Fwd: Three Pro-life Wins!

We will have two new pro-life Representatives in the Massachusetts House as a result of last week's two special elections. Leah Cole (R), Peabody, replaces Joyce Spiliotis who called herself "pro-choice" but supported some of our legislation and opposed Question 2, Doctor-Prescribed Suicide. Wayne Matewsky (D), Everett, replaces stridently pro-abortion,  Stephen "Stat" Smith.  Congratulations to them both! Last Friday, the Public Health Committee of the Connecticut House was scheduled to report out the Doctor-Prescribed Suicide bill.  It reported out every other bill it had considered, thus putting them on track for a vote of the full House.  The Chairman announced that the bill was too controversial because they had gotten so much pressure from citizens The Massachusetts Alliance Against Doctor-Prescribed Suicide and Second Thoughts worked with the people in Connecticut sharing what they had learned from the win on Question 2.  The battle is continuing in Vermont where our people are amazing.  The bill has been filed in Maine and, in New Jersey, could come for a vote on the floor at any time.  Of course, it has been filed again in MA but, for the moment, we are ok. Thank you for staying informed!  Anne

Fwd: Walk to Aid Mothers and Children Moves to New Location

We have some exciting news!  We have moved the Walk to a new location.  We were too big for Castle Island and so the Walk will be at the LaSalette Shrine in Attleboro. I just got home from the Shrine.  It is delightful.  I saw their beautiful monument to the unborn. We will get sponsor sheets and posters right away to those who have asked. This year we have a wonderful website where you can register and set up a sponsor page so people can sponsor you online.  Be sure to visit http://respectlifewalk.org/.  If you cannot walk, visit http://respectlifewalk.org/ to sponsor someone who is walking for your favorite beneficiary. With your help, this is going to be the best Walk ever!  The beneficiary organizations really need your help this year. That's the Walk to Aid Mothers and Children, Sunday April 28 at La Salette Shrine in Attleboro.  I'm looking forward to seeing you there!  Anne

Fwd: It Is Good to Be Pro-life!

Dominic, the little boy with cerebral palsy whom Pope Francis embraced on Easter in St Peter's Square, is local.  His father, Paul Gondreau, teaches theology at Providence College.  He is teaching in Rome this semester so his family is living there.  His comments on how people with disabilities teach us to love are beautiful! http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-day-pope-francis-embraced-my-disabled-son?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LifesitenewscomLatestHeadlines+%28LifeSiteNews.com+Latest+Headlines%29 If you would like to read other things Dr. Gondreau has written, check http://www.ceastudyabroadblog.com/2012/05/introducing-dr-paul-gondreau-new.html Truly, we are lucky to be on our side!  Anne

Fwd: ACTION DEADLINES: MON, APRIL 8 and WED, APRIL 10

EVERYONE:  The HHS Mandate is a terrible infringement on all our rights.  Each of us will be forced to pay for abortions.  Neither our personal opposition or the opposition of businesses and institutions will protect us and them from having to pay to kill babies.  There is every reason to believe that this is a "slippery slope" situation, that soon we will be paying to kill the disabled, the elderly, and the terminally ill.  http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/01/group-urges-pro-lifers-to-oppose-the-hhs-mandate-before-deadline/ The Department has had so many versions of these regs - each equally unacceptable - that we have all gotten tired of submitting our opposition.  This is exactly what the pro-death lobby counts on - that we will wear out.  Well, we'll never wear out. HHS is accepting input from the public through next Monday the 8th. ACTION: Submit your opposition to the HHS mandate now by going to http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=CMS-2012-0031-63161 THOSE WHO WANT TO VOTE IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY FOR U S SENATE:  The MCFL PAC has asked us to remind you that the deadline to register to vote or to change party affiliation for the U. S. Senate Primaries is next Wed, April 10th.  If you wish to vote for Michael Sullivan in the Republican Primary, you must be registered as Republican or Unenrolled.  You may go in person to register or send a letter to your Town/City Hall stating you wish to change your registration to Unenrolled.  Be sure to include your name, address, and birth date.  Be sure to mail it soon enough to be delivered by the 10th. With the current political situation here in Massachusetts, it is easy to think you can have no impact.  Please take advantage of these two opportunities to have a very significant impact for life. Thanks, Anne

Christ Is Risen! Truly, He Is Risen!

Christ is Risen: The world below lies desolate Christ is Risen: The spirits of evil are fallen Christ is Risen: The angels of God are rejoicing Christ is Risen: The tombs of the dead are empty Christ is Risen indeed from the dead, the first of the sleepers, Glory and power are his forever and ever                                St. Hippolytus (AD 190-236)                              Our wishes for a Blessed Easter to you and yours                                                                from the Board and Staff at Mass Citizens.

Clara Chooses Life

	Clara turns two today.  She is very fond of the mommy and baby on her grandmother's car.  She says "hi" to them every time she goes for a ride. Please get your plates soon.  Just go to the nearest registry office. This is far-reaching passive persuasion. I'll be looking for you on the road!  Anne

Abby Johnson Is Well And Coming to Massachusetts!

Your Pro-life Comments Needed Today!

This note just arrived from Anne Marie.  Please follow up.  Thanks, Anne http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/03/23/new-prenatal-genetic-tests-hold-promise-worries/pxwVIZfr00h9T5dBHZCiuK/story.html Anne If you haven't seen this, it is really incredible!  Here's a quote: Advocates for the Down syndrome community worry that wider prenatal testing will mean more expectant parents receive an alarming test result without sufficient information to make an informed choice about whether to terminate or continue the pregnancy. "I think Down syndrome is genetics' canary in a coal mine," said Dr. Brian Skotko, a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital who co-leads a clinic focused on caring for people with Down. "There are today 250,000 Americans with Down syndrome, only [about] 50,000 away from being reclassified as a rare disease," Skotko said. "We are, in the moment, potentially seeing through our society's choices the elimination of a people." Have people read and comment on this story so that most of the comments are pro-life! Have a blessed Holy Week. Anne Marie

YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION: do you need to change it?

