Planned Parenthood wants to talk:

Dianne Luby, chief executive officer of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said she would be “more than happy to come to a City Council meeting” to discuss the concerns that drove six city councilors to vote to draft a resolution urging Planned Parenthood to abandon plans to open a Fitchburg chapter.

Planned Parenthood officials will attend a Feb. 2 City Council meeting.

Steve DiNatale is has a few things he’d like to talk about too:

State Rep. Stephen DiNatale, D-Fitchburg, said Thursday that he wants to meet with Planned Parenthood officials to explain to them that Fitchburg is not the right place for them to open a new office.

“We will gladly, gladly, meet with the state representative’s office, in the district or at the Statehouse; whatever works for him,” Mermell said.

DiNatale said he was trying to connect with officials from Planned Parenthood on Friday afternoon.

“I want to know what their plans are, how they arrived at the city of Fitchburg, some of the fine details you might say,” DiNatale said.

I’m sure PP will be wearing it’s most friendly face, but no matter how friendly and polite the face may be, the reality doesn’t change.

When I posted about Planned Parenthood coming to Fitchburg yesterday I wrote this:

The fight is now going to come here and the question is going to quickly become; what side are you on?

Well it didn’t take long for some on the City Counsel to decide:

“The City of Fitchburg is always complaining that we’re the social mecca of northern Worcester County. Do we really need another social service agency?” Councilor-at-large Thomas Conry asked.

State Rep. Stephen DiNatale signed on to the late-filed petition calling for a resolution, and said he planned to sit down with Planned Parenthood officials and explain to them why Fitchburg is not the right community for them to come to.

“It’s a blatant duplication of services. We have local agencies, with local people doing an outstanding job,” DiNatale said, following the City Council meeting.

“We do not need them on Main Street,” DiNatale said.

The most amazing statement on the subject was uttered by ward 5 Counselor Solomito in opposing the resolution:

“We shouldn’t prohibit anybody from coming here when we don’t know anything about them,”

We don’t? It’s not like they’ve been around for nearly a century, but if Joe wants to know perhaps he can ask Abby Johnson.

Johnson said she became involved with the clinic “to help women and … [do] the right thing.” The idea of increasing abortion numbers to increase revenue was repugnant to her. She said that ideally the facility’s director would provide “so much family planning and so much education that there is not a demand for abortion.”

But this ideal was not shared by the rest of Planned Parenthood, she said, because “abortion is the most lucrative part of Planned Parenthood’s operations.”

“With the family planning corporation really suffering,” Johnson said, “they depend on the abortion corporation to balance their budget, help get them out of the hole and help make income for the company.”

She continued, “They really wanted to increase the number of abortions so that they could increase their income.”

And a little history for the rest of them.

There is going to be a fight and it’s going to be big, as I’ve already said that this will give Catholics in town a place to re-direct their anger from church closings, but it is also going to animate the large evangelical community that has been growing in the area.

Meanwhile on the left I expect to see angry Coakley people using this fight as a place to vent.

…the paper this morning had the story but it has finally appeared online:

Assurances that abortions will not be performed left the Rev. H. Edward Chalmers unconvinced, and Chalmers was wary about the prospect of an office opening in Fitchburg.

“They may not be doing abortion services there, but they could be recommended,” Chalmers, of St. Bernard’s Parish in Fitchburg, said. “(Planned Parenthood) is the largest abortion provider in the United States.”

Or in English: We won’t be tossing the bodies here but we can direct you to the tin.

Mayor Lisa Wong, who was unaware of Planned Parenthood’s plans to come to Fitchburg, said its presence in the city will likely be “polarizing.”

“There might be a lot of people who are happy to see it there, are there will probably be a lot of people who aren’t going to happy to see something like this going downtown,” Wong said.

Saying planned parenthood is “likely to be polarizing” is like saying “water is likely to be wet”

Planned parenthood says it will not perform abortions here because it is:

…opening the Fitchburg office using federal grant money it received in December, which carries the stipulation that abortions will not be provided.

So if the law changes or if they can come up with dough to open elsewhere with different money then: bring on the bodies!

Let’s not play games, Planned Parenthood makes money off abortions, that is their primary business. It is the business of death and deception. To pretend otherwise is an insult to both science and intelligence. The fight is now going to come here and the question is going to quickly become; what side are you on?

I’ve had a full nights sleep that hasn’t been preceded by a drive out of Boston for the first time in days. When I came downstairs Robert Stacy (I’ll sleep when I’m dead) McCain was still typing at the dining room table, has there ever been a person who works so hard for such a small amount of cash?

