On Saturday in Fitchburg I attended one of the Defund Planned Parenthood protests that took place around the country as the speaker.
While nationally the effort ran afoul of GOP senators John McCain, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski In Massachusetts the effort is a tad different as it is necessary to amend the Massachusetts Constitution to do so here. So there is a need to obtain signature to get a ballot question started.
Gardner resident Shelley Austin said that Massachusetts is one of only 15 states that use tax dollars to pay for abortions, which she said are a covered procedure through MassHealth.
She said that the Massachusetts Alliance to Stop Taxpayer Funded Abortion is trying to put the issue of taxpayer-funded abortion before Massachusetts voters. They are working to collect the 65,000 signatures required to get a question on the ballot.
I spoke to Shelly after the rally.
The reporter for the Telegram and Gazette spoke to several of us before the event including me.
Fitchburg resident Pete Ingemi, a longtime member of St. Bernard’s Church, said fighting taxpayer-funded abortion is the first and most logical step to ending abortions.
“What is abortion? It is the abandonment of hope,” he said. “And the argument is always that it isn’t a real life, but it is a life, and it’s a life of value. You never know what great things that human being was going to make happen.”
and stayed for most of the rosary but not for either Shelly talk or my speech
In Fitchburg, a similar, but smaller prayer protest was held on Main Street near the Planned Parenthood office. A small group, some holding rosary beads, shared their commitment to stopping abortion.
Situated under the shade of a tree, the group got plenty of support in the form of thumbed-up hands sticking out of passing cars, beeping horns and the occasional affirmative shout. There were also passers-by who strongly disagreed — though just one or two — and organizer Joyce Aucoin said this is nothing new.
The detail left out here was man who repeatedly approached Joyce as she spoke, loudly loudly asking her for condoms, he left when it was clear she was not going to let him provoke her.
As for my speech I pointed out that Planned Parenthood was built on the same lies that justified slavery from the days of ancient Egypt, to Roman times, to the Barbary Pirates to the slave trade. The idea that those enslaved were either of lesser values or not actual human beings. It is no coincidence that like most other places it operates, Planned Parenthood moved into Fitchburg as the “Hispanic” population increased.
Furthermore I pointed out that the easiest way to reveal the lie is to ask any counter-protester supporting “choice” if it is OK to abort a child in the womb because it was gay. Suddenly the woman’s choice argument isn’t good enough and the person always has to think, why? Because in their mind that person might be of their group which suddenly confers a value on that life that they didn’t before.
But the easiest way to show how carefully the lie has to be taught was illustrated by a model of a 20 week old baby in the womb.
Put that model in front of any child and ask what it is, and the answer will be “a baby”. To produce a different answer, you have to be carefully taught.
Will it make a difference? It will be tough to win this fight in Massachusetts, particularly when a lot of the GOP leadership has been carefully taught to run away from this issue, but as the man who actually wrote the Constitution of Massachusetts once said, facts are stubborn things.
To say he would be appalled at how partisans have rewritten and reinterpreted his words in their image while still claiming it was his work and not theirs, is an understatement.
I’ve often argued that the Democrat position on Abortion is the Same as their historical position on Slavery and Jim Crow. At best they considered unborn children as subhuman just as they once considered blacks subhuman and at worst they consider unborn children property to be disposed as they see fit, just as they once considered black slaves.
Some might be upset at the reminder of this historical reality but it’s not just a historical allusion as abortion so disproportionately slaughters black children and nothing is more sacred to the Democrat elite that their ability to continue that slaughter thus Williamson’s’s objections become beyond the pale.
It seems that some things just never change.
If you’d like to continue to support independent journalism, help defray the $140 a month extra I’ll need for my new hosting site please consider hitting DaTipJar here.
Consider subscribing. 7 more subscribers at $20 a month will pay the monthly price for the new host/server.
If you don’t want to wait or my blog posts to see my interviews my youtube channel is here.
Full CPAC 2017 list (for those who feel nostalgic) is here
A reminder I have copies of my Book Hail Mary the perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer available at CPAC with me, price $7 and I will happily sign them for you.