The Primaries for the US Senate race are on April 30, 2013. In the Democratic Primary: Ed Markey is proud of having been "pro-choice" for many years.  Stephen Lynch says he is "pro-life" but has received 0% or 10% from National Right to Life for his voting record each of the last six years. Both Democrat candidates say they would vote against a nominee for Supreme Court Justice (or any other judge) who is opposed to Roe v Wade - a litmus test which is unacceptable. In the Republican Primary: Michael Sullivan has no such litmus test.  He is the only candidate who takes pro-life positions on funding, parental consent, and partial birth abortion. Gabriel Gomez says he is "pro-life" but would not vote to change any abortion laws. Dan Winslow brags about being the only candidate who has always been "pro-choice" You can see why the MCFL PAC has endorsed Michael Sullivan.  You can see why so many of you pro-lifers across the state worked so hard to get Michael Sullivan more than twice as many signatures as he needed to get on the ballot. The next step is to be sure Michael wins the Republican primary.   If you are Republican or Unenrolled, just mark your calendar for April 30th, Primary Election Day. If you are a registered Democrat, please change your registration for this primary.  It is simple!  Just send a note to your town or city clerk.  List your name,address, birth date, and say you want to change your designation to Unenrolled.  Be sure to say Unenrolled. not Independent (you will not be able to vote in the Republican Primary if you are registered as an Independent in Massachusetts because Independent has been a party of its own). When you get to the polls, ask for a Republican ballot.  Once you have voted, your registration will automatically return to Unenrolled.  You may tell them right there if you wish to go back to Democrat. YOU HAVE UNTIL APRIL 10, 2013 TO CHANGE YOUR PARTY DESIGNATION.  Do it now. For life, John Rowe, Chair, MCFL PAC

Doctor-Prescribed Suicide Poll Needs Your Vote Now!

Since we defeated Question2 here in Massachusetts, we have been helping in Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey where bills are threatening.  Hearings were held today in CT.  Our John Kelly, spokesperson for Q2, gave splendid testimony as did many others. This poll will influence the committee.  Currently we were behind 29% to 58%. Time to do your magic, please.  Thanks, Anne The poll is found in a tab on the top left side of the page above the video. http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politics/weighing-in-on-assisted-suicide#.UUoWbY5IgUU

Press Release: MCFL PAC Endorses Michael Sullivan for U.S Senate

Boston, March 19:  Massachusetts Citizens for Life Political Action Committee today endorsed former U S Attorney Michael Sullivan for United States Senator. "Michael Sullivan has been a fighter for the unborn and for the right to life of all," said John Rowe, Chairman of the MCFL PAC.  "In the U. S. Senate, Sullivan will vote to prohibit abortion coverage under federal 'multi-state' health plans, vote for parental notification and not bringing minor girls across state lines to have abortions without their parents' knowing, and vote for conscience rights." Rowe continued, "MCFL PAC is proud to endorse Michael and will stand firmly beside him in his efforts to protect life in the U.S. Senate. We encourage Massachusetts voters to support him on Primary Day and Election Day." MCFL PAC Schrafft Center, 529 Main Street, Charlestown, MA, 02129

Pope Francis on Life. Wow!

I think things are going to be fine.  Anne Michael Pakaluk writes today in National Review Online "The world may end; disasters and catastrophes may befall us; crises, defaults, and insolvencies may await. Before Francis, I was unsettled and expected all that. Now, with Francis, I realize that these things may happen, of course, but I see no need to think about them. Francis represents, for me, in this first impression, the reliability of the ancient ways, the solidity of God's path, and the assurance that we should persevere in what we always thought we should." "Unsettled" is the exact word.  As more information is available about Pope Francis, it is obvious that he is a PRO-LIFER!.  The pro-life movement is non-sectarian, including people who love life who are all faiths or no faith.  We all recognize how much the effort to save lives is helped by strong Catholic leadership.  It is a good day!  Anne Pope Francis on communion for those who facilitate abortion http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/as-cardinal-pope-francis-condemned-abortion-even-in-rape-cases Pope Francis offers second blessing to pregnant woman and her unborn baby http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/14/pope-francis-offers-his-second-blessing-to-pregnant-mom-unborn-baby/ Pope Francis: Defend the unborn from abortion even when persecuted http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/14/pope-francis-defend-the-unborn-from-abortion-even-if-persecuted/ And here's the inside scoop by George Weigel http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342964/first-american-pope-george-weigel?pg=3

Pope Francis Would Certainly Walk With Us

Again Mass. Citizens for Life is honored to organize and sponsor the Annual Respect Life Walk to Aid Mothers and Children on Sunday, April 28th.  Please check the list of Beneficiary Groups, http://respectlifewalk.org/about/   You will see how much good work they do -  how much they help pregnant women and their children, born and unborn..  By participating in the Walk to Aid Mothers and Children, they can raise money without having to organize their own Walks.  I can't begin to tell you how much work is involved in running a Walk..  Helen Cross and her Walk Committee accomplish miracles! We are very excited this year!  As you know, we voted for the Walk Baby online and through social media.  All the babies are adorable and you chose Julia, http://www.masscitizensforlife.org/mcfl_main/?page_id=16 We have many other new online features.  We encourage you to register and set up your sponsor page online, http://www.kintera.org/faf/home/waiver.asp?ievent=1063937&lis=1&kntae1063937=368624D02D40443EAE2D4A7DB1013FC9  You can then send the info to all your friends asking for their support.  You will be able to set your goal for what you want to raise for your chosen group.  You will be able to see how you and others are doing.  We know the beneficiary group you choose will receive many more donations than in the past because of your sponsor page. Please take a minute now to register. http://www.kintera.org/faf/home/waiver.asp?ievent=1063937&lis=1&kntae1063937=368624D02D40443EAE2D4A7DB1013FC9  I am looking outside at snow and listening to the forecast for more snow next week.  Just think how gorgeous it will be by April 28th!   That is only six weeks away.  You need to get started right now to reach your goal!  http://www.kintera.org/faf/home/waiver.asp?ievent=1063937&lis=1&kntae1063937=368624D02D40443EAE2D4A7DB1013FC9 I'm planning to raise a lot of money.  Hope you are, too! Thank you for all you do for life. Anne

