Saturday, August 11, 2012

Romney-Ryan a Win-Win for Life! See Ryan take apart O on O-care

Before you read the MCFL press release, please watch Paul Ryan deal with the President - six minutes of sense about O-care.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

A knowledgeable Mass political observer told me five years ago to watch Paul Ryan. We need adults in DC and Ryan certainly is one. We are all potential patients. As one, I feel a lot safer than I did yesterday. Enjoy the day! Anne

For immediate release

Boston, August 11, 2012 contact Anne Fox, 781-449-1774

Massachusetts Citizens for Life applauds the selection by Governor Romney of Paul Ryan as his running mate. Congressman Ryan has long been a friend of life at all stages. His voting record is 100% pro-life, protecting the lives of unborn children, their mothers, the disabled, and the elderly.

Ryan has written. "Personally, I believe that life begins at conception, and it is for that reason that I feel we need to protect that life as we would protect other children...I remain committed to restoring the value of human life and fighting for the rights of the unborn...Most importantly, we must ensure that the most vulnerable among us - both unborn children and mothers struggling with unplanned pregnancies - are afforded the compassion and opportunities they need to choose life. February 2009, op-ed published in The Journal Times of Racine, Wis.

According to Anne Fox, President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life, "Paul Ryan has a proven pro-life record. Also, he will work to protect life with his sensible fiscal plans which will protect patients from rationing and denial of care.

Fox continued, "Romney-Ryan is a win-win for the children, the disabled, the elderly, and every person in this country"

Friday, August 10, 2012

Choose Life plates - very encouraging news!

Let me share the good news.

MCFL called 26,000 of you in June about the plates. About 300 promised to get plates and did!

You and others have brought the total of plates on cars to 2908! That means we need 92 more plates to reach 3,000.

When we reach 3,000, the Foundation will again get their share to help fund educational efforts and pregnancy resource centers.

Thanks to all of you who have plates.

If you don't or know someone who doesn't, please encourage them to do so!