I took him for a quick cig run to Tedeschi’s market (that took over the store 24 in Fitchburg) and ran into the mother of a friend of mine who does Janitorial work at the Post Office and the Hospital. She said people were very happy in both locations, but for liberals the anger was extreme, but apparently not all of them.

The worst is that I can’t help but feel like the main emotion people in the caucus are feeling is relief at this turn of events. Now they have a ready excuse for not getting anything done.

Four days ago I told a certain Mr. McCain who happened to be sleeping on my couch that democrats in congress were hoping for an upset to give them an excuse to get out of yet another vote that could push them off the cliff. I thank Mr. Marshall for proving me right in print (well in pixels anyway).

Stacy is picking a bad time to leave Fitchburg. The front page of our local paper is that Planned Parenthood is about to open an office here. The must think the timing is good with 4 Catholic Parishes due to close by June.

It is in fact exactly the opposite, it’s not only bad it’s really bad. The natural anger that the closing would have generated at the church, combined with the anger over the economic and employment situation now has a place where it can be re-directed. The large Hispanic (I hate that word, what does it mean?) population here is very Catholic as well.

The only good news about this? With such a new opening perhaps the Charming Roxeanne will be in town to blog about it a bit and I can introduce the young lady to the wife and kids. My oldest is active in right to life, they should get along like a house afire.

Well the train beckons so I must go. It’s been a great week, but like Cincinnatus I now prepare to return to being just another guy looking for a job (that elusive $800 a week) in Massachusetts who runs a small blog where I talk about things that interest me.

Thanks for joining me for the ride, and if you like what you have read you are welcome to stop by to read anytime.

Back in November my favorite atheistic liberal feminist blogger Violet Socks at the Reclusive leftist wrote this:

On your blog, in your comments, everywhere. That’s how memes start. Coakley’s got the courage and the convictions. She’s raising her head above the parapet, right now, when it matters. Just as she did last year when she endorsed Hillary Clinton. Just as she did when she refused to surrender that vote at the convention.

Martha Coakley for President.

As you might guess by my description of her Violet and I have a serious disagreement on Abortion. Yesterday she quoted a post at a blog called Confluence:

There were a multitude of permutations that would have succeeded in covering poor and sick people but the Democrats picked the one that is most likely to piss off their own constituents in the highest numbers. Congratulations, guys.

But this abortion thing? I gotta wonder why it wasn’t sufficient to stick the knife into health care reform without adding the agonizing poison. You should have never even entertained Stupak and Nelson no matter how much they howled and screamed. That’s going to come back to bite you. And no matter how much theater comes up on the floor of the Senate during debate in the next couple of days to try to remove the amendments and compromises, taking them out is not going to make this bill smell any sweeter. The jig is up. We see through the distraction.

The actual post is interesting philosophically but bottom line is the abortion language makes the bill unacceptable.

Today the Boston Globe has this story about Martha the righteous:

“Let’s be clear on what’s principled here,’’ she said at the time of her opponent, US Representative Michael Capuano. “If it comes down to this in the Senate, and it’s the health care bill or violating women’s rights, where does he stand?’’

Obviously feeling the pressure, Capuano pivoted a few days later and said that while he voted yes in the House, he would vote no on final passage if the abortion restrictions did not change.

Coakley used her stark position on abortion rights to appeal to supporters for donations; in an e-mail, she declared her decision to make her position “a defining moment’’ in her campaign.

Asked last week whether she would vote against a bill that went beyond current law in restricting abortion coverage, Coakley said, “Yes, that’s right.’’

In a statement to the Globe yesterday, Coakley said that although she was disappointed that the Senate bill “gives states additional options regarding the funding mechanisms for women’s reproductive health services,’’ she would reluctantly support it because it would provide coverage for millions of uninsured people and reduce costs.

As Newsbusters put it:

Coakley is such a self-serving hypocritical flip-flopper than not even the Boston Globe could spin this story to make her look good. In almost any other state, Coakley would have very little chance in the general election but, hey, this is Massachusetts we are talking about here. Democrat candidates for senator aren’t so much elected as automatically coronated.

I have thoughts concerning Ms. Coakley, they are similar to my thoughts about Scott Harshbarger. Neither are printable so I didn’t say a thing at the time of the first post. As I want to keep my sense of decorum I’ll continue to restrain myself.