You are invited to something very nice

40 Days Celebration of Life   Featuring Pro-Life Speaker, Catherine Adair Catherine Adair worked for Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts at the largest abortion clinic in New England. There she witnessed thousands of abortions. After seeing the aftermath of a second-trimester abortion, she was forever changed. Her personal experience with abortion at age 19 and time working at Planned Parenthood changed her from a prochoice feminist to a prolife activist. Her story is one of hope and of healing, and she credits God, with His infinite mercy and forgiveness, for giving her the strength to share her story.     Sunday, March 24   5 pm to 8 pm   Concannon's Village 60 Lenox St. Norwood, MA 02062   Join us to pray, hear Cathering Adair speak, share stories, and celebrate the ways God has blessed us over these 40 days of prayer, fasting, peaceful vigil and community outreach.   There is no charge for this event.  A free-will offering to cover food costs will be gratefully accepted.  Kindly rsvp ASAP (by Monday, March 18) to Anne Kane at 781-769-5398 or email annie.kane4@verizon.net so we have a headcount for food.

Join the March for Marriage

Mass Family Institute has sent us this invitation for you.  Anne Join MFI as we represent Massachusetts in the March for Marriage in our nation's capital Friends of the family, On March 26th the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the question of same-sex "marriage" and the right of Americans to protect marriage will be decided.  We believe it is imperative that political leaders, the media, and the culture see that we care about protecting marriage enough to stand up and march for it. That's why marriage supporters from across the country will converge on our nation's capital in two weeks. MFI will be there, and you can join us.  MFI is sponsoring a Deluxe Coach bus in order to bring a delegation down to DC for the Marriage March.  We will be leaving MA Monday night and arriving in DC. on Tuesday morning in time for the march.  Tuesday afternoon we will board the bus once again and travel back to MA, arriving around 2:30 am.  We currently have seats available at a cost $60 per person.  (Partial scholarships are available, courtesy of some generous donors.  Please inquire if you may qualify.)  http://www.mafamily.org/event-items/march-for-marriage/   I look forward to making this journey with you.  For our families,   Kris Mineau President

I think you will really appreciate this column from "American Thinker".  Anne March 14, 2013 What the Greatest Catholic Thinker Says about the Latest Catholic Pope Selwyn Duke With the election of Pope Francis, there are the usual complaints about how the Catholic Church has got to get with the times. The Huffington Post ran the headline, "Pope Francis Against [sic] Gay Marriage, Gay Adoption," which is much like thinking it newsworthy to write, "New Pope Believes in the Divinity of Jesus." Mother Jones laments the "missed opportunity to bring the papacy closer to where the people are." And Forbes' John Baldoni  dishes the baloney, writing of "a Catholic Church that is resistant to change but one that must certainly adapt (and rather radically) if it is going to continue to attract well-intentioned men and women who adhere to its faith but also are willing to devote themselves to its perpetuation" (hat tip: Drew Belsky). Yet this misses the point that it is creatures who must adapt to their ecosystem, and the Church is the moral ecosystem. Our modernistic culture is simply a pretender to that throne. But calls for adaptation are nothing new; it's just that primitives who once demanded it in the name of yesterday's fashions have adapted: they now demand it in the name of today's fashions. The brilliant philosopher and noted convert to Catholicism G.K. Chesterton wrote about this phenomenon almost a century ago in his essay "Why I am a Catholic": The other day a well-known writer, otherwise quite well-informed, said that the Catholic Church is always the enemy of new ideas. It probably did not occur to him that his own remark was not exactly in the nature of a new idea. It is one of the notions that Catholics have to be continually refuting, because it is such a very old idea. Indeed, those who complain that Catholicism cannot say anything new, seldom think it necessary to say anything new about Catholicism. As a matter of fact, a real study of history will show it to be curiously contrary to the fact. In so far as the ideas really are ideas, and in so far as any such ideas can be new, Catholics have continually suffered through supporting them when they were really new; when they were much too new to find any other support. The Catholic was not only first in the field but alone in the field; and there was as yet nobody to understand what he had found there. ...[For example,] when Mr. Belloc wrote about the Servile State, he advanced an economic theory so original that hardly anybody has yet realized what it is. A few centuries hence, other people will probably repeat it, and repeat it wrong. And then, if Catholics object, their protest will be easily explained by the well-known fact that Catholics never care for new ideas. Nevertheless, the man who made that remark about Catholics meant something; and it is only fair to him to understand it rather more clearly than he stated it. What he meant was that, in the modern world, the Catholic Church is in fact the enemy of many influential fashions; most of which still claim to be new, though many of them are beginning to be a little stale. In other words, in so far as he meant that the Church often attacks what the world at any given moment supports, he was perfectly right . The Church does often set herself against the fashion of this world that passes away; and she has experience enough to know how very rapidly it does pass away. ...Nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes. The Catholic Church has for one of her chief duties that of preventing people from making those old mistakes; from making them over and over again forever, as people always do if they are left to themselves. So what of the mistake, made over and over again, of criticizing the Church for being stuck in the past? It is the gripe of a slave of his age. A relativist sees ideas as either old-fashioned or fashionable, as being of the past or on the cutting edge, but none of these characterizations describe the Church. She is not a creature of the age, but of the ageless. She is not of any one time, but of the one Truth.    This is why I can assert, without being presumptuous, what a man who died the year a certain person was born would say about that person when he grew up, became pope, and took the name Francis. The Truth doesn't change. And since there also are no new sins, neither do criticisms of the Church change. They just get recycled by children of time and place who never learned history and thus think their "old mistakes" are "new ideas." They might never imagine that, when Christians refused to participate in ancient Rome's pagan festivals, Roman pagans uttered a very familiar line and called them "haters of humanity."   Ecclesiastes 1:9 tells us, "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Generally speaking, there are no old and new ideas; there are only enduring ideas and flashes in the pan of the polity. The enduring ideas are incorrectly labeled "old" because they are valid enough to remain in constant use, so we see them embraced by grandpa; the flash-in-the-pan ideas are called "new" because it is the fate of fallacies to be forgotten and then resurrected by the next unsuspecting generation. And the young will think grandpa knows nothing of them because they're newly-born, not realizing that he only knows nothing of them because they wisely were buried long before he was born.   So, secular left, perhaps your motto should be, "Fashionable modernism: bringing you yesterday's mistakes, today." But have at it with your criticism and scorn. Just know that Catholics are used to it, for we've been thus targeted for a very, very long time. And we'll be thus targeted long after you, and your ideas, are dust.   Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Join the March for Marriage