Thanks again,
Anne

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

The Baby Killer Bailout

Everyone who has seen this has wanted to share. It is worth a read. Anne

The Baby Killer Bailout

URL: http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/7/23/The-Baby-Killer-Bailout
In the first few years after its legalization, studies were taken to determine the cost of an abortion. The findings were that the price of a first-trimester procedure was generally around $350. The interesting thing is, that figure has changed little since then. To put this in perspective, even if we ignore the fact that prices have probably risen faster in medicine than in any other area of the economy, applying the basic rate of inflation shows that an item purchased for $350 in 1973 costs almost $2,000 today.
So the question is, with no competition and a seemingly reliable demand, why has the abortion industry not been able to raise prices in almost 40 years?
The answer is that, contrary to what the abortion lobby would have us believe, the demand is not reliable. In any marketing environment, buying decisions can be categorized on a "marginal / non-marginal" scale. On one end of the scale are decisions based solely on "want" (marginal) and, on the opposite end are decisions based solely on "need" (non-marginal.) Buying a ticket to a baseball game is an example of a marginal decision because it is a decision based on want. On the other hand, if a business owner cannot operate his business without a forklift, his decision to purchase one is based on need and is, therefore, non-marginal.
One significant factor in determining where a product falls on this scale is the degree to which consumers might reject it because of price. The more price-sensitive a product is, the more marginal is the decision to buy it. Using the previous examples, a rise in the price of baseball tickets will decrease their sales more than a proportionate rise in the price of forklifts will decrease their sales. This "marginality" scale applies to all purchasing decisions, including the decision whether to "purchase" an abortion or not.
Since day one, the abortion industry has pushed this idea that when a woman does not want to be pregnant she will crawl through hell on broken glass to get an abortion. In other words, their contention is that the abortion decision is a non-marginal one.
For that to be true, it would have to also be true that the cost of abortions does not significantly impact the abortion rate. The problem is, the evidence does not support this. In April of 1988, the financial publication, Economic Inquiry, Vol. XXVI, published a study about the relationship between abortion cost and abortion rates and concluded that, "The significant inverse relationship between the price of abortions and the abortion rate confirms that the fundamental law of demand is applicable to abortions."
Other independent studies have also documented that, as the cost of abortion goes up the demand for abortion goes down. In addition, Colorado abortionist, Warren Hern, reinforced this conclusion during a May, 1997, annual convention of the National Abortion Federation held in Boston, Massachusetts. At a workshop regarding the use of ultrasound in abortion, Hern complained that paying for an ultrasound machine would increase the cost of an abortion by $25. He went on to say that such an increase would cause patient loads at abortion clinics to "plummet."
Hern was not merely confirming the argument that price affects the abortion rate, he was going much further and stating that even small increases in price have an overpowering impact. By the way, Hern is no novice in this area. He is the author of the textbook, Abortion Practice, that is almost universally considered to be the definitive publication on abortion and abortion provision.
The point is, whether it's these studies or the comments of Warren Hern, the consistent message is that the abortion lobby's "hell on broken glass" rhetoric is a self-serving fabrication and that the abortion decision is often a highly marginal one. If that were not the case, a $25 price increase would not significantly impact abortion rates much less cause the number of women having abortions to "plummet."
This represents a very sticky dilemma for the abortion industry. The obvious solution to their current economic woes would be to raise prices to reflect their increased costs even if that meant making more money off fewer procedures. But the abortion lobby knows that is not a viable option. They have always been aware that, in order to maintain abortion's legality, they need the political and cultural inertia created by a high abortion rate. This has put them in a kind of "Catch 22" situation. They need higher prices to financially survive, but those higher prices would lower the abortion rate and threaten their political survivability.
In a nutshell, that is why the abortion industry has not raised prices for almost 40 years. Meanwhile, the cost of doing business has risen dramatically. The result is that the $350 abortion that was so profitable in 1973 dollars, is a stone-cold loser in 2012 dollars. What this means, and what the abortion lobby has known for several years, is that their future depends on finding a way to raise their prices without lowering abortion rates.
Enter Barack Obama.
Make no mistake about it, one of the primary motivations behind this guy's obsession with socialized medicine is government-funding of abortion. In fact, a model for what his administration intends to do already exists.
Imagine two women sitting in an abortion clinic waiting room. They are the same age, in the same state of health and their pregnancies are at the same gestational stage. The only significant difference between them is that one is paying cash and the other has a health insurance policy that covers elective abortion. After their babies have been exterminated and their corpses tossed in the dumpster, the first woman will be out the clinic's door for the usual $350 or so. However, the other woman's insurance company will be lucky to escape with anything less than a $3000 claim to pay.
This is a scenario that is repeated every day at abortion clinics all across the country. It is also a peak into what Obamacare is all about. The Obamanazis figured out a long time ago that the abortion industry's only hope for survival is for socialized medicine to convert every $350 patient-paid abortion into a $3000 taxpayer-paid abortion. Equally important is that, since customers will be getting their babies butchered at no charge, the abortion rate is not going to drop. In fact, it's going to skyrocket.
To put it bluntly, Obamacare is a permanent stimulus package for the abortion industry.
Now, if you think I'm baying at the moon here, let me take you back to December of 2009 when this debacle was being fought out in Congress. With only a few hours left before the Christmas recess, it looked like America was going to dodge this bullet. Despite all the greasy politics, arm-twisting, semi-veiled threats, naked bribery, sweetheart deals in smoke-filled rooms and other assorted criminal activities being committed by the Obamanazis, they were still a couple of votes shy. The problem was that several Democrats were holding out over concerns that Obamacare was going to pay for abortions.
Obama and his fellow travelers were assuring them that this was not the case. Of course, this could not be verified since no one had actually seen the bill and, furthermore, they were not going to see it before voting on it. In one of the most arrogant and moronic things ever uttered by an elected official, Nancy Pelosi openly stated that Congress would have to pass the bill before the public would be allowed to see what was in it.
The crucial thing to note here is that this hang-up over abortion-funding could have been easily resolved. If the administration had not been lying, they could have simply allowed those rebellious Democrats to add a one paragraph statement to the final bill specifically prohibiting any funding for abortion. Had they done that, these guys would have shuffled back onto the reservation and passage would have been assured.
But the Obamanazis were lying. They knew abortion funding was written into the bill's language and that such a paragraph would wipe it out. Since they were not willing to give up on one of the fundamental goals of this monstrosity, they had to stick with their argument that we should all just blindly trust them when they said that the bill would not pay for abortions. In effect, a blank contract was shoved in front of Congress and a pen was forced into their boney hands.
This strategy worked because, to no one's surprise, the so-called "pro-life Democrats" eventually wimped-out, stopped questioning Obama's lies and signed where they were told to sign. As is common in the political arena, when the choice is between principle and ambition, the latter is usually chosen. And so it was. Today, the bill is available for all to see and now everyone can know what the pro-life movement knew all along. Abortion funding is included.
In the final analysis, it is simply a fact that Obama was prepared to flush his crown jewel legislation down the toilet rather than take abortion funding out of it. The fancy rhetoric he used during the debate may have been about people suffering and dying because they are being denied basic healthcare. But his actions made it clear that he would write these people off without blinking an eye, unless a government bailout for Big Abortion was part of the deal.
Like I always say, to understand the abortion issue just follow the money trail. In this particular case, if you believe nothing else I've written here, believe this: on the day that Obamacare becomes fully implemented, every single abortion performed in America will be taxpayer-funded. Every single one.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