Or you can just order it on Amazon
If you’d like to continue to support independent journalism, help defray the $140 a month extra I’ll need for my new hosting site) and think my CPAC 2018 reporting is worthwhile please consider hitting DaTipJar here.
Consider subscribing. 7 more subscribers at $20 a month will pay the monthly price for the new host/server.
Donald Trump received during the 2016 general election campaign, only two of them came from publications that have more than 100,000 subscribers. Those papers were the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Florida Times-Union. There were nine anti-endorsements–eight of those urged “Not Donald Trump–” and 64 “No Endorsements.” Most of the rest, 243 of them, were for Hillary Clinton.
Running against Rauner in the GOP primary is Jeanne Ives, who I support. A West Point graduate, Ives entered the race after Rauner signed into law bills that angered Land of Lincoln conservatives, including sanctuary state legislation, a bill that allows Illinoisans to change the gender listed on their birth certificates, and legislation that expands taxpayer funding for abortions. On that last one Rauner broke his promise to Illinoisans--including Cardinal Blase Cupich–that he would veto it.
Rauner’s endorsements are milquetoast testimonials.
“You say you wish more had been accomplished during Rauner’s first term to fix finances, to grow jobs? So do we,” the Chicago Tribune shrugs.
“As we approach this primary election, we have fundamental concerns about the governor’s ability to lead in this incredibly difficult time,” the Bloomington Pantagraph unloads.
“With a handful of exceptions, we believe he has been a failure as governor, and he has only himself to blame. He promised what he could not deliver,” says the Chicago Sun-Times.
In not choosing Ives, each paper mentions her conservative stance on social issues and the Pantagraph specifically cites a controversial TV ad where actors, including a man wearing a dress, “thank” Rauner for signing social issue legislation.
There has been only one poll so far in the GOP race and it’s a month old. At that time nearly 70 percent of likely voters hadn’t heard of Ives. But a few days later Ives’ TV commercials, including the one that has so angered the media and Democrats who have no intention of voting for a Republican candidate for governor, began airing.
The “experts” said Trump couldn’t even win the Republican nomination for president, let alone defeat Hillary Clinton. Sure, Illinois is a blue state, but the Land of Lincoln has been destroyed by the Democratic hegemony led by Madigan. And as I told the Prairie State Wire last week, Illinois hasn’t had a real conservative governor in the modern era.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
-Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
by William Goldman
I live in a relatively small town in Massachusetts and, like most towns, we have our political differences. They usually play out in local issues, but something happened about a year ago that seems to have the leftists in our little town riled up, much like leftists across the country. I won’t go into details, but there have been a number of contentious issues brought up and discussed at recent town meetings and through letters to the editor in our local paper that make this division clear. It is interesting to me that all of these new problems have been brought up by leftists in our town who apparently didn’t know that these problems existed until President Trump was elected.
Shortly after the election, one of the more progressive churches in town distributed lawn signs which many of my neighbors – including one right across the street – display even today:
It is a safe bet that anyone with such a sign in front of his or her house did not vote for President Trump. It is also clear that the sign is an attempt at signifying some kind of moral superiority on behalf of the residents of that house, implying that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with them on these points. The problem is that these points are so completely disingenuous that it’s obvious that anyone putting up such a sign has no desire to engage in a reasonable debate on any of them.
Black lives matter: Of course they do. So do all other lives, including the lives of police officers who risk their lives to keep us safe and have been put in greater danger by the behavior and rhetoric of “Black Lives Matter” and their political sycophants. Unfortunately, the people in this house are unwilling to admit the “Black Lives Matter” movement is based on a lie. Michael Brown was a criminal who was assaulting a police officer when the officer shot him in self defense. He was not a “gentle giant” who was surrendering with his hands up.
Women’s rights are human rights: Of course they are. Everyone’s rights, by definition, are human rights, and those rights are spelled out in the Constitution. But the fact that I am against abortion-on-demand and taxpayer-funded birth control does not mean that I am a “misogynist.” I believe in the right to life, from conception to natural death. This is the most basic human right.
No human is illegal: Of course not. But when humans break the law, like entering our country illegally, they should be punished. That’s what “the rule of law” means.