	The Mass. Family Institute has sent us this invitation for you to attend the March for Marriage in Washington, DC on Tuesday, March 26th. Anne http://www.mafamily.org/event-items/march-for-marriage/

President, Planned Parenthood President, Cecile Richards speaks tonight at Wellesley College

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND, REGISTER http://www.wcwonline.org/march12event HAVE YOUR QUESTIONS READY (about deaths of women, botched abortions and funding to start) AND PLEASE LET US KNOW WHAT HAPPENS.  Thanks, Anne Cecile Richards to Discuss "Women, Sex and Health Care" at Wellesley College Source: Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts  Incoming President of local Planned Parenthood, Martha (Marty) Walz, will also speak WELLESLEY: On March 12, Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), will visit Wellesley College to speak about how advances in and access to reproductive health care have expanded opportunities for generations of women. She will address the domestic policy and political climate, as well as the global context for this work.Since 2006, Richards has expanded PPFA's advocacy for access to health care both in the U.S. and globally, ensuring that Planned Parenthood plays a pivotal role in shaping health care coverage and services for women.   Martha (Marty) Walz, who will join Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts as President and CEO in early March, will also speak briefly and introduce Richards. Parking is available in the Davis Parking lot across from Alumnae Hall, near the Central Street entrance of the campus. Logistical questions can be directed to wcw@wellesley.edu.   WHO:  Presented by the Center for Work & Service at Wellesley College and the Wellesley Centers for Women. Featuring keynote speaker Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. WHAT:  "Women, Sex and Health Care: Hope for the 21st Century" WHERE: Diana Chapman Walsh Alumnae Hall Auditorium Wellesley College 106 Central Street Wellesley, MA 02481   WHEN: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 7-8PM

We Have a Walk Baby!

	Meet the 2013 Respect Life Walk Baby!  She is 21-month-old Julia and she is a darling! We want to thank all the families that submitted photos and all of you for voting for this year's Walk Baby.  You can register for the Walk at respectlifewalk.org. Anne

DEADLINE: WEDNESDAY MIDNIGHT

	You have until Wednesday night to vote and lobby for your favorite Walk baby.  They all are so dear! http://massprolife.com/?p=1524. We'll post the results at noon on Thursday.  Be sure you are represented! Anne

Vote Today for Your Favorite Walk Baby!

	Voting for the 2013 Walk Baby starts today!  You may vote - and get all your friends, etc to vote - until next Wednesday, March 6th.  When you see all the babies, you'll have a hard time deciding. Please vote at the Mass Citizens web site or on Facebook.  I noticed some babies already have a number of votes.  Good luck!  Anne http://massprolife.com/?p=1524.

Student Lobby Days Resume

Student Lobby Day has become so popular that we plan to hold multiple days this school year.  Teachers of biology, civics, history, home schoolers, scout leaders, etc may arrange days.  We would suggest 15 - 30 students age middle school and up, although younger siblings might be able to join. We provide presentations by legislators, briefings on right to life legislation, lunch, and a private tour of the State House.  If you are interested in arranging a Lobby Day, please contact our Legislative Director, Eva Murphy at <emurphy@masscitizensforlife.org>, or 617-242-4199 X227. Please do not contact us because you would like your child to participate.  Eva will be happy to deal with people who plan to bring a group. These have been wonderful days in the past.  Eva and I are looking forward to this year.  Anne

Walk Baby Contest: Thursday, February 28 Last Day to Register! Voting Starts on Friday!

