventing Assisted Suicide" to air on Wednesday

Cardinal Seán O'Malley will host a Virtual Town Hall Meeting on Preventing Assisted Suicide on Wednesday October 3, 2012 at 8pm. Live on CatholicTV (www.CatholicTV.com) & WQOM 1060AM (Boston area). CatholicTV is available at Verizon 296, Comcast 268, Charter 101, RCN 85 &CatholicTV.com Rebroadcasts: 10/4 @ 2pm, 10/4 @ 9pm, 10/5 @ 12:30am, 10/7 @ 2am, 10/8 @ 9pm, 10/13 @ 4:30pm, 10/15 @ 8pm, 10/20 @ 4:30pm, 10/22 @ 8pm, 10/29 @ 10:30pm, 10/31 @ 7:30am, 11/2 @ 2pm, 11/3 @ 3:30am, 11/5 @ 8pm, 11/6 @ 6am, 11/6 @ 12pm.

No On 2 bumper stickers, lawn signs available!

A forward from the No on 2 Campaign: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- People have been requesting bumper stickers and lawn signs.  As you know, we must spend the entire budget on TV ads.  We have been able to make arrangements so that you can order your own stickers and signs.  They are very "sharp" looking and memorable. Shipping is free at https://noonquestion2.onlinecampaignstore.com/ I am excited to get the lawn sign I just ordered! Robin Loughman, RN

Q2 Proponents are SELFISH! And a Word About Today’s Polls

Marcia Angell, MD, had a pro-Doctor-Prescribed Suicide (DPS) piece in the Herald and now the same piece appears in the Globe.  You will notice that she attacks our argument that insurance companies will do the cheap thing not the right thing, as they did with Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup.  She maintains that doesn't matter because – get this – the people using DPS are upper class,well-to-do whites.  So, she is saying it doesn't matter if you or I or Barbara or Randy, who would like to live, are denied care as long as she and her privileged friends can kill themselves with society's blessing.  Her main argument comes back to bite her. The Globe has published polls showing: Warren leading Brown 43% – 38%.  Support for DPS at 68% - 20 %. What does this tell us? We know the media intentionally over-represents Democrats in polls hoping to demoralize us and cause us to stay home.  What can we do?  We must redouble our get-out-the vote effort. The nice thing is that people we can turn out to vote for Brown are likely to vote against DPS. The DPS poll presents a different picture.  It shows essentially no movement in spite of all the hard work on your part.  This validates what we have known from the beginning – the ballot question depends on TV ads, which haven't started yet.  We have known all along that the grass roots work would be the frosting on the cake but that the TV ads would be the main educational tool. Massachusetts Against Doctor-Prescribed Suicide: No On 2 has a TV ad which has been tested and which moves voters from favoring DPS to opposing it.  The more they can get that ad on TV, the more people will move. The Globe poll tells us we must move a lot of people.  That meansMADPS: No On 2 must raise a lot more money!  Please go immediately to http://noonquestion2.org/ tomake a sacrificial donation.  And pray! We can defeat Q2!  Anne