I wonder if they will have any comment on this at the meeting tomorrow?

According to a police report filed at the scene, supported by several witnesses, the following interaction took place between Miss Rose and the uniformed Planned Parenthood escort:

Rose, from the public sidewalk: “Sir, are you familiar with the abortion procedure?”
Escort approaches Rose rapidly from Planned Parenthood parking lot, says, “You idiot. You’ve caused so much trouble. You piece of crap.”
Rose offers to show Escort a picture: “Can I show you a picture of what it really does to a baby?”
The Escort strikes Miss Rose’s hand, knocking literature and Bible to the ground. Rose steps further back on sidewalk, Escort steps towards Rose.
Escort, visibly shaking, says, “It’s a woman’s choice!”
Rose says, “What about the baby’s choice?”
Escort says, “It’s not a baby!” Escort turns around and walks away.

Police were called and interviewed the victim and several witnesses. Rose sustained no injuries from the attack. Charges of assault and battery are pending. There have been no apologies.

I guess he didn’t have an answer to the “cut to the chase” either.

Now the assault took place back in December but more interesting than the assault is the response by Planned Parenthood, as Cassy Fiano reports:

I was asked by Live Action to try to contact Planned Parenthood and get a response from them about this incident. I genuinely wanted to know their side of the story. Have they done their own investigation into this? Is the escort, a Gerard Nordley, still working with Planned Parenthood? Do they have a statement? Will they issue an apology?

I called their public relations department repeatedly for over a month. I left message after message. I never received a single phone call to follow up about this incident, or a single e-mail. This leads me to believe that Lila Rose’s statement is indeed accurate, and that Planned Parenthood is trying to keep this quiet. I understand the role of escorts for abortion clinics, and approaching the abortion protesters is not in the job description. Assaulting them is definitely not. Lila wasn’t hurt, thankfully, but what happens next time? If this man wasn’t even disciplined for his actions, what will keep him from taking it a step further with someone else?

That’s a great question. I wonder if anyone will be asking it tomorrow night, and what the answer will be? Would their response time for such an event be better than 6 weeks?

As you likely don’t know if you aren’t Catholic, (and you may not know if you are). There is a 3 year cycle that scripture reading at a Catholic Mass are on. Each year we do a different one of the synoptic Gospels, on the “Mark” years we mix in John (because Mark is so short) and John is also used on major feasts and heavily during Lent.

What this means is over a 3 year period we complete all of Paul’s letters, all of the Gospels and a good chunk of the rest of the New Testament and large chunks of the old.

Now as you know the big news around here is the Planned Parenthood stuff.

So what do you think happens to be the first reading today?

The word of the LORD came to me thus:
5
1 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.

17
But do you gird your loins; stand up and tell them all that I command you. Be not crushed on their account, as though I would leave you crushed before them;
18
For it is I this day who have made you a fortified city, A pillar of iron, a wall of brass, against the whole land: Against Judah’s kings and princes, against its priests and people.
19
They will fight against you, but not prevail over you, for I am with you to deliver you, says the LORD. Jeremiah 1:4,5,17-19

And of course this is only two days before the big city counsel meeting. So what does Father Bob do? Does he play it safe and go with the Bishop’s letter talking about Penance, or does he challenge the congregation as Christ does in today’s gospel?

Well if you’ve been reading about Fr. Bruso you know the answer.

Today’s sermon was a direct challenge to get involved, going over each argument and leaving Planned Parenthood’s arguments in the dust of logic. This big argument was the encouragement of the separation of the decision making process from the parent since teenagers are so good at making decisions without parents, but the ironic line was his final point, which went something like this:

Let’s assume that disagree with every argument I’ve already made. Think a sec, when your teens had regular prescriptions, have they taken their pills without be reminded by a parent? Why would anyone think they would be any more responsible with no parents helping them?

There is a reason why teenage pregnancy rates don’t drop when Planned Parenthood arrives.

He asked the congregation to call their city counselors and the Mayor’s office noting that both the Mayor and the president of the city counsel were supporters of Planned Parenthood move to Fitchburg.

What will the result be? We will find out in two days.

Believe it or not that sentence wasn’t written by Christopher Hitchens! It belongs to Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They are organizing a boycott over a postage stamp of Mother Theresa as her Catholicism can’t be “separated” from her deeds.

“Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can’t really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did.”

Very true, if that’s not an endorsement for Catholicism I’d like to know what is, but what about ministers like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King? Surely she would object to them as well?

she doesn’t have any problem with King or Malcolm X. Martin Luther King “just happened to be a minister,” she said, and “Malcolm X was not principally known for being a religious figure.”