Adorable pictures have been pouring in.  We know there are loads more darling babies out there.  Please be sure to enter your baby by Thursday at midnight. http://www.masscitizensforlife.org/mcfl_main/?page_id=16 I want to remind you, also, that you may vote online or on Facebook from March 1 to March 6.  Be sure you get people to vote for your favorite baby. It is so easy to see the face of God in baby faces!  Anne

Paul Swope: words of wisdom

Paul Swope worked at Mass Citizens for many years as Director of Development and Executive Director.  This is the second in a series of his articles that are most interesting to anyone toiling in the right to life vineyard. NB, Paul has been undergoing some pretty serious medical treatment.  I'm sure he and Jenny and the family would appreciate your prayers for his full recovery. Thanks, Anne American Thinker, February 22, 2013 A New Understanding of the Trauma of Abortion By Charles T. Kenny, Ph.D. and Paul Swope The pro-life movement has long endeavored to understand the complex emotional struggle behind a woman's decision to continue or abort an unplanned pregnancy. To explore the dynamics of this dilemma and to aid pro-life groups in assisting women in crisis, the Vitae Foundation in Jefferson City, Missouri pioneered a series of landmark studies on women and abortion. Unlike previous research, these revolutionary studies focused neither on the moral reasoning of the pro-life movement, nor on attitudinal surveys that yield primarily statistical snapshots, but on independent psychological analysis of women's hidden, emotional response to pregnancy, abortion, and motherhood. The interviews followed Right Brain ResearchTM methodology: lengthy one-on-one interviews lasting 75 to 110 minutes, utilizing visualization, repetition, and relaxation techniques to access the emotional mind and uncover deeply seated emotional needs and barriers, often with very surprising results. The first project, "Abortion As the Least of Three Evils -- Understanding the Psychological Dynamics of How Women Feel About Abortion," was published in summary form by First Things under the title "Abortion: A Failure to Communicate"(1998). The findings from a cross-section of women of child-bearing age, were groundbreaking, and became the most requested article since First Things was founded. The second project, titled "How Women Make Decisions About Unwanted Pregnancies," is the subject of this article. It focused on women who had already been pregnant and it sought to uncover the dynamics behind the decision to keep, adopt, or abort a child. The findings provided deep insights into the stages that women who face a surprise pregnancy experience: suspicion, then fear, then denial, then panic. As one participant explained: "Denial...I kept telling myself that maybe it's just pre-period soreness. I can't be pregnant. No way. It would ruin my life... I don't know what I'd do. It would end my career. I might end up homeless. I didn't trust my boyfriend... That's it... scared, worried and denying that it's possible." Once the reality has set in, a woman faces the key question: to keep or to abort the child. The adoption question is essentially a subset of the decision to keep the child. Generally, she only confronts adoption as a possibility after deciding to give birth to the baby. From a counseling point of view then, it is counterproductive to force the adoption question in the beginning. The study also enumerated a number of factors that lie behind the decision to keep or to abort, including an umbrella concept ("Psychological Kernel") with three main findings that ties all the research together: Women carry an unwanted pregnancy to term when guilt wins out over shame, when they feel that the pregnancy will not end their own current and future selves, and that the unborn will be better off alive than dead. Expanding on each of these three crucial insights is the subject of this article. First, however, it is important to note that none of these three findings have much to do with biology (Is it a baby?), or abstract moral reasoning (Is abortion right or wrong?). Instead, the insights revolve around how the woman feels about herself, and only secondarily about the baby, but only within the context of the woman's own immediate situation. Understanding this dynamic is essential to reaching these women. The first finding of the Psychological Kernel is that a woman will choose to keep her child if feelings of guilt about the decision to abort are stronger than feelings of shame about public judgment resulting from continuing the unwanted pregnancy. Put another way, if a woman's sense of self-worth centers more on how she will view herself, as opposed to how she believes others will view her, then she is most likely to keep her child. Here is how one woman described it: "If I had an abortion it would change me completely... I would have been very bitter and disappointed with myself. I try to be a good person. It is a human being. I could not live with the guilt." This woman chose to keep her child. For a woman who is more concerned about shame than guilt, she can focus on the ideas like "...sex before marriage is a sin, the baby is a terrible mistake, and people will judge me as a bad person. I fear being rejected by others. I will abort the baby so no one will know and I will not be rejected by others." After all, abortion at least keeps the pregnancy and its consequences private. In essence, to avoid public shame, a woman will risk the lifelong burden of private guilt. In many cases, deep-seated regret surfaced years later, causing anxiety and depression. A second dynamic identified in the Kernel is that a woman chooses to keep the child when she feels that pregnancy will not destroy her current and future "self." Abortion is a fairly common choice today partly because many modern women have not incorporated the idea of motherhood into their self-image, their ideas and feelings about who they are. Pregnancy and motherhood completely shatter some women's idea of who they are and who they plan to be. In their minds, motherhood is equated with a kind of death. This insight has far-reaching consequences for the pro-life movement. Whether right or wrong in the abstract, under the panic of this life-changing crisis, abortion can seem to align itself with the deep and universal instinct of self-preservation. When this instinct is pitted against a more distant and abstract consideration of the value of the nascent life, many women choose abortion. The pro-life tendency to focus exclusively on the child, rather than on the woman's own circumstances and emotional needs, only deepens the woman's sense of isolation and despair -- the very emotions that often lead her to choose abortion. Conversely, a woman who chooses to keep her child might have a more developed maternal instinct. She might imagine and look forward to the idea of being a mother. To abort her child would be a kind of death, in this case the death of her "maternal self." Obviously this dynamic plays out in how women view the unborn child. For those who are more centered on their individual future and how a child would destroy such plans, the unborn child tends to be dehumanized. As one participant stated: "Abortion is done early. I don't see it as an entity. Once you have gone through pregnancy and delivery, you form an attachment. It would be difficult to give a baby up at that point. Not knowing where the baby is or who it is with. With abortion you know what happened. There are no questions." This statement highlights a theme throughout the research. In crisis mode, many women seek a final and quick resolution, regardless of its moral content. Abortion offers closure. For these women, both motherhood and adoption are more complicated, longer lasting, and thus less attractive. The third dimension of the Kernel uncovered is that a woman will choose life if she believes the unborn child is better off alive than dead. This may seem obvious, but the situation into which the child is to be born in a crisis pregnancy is far from ideal. In fact, other women argue that preserving the child's life is not virtuous. They do not necessarily equate abortion with selfishness or keeping the baby with altruism. They wonder, "Is it altruistic to bring a child into a world of poverty, violence, foster homes, and neglect? Is it really clear that preserving the embryo is an absolute moral imperative, when weighed against the lifelong suffering as a result of bringing an unwanted pregnancy to term?" Pro-lifers may disagree with this reasoning, but we dismiss it at our peril if our goal is to reach, understand and help women in crisis. Some married women with children reported choosing abortion because they felt carrying to term would threaten either their marriage or the overall stability of the current family. One woman, who described herself as "pro-child," cited her own happy childhood as a basis for choosing abortion, as she believed every child deserved to be born into better circumstances than her immediate situation. There are many layers underlying the decision to keep or abort a child. There are findings that apply to all women interviewed, but there is also a unique aspect of the crisis as each woman experiences it. What happens, for example, when a woman has a very high "shame" concern, but also a strong maternal instinct? What if a woman loves children but finds herself in a seemingly impossible material situation? The findings show that if these women override their own conscience and choose abortion, they are likely to face extreme emotional trauma and crippling guilt. Many women report how urgently they need gentle, loving guidance when struggling with their decision. Many report that they would never have aborted if they had found such help. Most of the women did not have deep trust or confidence in their boyfriends or in the ability of their marriage and family situation to accommodate another child. Rather than relying on their parents, whom they felt were controlling rather than supporting, they longed for a female confidante who could have listened to them as they expressed their emotional turmoil and helped them explore their options. The implications for pro-life counseling are clear. Pro-lifers may believe they have the high moral ground, but a woman in crisis will not turn to one if she perceives that person to be preachy, rigid, or manipulative. Even a woman with pro-life instincts may default to abortion if it appears to solve her fear of public shame, her loss of self, or even her concern for the child's future. This is a tragic miscalculation, but the pro-life community must help women realize what is happening to them on an emotional level within their own and psychological framework. Decision-making at this stage hinges on emotional and circumstantial factors, rather than moral or intellectual ones. It suggests that counselors should focus on open-ended questions about the woman's family, her relatives and friends, her expectations, fears, and hopes. There is certainly a role for offering ultrasound imaging of the unborn child, as this helps the woman reconnect with her maternal self, but only if offered in a non-judgmental context. In summary, it is not likely that the pro-life message will be persuasive to a woman who is focused on her perception of public shame, on her own career and future, and who either dehumanizes the unborn child, or justifies abortion as a way to avoid bringing a child into an unstable situation. It is also doubtful that pro-lifers need to spend their resources reaching out to women at the other extreme, for whom abortion is out of the question. The women who most need help and support are those who fall into the "conflicted middle," women for whom abortion is troubling but may appear to offer resolution. It is hoped that the insights uncovered in this research project can aid those who work to help such women, sparing those facing an unwanted pregnancy from making a decision that may haunt them for the rest of their lives. To read a more detailed version of this article please go to: http://www.vitaefoundation.org/ or www.adsforlife.org or www.rightbrainpeople.com