DPS article. Comments immediately, please

A column, "Should Massachusetts Allow Assisted Suicide?" appears in the Barnstable, Hyannis Patch,
http://features.rr.com/article/07ahf4h6RvbOU?q=Massachusetts

It is not a poll but solicits comments. The first comment is about intractable pain.

Given our medical advances, pain is really off the table. No one should have to suffer and, if they are, relatives need to consult another doctor.

Please answer this or other points.

You'll find a good list of things that are wrong with the proposed legislation. http://features.rr.com/article/07ahf4h6RvbOU?q=Massachusetts

You make such a difference! Thank you, Anne

Massachusetts Citizens for Life
The Schrafft Center, 529 Main Street
Boston Massachusetts 02129
United States

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

9 MA Congressmen vote for legal abortion for any reason until birth, 1 abstains

District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803) passed tonight, 220 to 154, a 66 vote margin, but short of the two-thirds vote required under the fast-track procedure utilized today ("suspension of the rules").

Only 154 voted in favor of abortion for any reason any time in pregnancy and we had 9 of them! Our "share" should have been three. Yes, we have ten Congressmen but Barney Frank didn't vote. That means Olver, Neal, McGovern, Capuano, Markey, Tierney, Tsongas, Lynch, and Keating all cast extreme pro-abortion votes!

What can we do? Heed the words of Doug Johnson, crack Legislative Director of National Right to Life, "Today's groundbreaking majority vote constitutes a giant step towards this bill ultimately becoming law -- perhaps after the replacement of some of the lawmakers who today were unwilling to protect pain-capable unborn children in the sixth month of pregnancy and later."

Just remember we did have a life-saving victory today in the MA State House! Anne

Subject MCFL's pro-life Congressman

Steve Stockman, dear friend and former consultant with MCFL has just won his run-off election for Congress in Texas. He is a Republican and the district is heavily Republican, so this is tantamount to election.

I have already asked him to address our MA Caucus at the March for Life.

His election came on the same day that our Congressmen voted as extremely pro-abortion as is possible. It does make one think - Steve's is a new district, created because Texas gained districts. Massachusetts lost a district. It is almost as though Steve has our district - what a great metaphor for where the country and the pro-life movement are going.

With Steve in DC again it will be easier to repeal O-care and its dreadful HHS Mandate - which kicks in for most today. Anne

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

State legislative victories: one huge and one very satisfying

The last six weeks have been extremely busy on Beacon Hill as the legislature planned to finish on July 31^st. Probably the most extensive work has been done on the health care cost containment bill.

In the bill was language that sounded quite fine, requiring the doctor to give a patient with a terminal illness all end of life options. The legislators were delighted because that meant everyone would hear about Hospice and palliative care.

What they just didn't notice was that, if the "Death with dignity act" passes in November, doctors would be required to offer patients doctor-prescribed suicide. The only other group who was concerned was the disability rights community. We wrote letters and made no impact. Then the pro-life constituents of the members of the Conference Committee started calling their members expressing concern. What an impact!

As the calls progressed, the members started to see that there really was a problem with the bill. As a result of those calls, the following wording was passed, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a healthcare professional to offer to provide information about assisted suicide or the prescribing of medication to end life."

This language will protect lives and save the conscience rights of doctors. We won't have a situation like that with the HHS Mandate: trying to play catch-up.

It is important to note this was due completely to pro-life people making the calls.

Another bill, which affects fewer people but also saves lives and is really nice to have, was passed in June with MCFL support.

State Representative Tom Sannicandro, whose son David has Down syndrome, sponsored and got passed:

"An Act Relative to Down Syndrome Genetic Test Results," modeled on the national Kennedy-Brownback bill, is the first state legislation of its kind in the nation. The new law requires the Mass. Department of Public Health to make available to medical providers the latest, culturally-appropriate information about what it means to have a child with Down syndrome and contact information for services to ensure parents have access to necessary supports. The legislation specifically identifies MDSC's Parent's First Call Program as a key resource for families, formally recognizing our signature outreach program, a national model in the field."