That statement would have surprised both Kind and X. This person needs to be introduced to Rosemary “I’m one person. I don’t divide myself” Reynolds ASAP.

None of this constitutes a “darker side” of her faith, to Gaylor, what does? One guess:

her opposition to abortion. emphasis mine

As I’ve said before abortion is the sacrament for the left and to a large degree the MSM that supports it. Why do you think Joseph Cao was not lionized by the media for his solitary vote for the Healthcare bill? Because that vote couldn’t be separated from his opposition to abortion. You can bet your bottom dollar Dede would have been.

There is no greater foe to secular humanism that the protection of life from abortion, it is the breakdown of that respect for life that makes everything that follows possible.

Update: Hotair / Cassy Fiano notices and is clear on the concept:

What difference does it make if someone who is being honored for their good works was a Catholic nun or not anyways? Being a Catholic nun or a Christian leader is not something you can separate those two people from. Is the argument then that you cannot honor a good person who did amazing things for their entire lifetime simply because they were Christian? Gaylor also attacked Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity, saying it was a “wealthy” charity, and that she — shockingly! — was against abortion and wanted to baptize people before they died. She says this is part of the Roman Catholic Church’s “PR machine” to make Mother Teresa a saint. Because, you know, canonization as a saint always involves shadowy conspiracies with the USPS.

I know it’s tough to understand for some people, but Christians tend to be… anti-abortion, and they want people to be baptized and accept Christ as their savior. They have this whole thing about not wanting people to go to hell, as crazy a concept as that might be. emphasis mine

She must know Rosemary too!

Yesterday I was listening to the pro-choice argument of a person I knew, the whole: “I don’t like abortion but I think I don’t have a right to forbid someone from having one.” argument. The gentleman who volunteered his thoughts sounding so reasonable so tolerant, asked my opinion on the subject.

I had been talking about covering the protest downtown and hadn’t specified my own position on the matter. So I answered him directly that I was pro life.

He asked me in return if I felt I had the right to forbid a woman from having an abortion? My answer was equally blunt: Yes.

Although throughout history that would not be a controversial answer, today it is positively anathema. The type of answer one doesn’t give in polite company.

As he recovered from his surprise, not only from my answer but from the matter of fact way I gave it, I asked the bottom line question: “Is abortion the killing of a human life?”

That is when the gentleman started to hem and haw about when life began and when it should be protected, hen it has value. I pointed out that the government had no problem protecting a bald eagle’s egg unhatched, why not a human?

This is the cut to the chase, the argument that we have ceded to the determent of millions for the sake of politeness and inoffensiveness.

Bottom line: If abortion does not end a unique human life then there is no reason to forbid, restrict or even consider it the least bit of controversial. The filming of it would not be an issue the sight of the “bodies” should be no more odd than a trip to the butcher shop and psychologically it should be no more traumatic than any other simple surgery. There would be no reason to want to reduce abortion, after all it’s just another same day operation, in fact we would want to encourage it for the monetary savings to the public.

When people talk about abortion as a “tragedy“, as something that should be “safe, legal and rare” as something we all “want to reduce” they reveal that they know the truth behind it, that we are talking about human life. We are ending a human life for the sake of convince, hardship or panic. We are willing to let it go, discarding it like any other piece of unwanted property, just so long as we don’t have to talk about it.

Like a town the day after a lynch mob strikes or a person at a party of a plantation owner who visits the slave quarters in the evening, we know something is wrong, but we don’t want to embarrass our neighbors and friends by saying a word.

Because once we say that word, we acknowledge reality instead of feigning ignorance. Once we KNOW then we are committed to make our choice. Do we stay silent and hope it goes away or do we act when that action will make others uncomfortable to the point where you are the target? In a society where being “judgmental” is the highest sin that takes more bravery than many people think they have.

It is for that reason why Planned Parenthood opening a office in a small city with a high unemployment rate, an action that should gather no attention at all gains national coverage and protesters. It is why as many people turned out on a snowy day on short notice in Fitchburg (pop 40k)to oppose Planned Parenthood as did in the entire city of San Francisco (pop 744k) to support abortion a mere week ago.

Within sight of the parking garage where the pro-life protesters held their signs. Less than a block away sits a monument to Captain Ebenezer Bridge and the forty-two men who when confronted with an uncomfortable reality on the 19th of April in 1775 made a decision to march putting their lives and reputation against one of the greatest powers in the world.