Dear fellow dupee...

Please look over this article, replacing "conservative" with "right to life".  You will think of people like Bob Casey in Pennsylvania who pretended to be pro-life in order to get elected.  And you will think of people who would have helped us in DC but weren't "pure enough".  We can take some solace in knowing that we in MA are much more politically savvy than most of the country, but we need to be vigilant and not let ourselves be manipulated.  Anne

How the Left Dupes Conservative Voters

By J. R. Dunn, American thinker, 3/19/13

Too little serious conservative analysis of the 2012 presidential campaign has yet appeared. This is understandable. The results of the election were disheartening to the point of shock. The campaign defied all historical precedent, all commonsense interpretation. The Romney ticket should not have lost and did not deserve to lose. The Democrats, fielding the least worthy ticket in the past century -- and that's saying something -- did not deserve to win.

The reasons they did are myriad and complex. But before we get too far down the road, there is one lesson that has to be grasped: the left has our number. As far as electoral politics in the United States is concerned, the progressive political machine has figured out how to manipulate conservatives in order to get the political results that they desire. They have done this repeatedly, and with mounting success. They will continue to do so as long as they are allowed to get away with it.

The left is not manipulating conservatism as a whole, but they don't need conservatism as a whole. They need only a small percentage of conservative voters.  In many cases a few percentage points are all that is required to swing a close election. By trial and error over the past decade, the American left has developed a method of obtaining control over those few percentage points in a limited but crucial number of contests.

This method is aimed at the most unworldly and least experienced members of the conservative coalition: religious believers, single-issue voters such as gun owners, and newly-recruited voters who became involved in the tea party movement over the past four years. The program operates counterintuitively, by manipulating the beliefs and convictions of the voters to misdirect or negate their political activities. Rather than persuade voters to act against their own interests or to vote against their convictions, the left, with the aid of the media, manipulates those very convictions -- public morality with religious voters, conservative ideology with traditionalists or tea party voters, and various stances on single issues, to persuade voters to waste their votes on obscure or bogus candidates, to throw support to hopeless or seriously flawed "pure" candidates, and in some cases not to vote at all.

This tactic surfaced in the 2000 election, almost by sheer accident. On November 2, WPXT reporter Erin Fehlbau seemingly stumbled over a story of national significance while covering an unrelated trial.  According to a local cop, somebody had unearthed evidence that George W. Bush had been involved in a 1976 drunk-driving case.

"Somebody" turned out to be Tom Connolly, a Democratic political operative who had acted as a delegate to the national convention and had previously run for state governor. Connolly, lo and behold, was right around the corner, and was able to give Fehlbau the complete lowdown, including dates and docket number. Fehlbau happily ran off with her story, morally certain that she had been in no way manipulated -- a claim she makes to this day.