Remember that 90% of the unborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. Remember also that we have heard from countless parents who said they welcomed their baby but would have liked more information on what to expect. Now Massachusetts has the first such state law in the country.

GO, MA! Thanks to all of you, especially the constituents of the Conference Committee members who made calls - you know who you are! Anne

Monday, July 30, 2012

Abortion Legal Until Birth in DC - U.S. House Votes July 31 to Overturn

The U.S. House of Representatives will vote on Tuesday, July 31, 2012, on legislation that will end the current legal policy allowing abortion, for any reason, until the moment of birth in our nation's capital.

The Council of the District of Columbia, employing authority delegated by Congress, repealed the entire D.C. abortion law. Thus, in the nation's capital, abortion is currently legal for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy.

MCFL strongly supports the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act , H.R. 3803 because:

1) The U. S. constitution stipulates that Congress is supposed to vote on all legislation for DC

2) H. R. 3803 has 223 House cosponsors

3) According to June, 2012 poll, American adults would be more likely to vite for lawmakers who support this legislation by 58-27%, women more likely by 62-27%, men by 53-27%
Respondents favored, 63-21%, a policy of not permitting abortion anywhere "after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain," unless it is "necessary to save a mother's life." Women said "should not be permitted" by a margin of 70-18% percent. Men said "should not be permitted" by a margin of 55-25%.

Doug Johnson, NRLC Legislative Director, says, "This roll call will be a landmark – the House has never before voted on the question of whether to endorse legal abortion for any reason until birth. Under the Constitution, members of Congress and the President are ultimately accountable for the current abortion-until-birth policy. Any lawmaker who votes against this bill is voting to ratify the extreme policy currently in effect in the nation's capital, where abortion is perfectly legal for any reason until the moment of birth."

Call your Congressman today or before 11am on Tuesday! Thanks! Anne

Congressman John W. Olver , 202-225-5335
Congressman Richard E. Neal, 202-225-5601
Congressman James P. McGovern, 202-225-6101
Congressman Barney Frank, 202-225-5931
Congressman Niki Tsongas, 202-225-3411
Congressman John F. Tierney, 202-225-8020
Congressman Edward J. Markey, 202-225-2836
Congressman Michael Capuano, 202-225-5111
Congressman Stephen F. Lynch, 202-225-8273
Congressman William D. Keating, 202-225-3111

Petra is making a movie, looking for stars

Petra Joseph is a real pro-life trouper. She has a program on BNN TV where she often features pro-life people. She sent this message. I think it would be best, if you or a girl you know is interested, for a parent to contact Petra, <petradestinee@yahoo.com> She writes:

I am making a Pro-Life film that tells of a teenage girl who gets pregnant and must make choices as to what she should do. It goes in depth into the consequences of having an abortion. Do you know of any teenage girls within the Pro-life movement that would like to participate in this endeavor? The rehearsal dates will start on Monday, August 6 and Wednesday August 8...that is the start I will get the other dates to you. Again I am looking for 3 teenage girls: 2 age 16 and 1 age 17 or persons who could play the role. This is a pro-life film and will be aired on BNN tv.

Shalom

Petra

Also, I want you to know that October Baby will be in Arlington at the Regent Theatre, October 14th, 1:00 p.m. Anne

Friday, July 27, 2012

MCFL-- Of interest to Catholics

The Catholic Free Press reports on an amazing Novena in Worcester. It would be wonderful if each of us could encourage a similar Novena in our own parishes.

Speaking of praying for the defeat of the doctor-prescribed suicide ballot question, Joanne O'Brien's Rosary Crusade is going strong. To find out more about it, call Janet at 617-242-4199.

If you have not checked the Alliance Against Doctor-Prescribed Suicide web site recently, please educate someone about the ballot question and then go get credit for your good work.http://stopassistedsuicide-ma.com/

A Needham friend asked me to pass this on to you. http://www.scottbrown.com/catholics-for-brown-coalition-sign-up/

Please keep your eyes open. MCFL has a big surprise in the works! Anne

Summer Academy starts July 11 - register now.

That's right, the Summer Academy for rising high school students starts this week. To learn more and register, http://www.masscitizensforlife.org/index.php?option=com_dpcalendar&view=event&id=69&catid=150

This is a wonderful opportunity for a student to train to be an Ambassador for Life. Please spread the word! Thanks, Anne

Kudos to Marie Sturgis and Massachusetts pro-lifers

Governor Mitt Romney addressed the National Right to Life Convention last week by video. He documented his pro-life conversion, telling the conventioneers that "Innocent life must be respected and protected from its beginning to its natural end."