I’ll wager almost none of the protesters know Ebenezer Bridge’s name, but unbeknown to them, they are his successors carrying on that same Fitchburg tradition of confronting an uncomfortable reality for the sake of their children.

Update: A double thanks to Adrienne’s (Catholics) Corner for both the link and the donation to the CPAC/I’ll do it myself Tucker fund.

..against Planned Parenthood and had a quote from city counselor Rosemary Reynolds that every pol who claims Catholicism should memorize:

Reynolds said she was protesting as a resident, and a member of the City Council, against Planned Parenthood coming to Fitchburg.

“I’m one person. I don’t divide myself,” Reynolds said.

As Emily Devlin reports there were quite a few people beeping in support of the protesters. I noticed one driver in particular who showed more enthusiasm than sense giving two thumbs up while taking his hands off the wheel in a snowstorm.

Devlin like Stacy and myself, quotes Fr. Bruso:

Bruso said a Main Street location, just down the street from Longsjo Middle School, makes the prospect of a Planned Parenthood office in Fitchburg even less palpable. Planned Parenthood is trying to depict itself as an agency that is only planning to educate the community about sexual health, Bruso said, but he believes that’s not the case.

“They don’t make money by giving out literature. They make money by performing abortions,” Bruso said.

And it would appear that for the second time this month events in Fitchburg are drawing more notice than usual. National notice.

If yesterday was any indication then the Battle of Fitchburg as Stacy put it will not be a silent one. Tuesday’s counsel meeting will be rather interesting.

My complements to Emily Devlin. The story is a pretty accurate one, the Sentinel has does good work covering this story thus far.

Update: Haemet links and states a basic truth:

it is entirely hypocritical for Planned Parenthood to advocate for treating sexual health like any other health issue; after all, this is the group that fights parental notification and parental consent laws

Meanwhile Creative Minority report is as impressed with Rosemary Reynolds as I am.

The snow was falling steadily but for the 6 dozen or so protesters (not counting children) it didn’t matter. What mattered was Planned parenthood was planning to come to Fitchburg.

“We are here for the children” said one man standing in front of the parking lot, the crowd around him nodded their heads in agreement. When asked if the reports that abortions would not take place at this location due to the nature of their federal grant, they answered referrals would still be provided and who’s to say that the laws wouldn’t be changed in the future?

The general consensus was that Planned Parenthood choose Fitchburg due to a combination of a large teenage pregnancy rate and a large minority population. When I asked one protester if she thought that was a miscalculation, after all the Spanish population is very Catholic, she shook her head, “Look around you, do you see any Spanish faces out here?”

She would have been much more reassured if she had walked into the Barber Shop two doors down from where she was standing. At the Dream Team Barber shop with it’s very Spanish clientele I asked one of the barbers what they thought of the protest and planned parenthood.

He didn’t think their presence would affect his business one way or the other but Planned Parenthood was mistaken if he thought that the Spanish population would be behind them. “We love our children” he declared as he stood before the Crucifix next to the chair where he was lathering the head of a customer.

City Counselor Rosemary Reynolds spoke in even blunter terms concerning the relationship between Planned Parenthood and the minority community. She stressed its origins and Margaret Sanger’s involvement in the eugenics movement, maintaining that Planned Parenthood had been a disaster to the black community in particular.

Although no protesters showed up for the other side, this sentiment was not unanimous among Fitchburg residents. A customer in a variety store in front of the protest asked why people weren’t protesting the mayor or Unitil instead. The store owner was neutral on the subject of Abortion but not Unitil, one it was mentioned he spoke at length on how Unitil’s high prices do more damage to business in Fitchburg than anything Planned Parenthood could ever do. (If there was one thing everyone I talked to agreed on; it was they hated Unitil, A man making a delivery to the shop said that only Unitil would have drawn a bigger crowd against them here.)

Another business owner was certainly not neutral when it came to either Planned Parenthood or protesters. She commented that protesters in front of the office in Worcester that she visited as a teenager decades ago has some very unkind words for her. (That certainly wasn’t the case today. Local police at the scene stated the protesters where calm, respectful and orderly) As for Planned Parenthood: “When I was a teenager and pregnant they were there.” noting that they had provided birth control and advice to her in the 80’s when she needed it. She had her first child at 16 and her second at 21 saying Planned Parenthood provides advice for girls who feel they can’t talk to their parents. Ironically while her first two pregnancies were carried to term she did get an Abortion at 26 not wanting to bring a child into what was an abusive relationship. Although she deeply regrets the decision now, she doesn’t lay any blame on Planned Parenthood and stresses although they performed the abortion they didn’t push her to that choice: “I made the decision. It’s not their fault it’s mine.” Though she considers it now the wrong choice for her; she maintains that’s not true for everyone.