Science is real: Of course it is. Science is based on the idea that you form a hypothesis, experiment, and adjust the hypothesis according to the data. Science is never “settled.” The closest the proponents of “global warming” have come to the scientific method is when they changed the name to “climate change” when they were unable to massage the data enough to show that the earth is actually warming. Biology is also a science, and it tells us that men are men and women are women and wishing to be the opposite sex doesn’t make it so.
Love is love: Of course it is. But that is not a justification for changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Especially when that change brings with it the force of the state to compel others to endorse and participate in same-sex ceremonies that violate their sincerely held religious principles. The reason that the traditional definition of marriage was in place throughout all of human history until only a few years ago is that it is the ideal environment for bringing up children. My wife and I are complementary in many ways, each bringing a unique perspective to our family in ways that same-sex couples simply cannot.
Kindness is everything: I agree, which is why I don’t have a sign on my lawn that implies that my neighbors are a bunch of neanderthals for disagreeing with me. If these people truly believed that kindness is everything, they would respectfully engage in conversations instead of accusing those who disagree with them of being science denying racists, bigots and homophobes.
[If] you do not speak up to warn the wicked about their ways, they shall die in their sins, but I will hold you responsible for their blood. –Ezekiel 33:8
Massachusetts General Law defines abortion as “the knowing destruction of the life of an unborn child.” Further, it defines an “unborn child” as “the individual human life in existence and developing from implantation of the embryo in the uterus until birth.” Now, we can argue about whether that individual human life began at implantation or at conception, but Massachusetts law is clear that the unborn child is a life and not just a “blob of tissue.” Unfortunately, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in Moe vs Secretary of Administration and Finance (1981) decided that taxpayer funds must be used to kill that life if its mother so wishes.
Prior to Moe, the state operated under the Doyle-Flynn Amendment – the state-level equivalent of the federal Hyde Amendment, which has been upheld repeatedly by the US Supreme Court – which prohibited taxpayer funds from being used to pay for abortions. But in 1981, the SJC took it upon itself to go beyond the federal Roe v. Wade decision and decreed that taxpayer funds must indeed be used to pay for abortions for poor women under the guise of “equal protection.” Why the legally-recognized life in the womb is not also due equal protection of the laws is not clear, but the SJC ruled that since state Medicaid funds were used to pay for legitimate maternity care and other health care for indigent women, Medicaid must also pay for abortions.
As did Roe v. Wade, this decision clearly overstepped the judicial role of interpreting the Massachusetts Constitution and enshrined a policy decision with the weight of a constitutional amendment, thus prohibiting the legislature from even debating the issue. Legally, the only proper response is an actual constitutional amendment that the SJC cannot misinterpret to its own ends. The Alliance to Stop Taxpayer Funded Abortion has taken up the challenge and is currently gathering signatures with the hope of bringing this question to Bay State voters in November 2020.
The amendment as proposed reads “Nothing in this Constitution shall require taxpayer funding for abortions.” Note that it does not make abortion illegal in MA. It only permits the legislature to debate whether taxpayer funds should be used to pay for them.
The amendment process in Massachusetts is extraordinarily difficult. The first step is to gather 64,750 signatures by November, 2017. In actuality, this means we need to gather close to 100,000 signatures because it seems like the Secretary of State’s office looks for any excuse to reject valid signatures. If there is a stray pen mark on a sheet with 25 valid signatures, the entire sheet may be thrown out. So, volunteers – including my wife and I – are being very careful with the signed sheets.
Assuming we get the required signatures, the motion must be approved by 50 members of the state legislature in two consecutive sessions in order to be put on the ballot in 2020 to allow citizens to vote on the amendment. Assuming it passes, Massachusetts will be in line with the federal government and the legislative history of the state in letting the legislature decide whether taxpayer funds will be used to pay to knowingly destroy the life of an unborn child.
There are many ways you can help. Of course, you can volunteer, or donate to the Alliance, and if you’re a registered Massachusetts voter, please sign a petition. And please keep our efforts in your prayers.
Update: Stacy McCain talks about this (and a few other things) here.