He recounted being asked to sign a law that would have committed state funds for embryonic stem cell research. Thoughtful deliberation caused him to have a change of heart. "I will be a pro-life president," Romney said. "If elected president, I will work with you to foster respect for innocent human life with an understanding that a culture that fails to do so ultimately becomes a culture in which respect for all fellow human beings is diminished."

Although I knew the story, it hit me for the first time what a great job Marie Sturgis had done working with Romney and his people at that time. Just as it was Dr. Mildred Jefferson who changed Gov. Reagan's position on abortion, it was Marie and her fellow pro-lifers who changed Gov. Romney's position.

Just think where we would be if Romney hadn't changed!

Another highlight of the Convention was a rousing pro-life speech by U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. Right now the press is speculating that she may be Romney's VP pick. That would be wonderful except it is likely Governor Lynch of NH would appoint a Senator who would not vote pro-life and we need every pro-life vote in the Senate that we can muster.

It is so heartening to hear these important people sharing our concern and commitment. Anne

MCFL-- Of interest to Catholics

Another MA POLL - Vote Now


	As I write ( 3:47 on Thursday) only three people have voted, so it should be up for a while. Please vote and pass it on. Thanks, Anne http://medford.patch.com/articles/should-massachusetts-allow-assisted-suicide

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Another MA POLL - Vote Now

As I write ( 3:47 on Thursday) only three people have voted, so it should be up for a while. Please vote and pass it on. Thanks, Anne

http://medford.patch.com/articles/should-massachusetts-allow-assisted-suicide

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Michael New on target again

Our dear friend, Michael New, is at it again – pointing out to us the gains we have made that
we hardly noticed because we were working on the next effort. My favorite line: Indeed, many
surveys show that the pro-choice position’s consistent gains came to an abrupt halt when the
partial birth abortion ban became a salient issue in the mid 1990s. This is somewhat long but
well worth the read. Anne

Casey at Twenty: Pro-Life Progress Despite a Judicial Setback
by Michael J. New
July 17, 2012

Since Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the pro-life movement’s incremental strategies—
strengthening parental consent laws, advancing legal protection on the basis of fetal pain, and
defunding Planned Parenthood—give us reason to be optimistic about the future of the pro-life
movement.

Earlier this summer we marked the twentieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision
in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Public Discourse published insightful essays by Michael
Paulsen and William Saunders criticizing the Supreme Court’s ruling. There is certainly much
for social conservatives and others to criticize about the jurisprudence used in Casey. However,
even though the decision was a setback, the past 20 years have still been a story of legislative,
political, and even some jurisprudential progress for the pro-life movement. This progress has
occurred not only because of the perseverance of pro-lifers, but also because pro-lifers shrewdly
used legal openings granted to them through the Casey decision.

The pro-life movement has devoted few resources to chronicling its own history, so many
people forget how much effort pro-lifers invested in the Casey decision. During the early 1980s,
pro-life political strategy shifted from enacting a constitutional amendment to changing the
composition of the Supreme Court. At this time, a more conservative Supreme Court seemed
almost inevitable, given that Republicans controlled both the presidency and the Senate. Indeed,
between 1980 and 1992, President Reagan and President Bush appointed a total of five new
Supreme Court justices. As such, a reversal of Roe v. Wade appeared not just plausible, but
likely. That set-up is what made the Supreme Court’s Casey decision so disappointing to the pro-
life movement.

At the time of Casey, pro-lifers had plenty of other reasons for pessimism. The year 1992 saw
the election of the first president publicly committed to keeping abortion legal. Republicans
seriously discussed removing the pro-life plank from the party platform, and pro-choice
governors like Christine Todd Whitman, William Weld, and Peter Wilson were considered the
future of the party. Even worse, pro-lifers lost ground in the court of public opinion. Gallup
surveys found that the percentage of people who felt abortion should be “legal under any
circumstances” had been slowly but steadily increasing since the 1970s. These circumstances
made it easy to question the long-term political viability of the pro-life movement.