In truth, she had been manipulated as thoroughly and completely as the average Philip K. Dick character. At least two other reporters, Susan Kimball of the Portland NBC affiliate WCSH-TV and David Hench, police reporter for the Portland Press Herald, were tipped at the same time. Somebody really wanted the story to roll.

And roll it did. Fehlbau was featured on that evening's Nightline, and the story ran on front pages (remember those?) across the country the next day. The consensus was that Bush had lied (he'd done no such thing, he merely hadn't mentioned a piece of ancient history), that he probably still drank, and there might well be truth in rumors about hard drug use.

Connolly leapt into the picture, patting himself on the back for his heroism and cleverness, claiming to have changed history, and even providing a rationale -- according to him, the number of drunk drivers was already dangerously high without putting one in the White House. Unmentioned then or later was who else was involved. (Political insiders believe that it was Gore campaign panjandrum Chris LeHane, who was from Maine and had plenty of connections in the area, including Connolly himself.)

The story had a clear effect on the campaign. Bush, who had been steadily gaining momentum and led in several polls, began to stall out. The weekend left him little time to refute the story, and the election went down to the wire as a nail biter. The endgame was in fact historic: Bush eked out a bare victory by hanging onto Florida's electors with little over 500 votes. Aided by several bizarre rulings by the Florida Supreme Court, the Gore campaign did everything possible to overthrow the vote count. Five weeks passed before the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to bring the circus to an end.

Karl Rove, whose somewhat mysterious reputation as electoral wizard did not easily survive the incident, states that the stratagem cost Bush 2% of the vote, losing him at least four states by 1% or less -- New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Oregon. The voters lost were mostly Fundamentalists or Evangelicals deeply disturbed to learn that Bush was a man who took a drink. 

The episode left serious marks on the American body politic. It crippled the Bush administration at its very start, even as the Jihadis were preparing to strike. It provided a stab-in-the-back myth for the Democrats, which they used to rally their more loopy followers. It blessed Al Gore with a bogus halo of martyrdom, which he parlayed into vast wealth as a kind of revival-tent environmentalist and at last as a spokesman and partner with the Jihadi-supporting Al Jazeera network. None of those involved, from Connolly to LeHane, has ever expressed a word of regret. Why should they? They had a whole new tactic to exploit.

Corruption goes back a long way in American presidential politics, as the "Corrupt Bargain" and Watergate will attest. But the drunk-driving stratagem was something new -- never before had anyone nearly pocketed the White House by subverting a candidate's deepest and most serious supporters. This tactic had vast possibilities, possibilities that the Democrats have explored in many an election since.

In 2006, after two elections spent banging their heads against Bush's early popularity, the Democrats hit on the tactic of running Blue Dogs -- Democrats with a few surface conservative characteristics. One of the most important from an electoral standpoint was a good rating with the NRA, something possessed by a number of candidates, among them James Webb of Virginia. Although the NRA was questioned over this, it refused to modify its policy of endorsing highly-rated candidates and ended up doing exactly what the Democrats hoped: funneling voters toward an entire squadron of Trojan horse candidates. Numerous voters to whom gun rights were dominant voted according to their usual practice for candidates supported by the NRA, despite the fact that this new run of Blue Dogs opposed everything else they might believe. It was a case of missing the forest in favor of a single tree. While the candidate in question might well be a hunter or an avid gun collector, his election accomplished nothing beyond providing numbers and support for a party adamantly opposed to both the NRA and gun owners everywhere.

The tactic played out superbly (despite the presence of the GOP's resident Merlin Karl Rove working the opposite side), contributing strongly to that year's turnaround in Democratic fortunes. Many of the Blue Dogs won, including Webb -- granted that Republican George Allen gave him a welcome hand with the "Macaca" fiasco. (In short order, Webb wrecked his own political career, ironically enough by means of a confused scandal involving an illegal pistol, in the process humiliating not only himself, but also Congress and the NRA, an unusual triple-header.)

But the new Democratic tactics came onto their own in the wake of 2008 and the appearance of the tea parties as a political force. The tea parties in large part involved the influx of large numbers of Americans who, for a variety of reasons, had previously avoided or overlooked politics. With the election of Obama came the realization that this was no longer a viable option. What followed was a mass internal migration into active politics. The problem lay in the fact that many of these voters, though often of high intelligence and educational achievement, had no previous experience with politics. They had no idea of the amount of sleaze, corruption, and dishonesty that surrounded even the simplest political operation. This naiveté made them easy prey for any determined political operative. The fact that the Republican and conservative establishments chose to regard them as an annoyance rather than potential allies left them wide open to exploitation by the Democrats.

The 2010 Nevada senate race opened as a single combat between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle. But then a third-party candidate named Scott Ashjian appeared, representing the "Tea Party of Nevada." Ashjian gave no speeches, did no campaigning, and granted no interviews, simply ran ads underlining his tea party credentials, though no one in the movement had either heard of or would vouch for him. Ashjian, it turned out, was a lawyer with Democratic connections whose claim to fame was representing John Wayne Bobbit, the noted near-eunuch and porn star.

The Ashjian campaign provided just enough confusion and distraction to undermine GOP efforts. Reid, who needed all the help he could get, squeezed out a victory and returned to Washington to not lead the Senate, not offer budgets, and not get bills passed.

But it was 2012 when the technique reached its apotheosis with the campaign of Todd Akin. Claire McCaskill of Missouri was (and is) an incompetent senator of no discernable attainment, widely considered to be the most vulnerable incumbent in the country. Two personable and capable conservatives, Sarah Steelman and John Brunner, were vying for the opportunity to run against her.