Fr. Robert Bruso (full disclosure, my parish priest) would disagree. The pastor of Saint Anthony di Padua Church talked about how the issue isn’t a Catholic or a Protestant or even a religious issue. It’s all a question of respect for life and it’s potential. “President Obama’s book is called The Audacity of Hope. Abortion is the abandonment of hope. When a person chooses abortion they are saying they don’t have hope for the future, not for their child or for themselves.”

When it came to hope the protesters had plenty that they could keep planned parenthood out. Counselor Reynolds mentioned the location they wanted to open in was not zoned for any sort of medical office. When asked if the city counsel could keep them out if they choose an area that was zoned for their presence, she seemed less confident but no less dedicated. The protesters thought the same, stressing that it was important for landlords in Fitchburg to understand that wherever Planned Parenthood went, the protests would follow not stopping until they were gone.

Considering that a protest organized on the fly drew dozens of people in a snowstorm, it appears that’s one promise they will certainly be kept.

Update: Camp of the Saints links: thanks muchly.

My job interview was postponed 24 hours so I was able to jump into the car and get a few pictures from the protest today. The snow was steady and regular but it didn’t prevent an enthusiastic crowd of 70 people from turning up to protest against Planned Parenthood and their plans to open up in Fitchburg.

The protesters were on both sides of Main street which is one way.

No snowstorm was going to deter them:

Of course some took shelter under a convenient awning:

Franciscans don’t need awnings against a mere snowstorm:

And the City counsel was represented by Rosemary Reynolds

For Fitchburg it was an impressive showing. Only Unitil could have drawn a bigger crowd around here.

As time permits, I’ll get a more detailed story up.

…at least not with time ticking away on me. My Noontime job interview means I will certainly not be able to report firsthand on the Main Street Protest today, but I’ll see what I can do.

Of course there is always the chance that the interview will crash and burn, if that happens I’ll hurry down and see what I can see.

You’ll forgive me if I don’t hope for that eventuality.

Update: It’s snowing in Fitchburg, no idea how this will affect turnout.

…that demographics is destiny.

Be afraid oh ye of the left, be very afraid.

Update: Didn’t see it before but this post by Zombie concerning the numbers at the SAN FRANCISCO march for life. 40,000 pro life marchers met by 80 on the other side. One interesting bit:

There was a racial undertone to the day’s proceedings as well. The vast majority of the pro-choice side was white, while a substantial percentage of the pro-life side were racial minorities — in particular, Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander.

and the big finish…

You might be tempted to justify the small turnout at the counter-protest because it may have been poorly advertised, or that the Left was caught by surprise, learning of the rally only the day before, preventing any possibility of generating a substantial pro-choice presence. But no. First of all, the Walk for Life is an annual event, and everyone knew full well months in advance when it was scheduled to happen. The local leftists protest the Walk for Life every year, so it was most definitely on their calendar. Furthermore, the counter-protest was widely and extensively advertised on local liberal sites (which is how I found out about this event myself, since I scan such sites for local happenings). Examples of online notices exhorting people to come stand with the pro-choice counter-protest can be found at IndyBay, BACORR, SFist, Bay Area Progressive Directory, among many others. In short: It was no secret. Everyone who was possibly interested in the issue knew that January 23 was the big day.

The question then becomes: Why did basically no one on the pro-choice side show up, aside from a few demented radicals?

Simple logic: Two generations have passed since Roe v Wade. One side of that debate, a decidedly religious side, has not only had more children but, as a rule rarely aborts them. Thus 40 years later when the time comes for a march their people are available to attend.

Newly re-elected city counselor-at-large Rosemary Reynolds (who won the seat held by Annie DiMartino) attended a meeting of Mass Right to Life in Fitchburg and informed them that Planned Parenthood will NOT be attending the Tuesday city counsel meeting on the 2nd.

Supposedly this is due to a key official of PP not being able to make it.

I wouldn’t put it past them to try to “deke” people in order to keep the turnout down so I think I’ll show up anyway.

The group will also hold a protest on main street tomorrow. I’m sure that will re-assure the remaining merchants on main street that PP won’t hurt business.

One side thought. The one Mosque in Fitchburg is located on main street. As Islam generally opposes abortion I wonder if the local Muslim community will be joining this protest?

Oh fyi the “re-elected” refers to her previous time on the city counsel.