Despite discouraging political setbacks, the Casey decision did contain silver linings for pro-life
law and strategy. Even though the Supreme Court did not overturn Roe v. Wade, it abandoned

the trimester framework instituted in Roe and instead adopted a doctrine of “undue burden.”
This allowed for state regulation of abortion so long as the regulation did not pose an “undue
burden” to the woman seeking an abortion. As a result, the Casey decision upheld most of the
provisions included in Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act including the parental consent law,
the reporting requirements, the waiting period, and the informed consent law. Only the spousal
notification requirement was struck down.

The constitutional protection Casey granted these pieces of legislation, coupled with pro-life
gains in numerous state legislatures, has led to a substantial increase in the number of state level
pro-life laws. Since 1992, the number of states with parental involvement laws has increased
from 20 to 38. The number of states with informed consent laws has increased from 18 to 33.
Finally, the number of states with abortion clinic regulations increased from 21 to 30. More
importantly, after Casey, many states strengthened existing pro-life laws. In particular, several
states improved their informed consent laws by including more information about health risks,
fetal development, and sources of support for single mothers.

In recent years, pro-lifers have pursued some different legislative strategies. For instance, pro-
lifers have made good use of the increased scrutiny that Planned Parenthood is receiving. Audits
of Planned Parenthood affiliates in several states demonstrate a consistent pattern of overbilling
and abuse involving Medicaid funds. Furthermore, LiveAction videos have shown that Planned
Parenthood employees are unwilling to enforce parental-involvement laws and unwilling to
report statutory rape, but willing to assist a pimp who prostitutes minors. As a result, nine states
have cut Planned Parenthood funding from their state budgets, saving taxpayers over 61 million
dollars.

Additionally, 21 states have included provisions in their informed consent bills to give women
information about the availability of ultrasound services prior to the abortion. Six of these
states mandate an ultrasound for each abortion and require the abortion provider to offer the
opportunity to view the image. Also, 27 states passed homicide laws that recognize the unborn
as victims. Technological developments prompted five states to ban the use of telemedicine
for the provision of abortion medication. However, the most popular pro-life legislation during
the past two years has been fetal-pain laws. Since 2011, six states—Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana,
Kansas, Oklahoma, and Alabama—have enacted these laws, which ground protection for unborn
children after 20 weeks on medical evidence that they can feel pain starting at that point of
gestation.

These fetal-pain laws are good pro-life strategy for two reasons. First, it is just as politically
difficult today for pro-choice groups to support abortion at a late stage in pregnancy, especially
when there is evidence that the unborn can feel pain, as it was to defend partial-birth abortion
in the 1990s. Second, fetal pain laws can provide another legal justification for protecting
the unborn. Supreme Court jurisprudence has only allowed states to protect the unborn after
viability. Of course, since these viability protections must also broadly exempt situations where
the mother’s life is endangered physically or emotionally, they are very weak. However, if fetal-
pain laws receive constitutional protection, they may give the unborn greater legal standing than
do current viability protections, and thus pave a path for greater legal protections in the future.

Overall, pro-lifers’ incremental strategies since Casey have paid a variety of dividends. A
growing body of peer-reviewed research shows that public funding restrictions, parental
involvement laws, and properly designed informed consent laws all reduce abortion rates.
Furthermore, the ongoing debates about these incremental steps—many of which enjoy broad
public support—have successfully reframed the abortion debate in terms favorable to the pro-life
movement. Indeed, many surveys show that the pro-choice position’s consistent gains came to an
abrupt halt when the partial birth abortion ban became a salient issue in the mid 1990s.

In fact, several of the trends that concerned pro-lifers in the early 1990s have reversed
themselves. It is now Democrats who appear more conflicted about their party’s platform on
abortion. The pro-choice governors who were once thought to be the future of the Republican
Party have vanished from the political scene. Additionally, the pro-life position is gaining public
support, as a 2009 Gallup poll showed that for the first time, a majority of Americans describe
themselves as “pro-life.” Additionally, a Gallup Poll taken this May registered the lowest-
ever percentage of Americans who identify themselves as “pro-choice”—41 percent. Most
importantly, the number of abortions is steadily declining. Since 1992 the number of abortions
performed in the United States has declined by about 20 percent. All of this bodes well for the
future of the pro-life movement.

At some point in the future, the Supreme Court will reconsider its holdings in both Roe and
Casey. Predicting judicial rulings is far from an exact science. The Supreme Court may well
decide to overturn Roe v. Wade. However, even if Roe is upheld, there is a good chance that the
Supreme Court will continue to allow for greater state level regulation of abortion. It will be up
to the next generation of pro-life activists to effectively utilize future legal openings to advance
the culture of life.