But then appeared Todd Akin, an engineer with a spotty and unimpressive political record. No sooner had Akin announced than a parade of TV ads appeared accusing him of being the "most conservative candidate", far more so than his rivals. The odd thing was that these were paid for by the Democratic Party. Opposing parties do not usually run ads involving one another's primaries. Yet the Democrats spent something on the order of $1.5 to $2 million on a series of don't-throw-me-in-that-briar-patch ads transparently designed to call attention to Akin.

They worked. Missouri's Republican voters turned out to vote for Akin with the alacrity of Pavlov's dogs sensing a treat. While it was more than apparent what had transpired, there was little to be done on the national level but shrug and hope for the best.

Until, that is, Akin began a series of obtuse blurts the most well-known of which was his 12th-century treatise on female biology. Like a heat-seeking warhead, Akin had aimed himself at the most sensitive bloc of independent voters, extremely skittish and suspicious of the GOP, blowing apart any chance of holding onto it.

National media moved in like hyenas. GOP candidates across the country condemned Akin (as if they had any choice) while the GOP vowed to deprive him of funding. Requests from around the compass were made for Akin to step down.

It is here that case pressed by Akin supporters (and they do exist, even today) falls apart. Any candidate of principle, on learning that he was the handpicked favorite of the opposition, would think twice, would reconsider his options, would at least condemn the attempt to utilize him against his own party. Akin did none of those things. He simply trundled on blank-eyed, like a cyborg sent back by Skywatch to destroy the GOP.

The NRC relented and granted Akin funding. Several of the more thoughtful and discerning GOP politicians, among them Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, came out in his support. It all availed nothing. Akin went down to inevitable defeat and the worst senator in the country returned to Washington for another term.

 The Akin candidacy had effects far beyond Missouri. Democrats used it in attempts to tar other Republicans, including vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan. It played directly into the favorite media stereotype of conservatives as medieval halfwits. It nullified GOP efforts to woo undecided female voters.

But more than that, it served as proof of concept, demonstrating that it was possible to make an entire state's roster of conservative voters behave as if they'd been Tasered. This is a remarkable achievement, whatever you may think of Akin or his Democratic manipulators, one that points toward even more extravagant possibilities in the future.

(Akin himself has not completely dropped out of sight. AT received an email from him several weeks ago speculating on the upcoming and inevitable Rapture.  Which begs the question as to why he was running for the Senate in first place. Speaking for myself, about the last place I'd want to be caught on Judgment Day, apart from a whorehouse or an adult bookstore, would be the U.S. Congress.)

As for the presidential election, damping the Romney vote would have been child's play for a political organization capable of pulling off the Akin maneuver. Was such an attempt made? It's doubtful that the Dems let the opportunity simply pass. If we consider that the biggest factor in Romney's defeat was the large but unknowable number of diehards who refused to vote for the RINO (some estimates put the number being as high as 2 to 3 million), some light begins to dawn. There were throughout 2012 no end of comment threads, tweets, and Facebook postings urging exactly such action, by people operating anonymously who vanished as soon as the election was over. It's more than likely many of these were on somebody's payroll.  Their effect is impossible to gauge, but that they did damp the Romney vote to some extent is just as difficult to deny. Such efforts will become more common, heated, and open in upcoming elections.

Efforts to manipulate the 2014 election are already apparent. Recently, the Democrats launched an attempt to manipulate the Kentucky senatorial elections by forming an alliance with local tea parties. The president of the Louisville Tea Party, Sarah Durand, was approached by Democratic operatives promising a seven-figure investment in the overthrow of Mitch McConnell, the GOP bête noire of many of the woollier tea party factions. The Democratic organizations included MoveOn and Progress Kentucky along with the party SuperPAC.

In truth, the Kentucky effort appears to be aimed at Rand Paul, the state's junior senator and one of the big tea party success stories. Paul struck up an unexpected friendship with McConnell (which in itself tends to undercut the case against the minority leader).  McConnell's experience and skill coupled with Paul's brashness and enthusiastic following represents a nightmare for Democratic planners. It should be expected that they'd go to extreme lengths to break any such team up. Do Durand and the other state tea party leaders grasp this? (Sen. Paul himself has doubts that the Kentucky tea parties will become involved in any such effort.)

This puts a new perspective on Karl Rove's recent announcement concerning his "Conservative Victory Project" to vet and support winning GOP congressional candidates. There is in fact an argument for close examination of potential candidates to avoid another Akin -- that is, a candidate selected and supported by liberal Democrats for the sole purpose of undercutting the GOP. But that's not how Rove chose to put it. With his customary combination of perspicacity and class, he instead portrayed himself as the last man on the establishment ramparts, defending traditional blue-blazer Republicanism from the unwashed hordes in their NASCAR ballcaps. With his rhetoric, his posturing, and his choice of a media platform (that conservative stalwart the New York Times), Rove could not have done more to provoke the Republican rank and file. A political technician of good will would have reached out to the tea parties, called a conference, gone over the problem, and presented alternative solutions acceptable to all sides of the conservative coalition. Rove did none of those things in favor of something on the order of a nuclear first strike carried out with the help of left-wing media allies. Unfortunately for him, most of his missiles seem to have exploded in their silos.

Which leaves the problem itself unaddressed. We can only hope that Rove's actions have not rendered the topic radioactive. Some form of organizational and institutional countermeasures must be put in place. We cannot depend on people with otherwise busy lives and full days to attain a lifetime worth of political sophistication in the period of a few years. Those who do dedicate their lives to practical politics must act as watchmen. They must be doubly careful in choosing and promoting candidates. They must be honest and honorable. They must look past the single issues. They must keep an eye open for torpedoes launched only to destroy the conservative cause.

The left has been conning us. But as the old saying goes, you can't con an honest man. If we live up to our best selves, as conservatives and Americans, we can beat this tactic.