Michael J. New is an Assistant Professor at the University of Michigan–Dearborn and an
Adjunct Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Follow him on Twitter @Michael_J_New. A
shorter version of this essay appeared in Roll Call on June 27th, 2012.

Copyright 2012 the Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Two young people have died…


	Two young people have died because of abortion, one walking across the country trying to save babies the other as a result of having destroyed her baby at Planned Parenthood. Lord have mercy on this country! May He bless you for all you do! Anne

Friday, July 20, 2012

I just couldn't resist...

Copying verbatim from Elizabeth Warren, President Obama said recently, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

I read in Isaiah this morning, "Oh Lord, you mete out peace to us, for it is you who have accomplished all we have done"

MCFL is nonpartisan and non-sectarian, but I was so impressed with the President's insight that I wanted to share.

Oh, you mean that wasn't what he meant...

I just couldn't resist! Anne

Massachusetts Citizens for Life
The Schrafft Center, 529 Main Street
Boston Massachusetts 02129
United States

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

NRLC: New poll shows strong support for late abortion ban

For immediate release: Tuesday, July 17, 2012, 9 AM EDT

For more information: Megan McCrum, (202) 626-8820, federallegislation@nrlc.org
or Jessica Rodgers, (202) 626-8825, mediarelations@nrlc.org

NEW POLL SHOWS 58-27% SUPPORT FOR REPLACING
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S CURRENT ABORTION-UNTIL-BIRTH POLICY
WITH PENDING CONGRESSIONAL BAN ON LATE ABORTIONS;
U.S. HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO VOTE ON BILL WEDNESDAY, JULY 18

WASHINGTON (July 17, 2012) -- By more than a 2-to-1 margin (58-27%), American adults, once informed of the current abortion policy in the nation's capital – legal abortion, for any reason, until birth – would be more likely to vote for lawmakers who support a pending bill that would not permit abortion in the District of Columbia after 22 weeks of pregnancy (20 weeks after fertilization), except to save a mother's life.

The bill, the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803),
is scheduled to be voted on by the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday,
July 18. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Az.), has 214 House cosponsors, including every Republican member of the Judiciary Committee. A Senate companion bill (S. 2103) has 30 cosponsors. Seven states have already enacted similar legislation.

Using (or misusing) authority delegated by Congress, the District Council repealed the entire abortion law for the District of Columbia. "In the District of Columbia, abortion is now legal, for any reason, until the moment of birth," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "Under the Constitution, Members of Congress, and the President, are ultimately accountable for this extreme policy. A vote against this bill amounts to a vote to ratify the current policy in the nation's capital, which is legal abortion for any reason until the moment of birth."

In a nationwide telephone poll of 1,010 adults (MOE +/-3.1%), conducted July 12-15, The Polling Company, Inc./WomanTrend, asked the following question:

Currently, within the District of Columbia, the nation's capital, there is no abortion law at all. This means that abortion is legal there, for any reason, right up until the moment of birth. This summer, Congress is considering a bill that would not allow abortion in the District of Columbia after 22 weeks of pregnancy – which means after the beginning of the sixth month of pregnancy – unless the mother's life is in danger. Would you be more or less likely to vote for a Member of Congress who votes in favor of this bill? And would you be (ROTATED) more or less likely to vote for a Member of Congress who votes in favor of this bill? (PROBED: And would that be MUCH or SOMEWHAT MORE/LESS LIKELY?)

58% TOTAL MORE LIKELY (NET) [women: 62%; men: 53%]
38% MUCH MORE LIKELY
20% SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY

27% TOTAL LESS LIKELY (NET) [women: 27%; men, 27%]
8% SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY
19% MUCH LESS LIKELY

12% MAKES NO DIFFERENCE/DEPENDS (VOLUNTEERED)
2% DO NOT KNOW (VOLUNTEERED)
1% REFUSED (VOLUNTEERED)

In response to a separate poll question, adults favored, by a 3-to-1 margin, a policy of not permitting abortion anywhere "after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain," unless it is "necessary to save a mother's life."

Unless an abortion is necessary to save a mother's life, do you think abortion should be permitted after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain?

63% NO, ABORTION SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED [women:70%; men:55%]
21% YES, ABORTION SHOULD BE PERMITTED [women:18%, men:25%]
8% DEPENDS (VOLUNTEERED)
4% DO NOT KNOW (VOLUNTEERED)
3% REFUSED (VOLUNTEERED)

H.R. 3803 was introduced by Congressman Trent Franks (R-Az.). In the bill, Congress adopts "findings" (declarations of fact) that by 20 weeks after fertilization (if not earlier), the unborn child has the capacity to experience great pain. The bill then prohibits abortion after that point, except when an acute physical condition endangers the life of the mother. Expert testimony was presented at a May 17 hearing on the bill showing that at 20 weeks fetal age, 6 percent of infants born spontaneously now survive long term in good neo-natal units. The long-term survival rates are 26% at 21 weeks fetal age and 55% at 22 weeks fetal age. (To convert to the alternate "LMP" dating system used by ob-gyns and abortion providers, also known as "weeks of pregnancy," add two weeks.) Seven states have already enacted laws similar to H.R. 3803.

The NRLC website contains much documentation on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and on the scientific evidence that unborn children, by 20 weeks fetal age if not before, have the capacity to experience great pain, here. The abortion method most often used at this stage, the "D&E," is depicted in a medical illustration, here.

Founded in 1968, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of 50 state right-to-life affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters, is the nation's oldest and largest grassroots pro-life organization.

512 10th Street NW | Washington, DC 20004

Massachusetts Citizens for Life
The Schrafft Center, 529 Main Street
Boston Massachusetts 02129
United States

Friday, July 13, 2012

Brown's a winner!

We just received word from Sen. Scott Brown's office that he will oppose the "DISCLOSE Act" when it come up for a vote on Monday!

You will remember that the "DISCLOSE Act" would muzzle MCFL and every other advocacy group in the country. We would not be allowed to publicize voting records of incumbent politicians. "DISCLOSE" is so bad the ACLU has joined with National Right to Life to oppose it. Yup, that ACLU.

Sen. Brown deserves a high five for protecting our rights! You might want to call to thank him at 202-224-4543. You can leave a message over the weekend.

Nice way to end the week! Anne

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Important poll - will be up all day. Vote now!

The last time I asked you to participate in a poll it was promptly taken down. This one is important and should be up all day. The Worcester Telegram asks the question, "Should adults who have six months or less to live be allowed to obtain drugs that would end their lives?"

Vote here: http://www.telegram.com/ . Scroll down the page, the poll is down a bit on the right hand side.

The vote is currently in favor, 75% to 25%. You can, literally, reverse that! Thanks! Anne

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Another Boston PP patient to hospital

Last Saturday morning, a Planned Parenthood security guard in Boston waved an ambulance around to the back of the facility to pick up an abortion patient for emergency transport.

You will remember a similar incident in January of this year at the same P P location.

According to Operation Rescue, there is a clear pattern in the abortion industry to call ambulances only in the event of a life-threatening emergency. Ambulances at abortion clinics make them look bad and drive off business. Read the entire article from Life News:

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/10/women-injured-by-botched-abortions-in-georgia-massachusetts/

BBC DEVELOPMENT OF BABY'S FACE IN UTERO - beautiful

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFY_KPFS3LA

JANE PITT - Brad's mother doesn't agree with him on pro-life

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20120703/OPINIONS03/307030043/Election-Casting-ballot-deserves-prayerful-consideration?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

36 COUPLES WAITING FOR EVERY ONE WHO ADOPTS

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/05/17/why-do-more-people-choose-abortion-over-adoption/

ABSTINENCE EDUCATION BEST, ACCORDING TO CONGRESS

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/09/congressional-report-abstinence-education-is-best-sex-ed-approach/

WE ARE LABELED TERRORIST AGAIN BY ADMINISTRATION

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/anti-abortion-groups-fundamentalists-among-most-frequent-terrorists-dhs-fun

UK DOCTORS SEDATING PATIENTS TO DEATH

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2012/07/08/elderly-sedated-to-death-in-the-uk/

Massachusetts will only cover one abortion a year?

Ok so me and my girlfriend are trying to break a world record, having the most abortions. My girlfriend already had one 2 months ago, and she's pregnant again, but the clinic we went to told us that Massachusetts Medicaid only covers one abortion a year!??? WTF? Is this true? Isn't this unconstitutional? My girlfriend has the legal right to have abortions, why wont they cover more than one a year!?

This was actually posted on Yahoo! Answers! It is a blog, so there are just reactions, not actual answers. Some people thought it was a great idea. What most people objected to was having to pay. Our work is so necessary! Anne

Monday, July 9, 2012

Kudos to Marie Sturgis and Massachusetts pro-lifers

Just think where we would be if Romney hadn't changed!

It is so heartening to hear these important people sharing our concern and commitment. Anne