But I can’t wait to read Violet’s follow up post on this subject once she reads the Globe’s story. I’ll wager it is going to be an interesting but not work safe read.

…who went through the Catholic school system and are culturally catholic but actually don’t know and don’t believe the tenants of the church who do the most to help people justify and ignore sins.

What he doesn’t know or more likely won’t acknowledge is that unlike people in a parish who might privately not agree with one or more tenants of the church, Pat Kennedy has publicly proclaimed his opposition to church teaching on a subject of intrinsic evil. For it is written:

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea”.    Mark 9:42

Yet O’Donnell proclaims the Bishop who actually bothers to do what he SHOULD do for the sake of both Kennedy’s Soul and his own (since as a Bishop it would be a dereliction of duty to not address it.) he is marked as a “political hack” on both TV and radio.

Now if you want to argue that there is a political aspect to what the Bishop says fine, to call him a hack and say he is misrepresenting Catholic belief, only a person who doesn’t actually believe can say that with a straight face. I suspect he will continue to make these proclamations and keep his regular spot on Morning Joe and MSNBC while Bishop Tobin continues to do what he thinks is right for the soul.

Eventually the day will come when they both find out who is right and who is burnt. I presume O’Donnell doesn’t worry about and/or believe this is an issue. That is his privilege for the rest of his days.

After that he’s on his own.

You know lets do a quick three prayers for O’Donnell, an Our Father, a Hail Mary and a Glory Be. He may be a pain in the neck but you know what, his soul is just as worth saving as mine and I’d like to see both of us arguing politics some day when we are both done here. Maybe he can send an e-mail to Almightly Answers.

…because if you don’t you get egg on your face.

“Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose,” Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. “I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.”

Steele has told the committee’s director of administration to opt out of coverage for elective abortion in the policy it uses from Cigna.

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna, and two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.

The Left is rightly having a field day with it.

Ironically I’ll wager that any person who wanted an abortion at the RNC likely didn’t know it was there. This is why you always read the stuff you get. I’m sure this will be changed as conservative reaction is rightly negative, but there is a very interesting post at Macsmind:

First, I sell insurance for Cigna. It’s not true. There is NO opt out if you don’t want “elective abortion coverage”, the plan is what it is and contains what it contains. It’s a “universal coverage”. The issue is whether or not you would use it.

We know that only liberals do.

Secondly those anonymous employees – who could be fired for even discussing the specifics of any plan, and I will find out who they are, don’t know what they are talking about.

Most insurance plans have some type of “elective abortion” coverage when the mother’s life is in danger, except for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida – which covers NO abortions for any reason. By the way it’s the plan most Democrats carry in South Florida.

One could not expect the RNC to offer no insurance at all, and having such insurance isn’t any indication of disqualification of position on abortion. I’m against breast implants but my plans pays for one.

Now that’s a question of fact, is there a rider you can get to exclude this coverage or not? He actually works for the company selling insurance so I presume he would know. That needs to be discovered. I’ll have to keep an eye on his blog.

If I’m Michael Steele I say that this demonstrates what happens if you don’t “read the bill”. Joe Scarborough just said he is dying to interview Steele, when asked if I was Steele I’d say the following:

“Well Joe that’s right and there is egg on our face for not reading the policy. It’s a great example of what happens when you don’t read a legal document carefully. Imagine how many times that is going to repeated if a health care bill passes that nobody has actually read? How many Americans are going to expect one thing but not find another because their elective representatives didn’t decide to read a 1000 plus page bill that they passed.”

Lemonade baby, Lemonade!

…is running scared from his Bishop decided not to meet with him today:

Kennedy said he was “not going to dignify with an answer” Tobin’s assertions that he could not be a good Catholic and support abortion rights, adding that he found it “very disconcerting” that Tobin won’t agree to keep discussions of his faith private, the Providence Journal reported Wednesday.

The Bishop however is not at a loss for words:

What makes Kennedy think he’s Catholic? “Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?”

Being Catholic involves much more, he said, including acceptance of essential church teachings on matters of faith and morals, belonging to a parish community, weekly attendance at Mass and regular reception of the sacraments.

And support for abortion rights is not in the same category of those who struggle with sins of anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty and then fail, the bishop declared.

“Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category — it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will, a conscious decision that you’ve reaffirmed on many occasions.

“Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to ‘an imperfect humanity.’ Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the church….

“I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God.

“But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late to repair your relationship with the church, redeem your public image and emerge as an authentic ‘profile in courage,’ especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children.”

The full letter is here.

Kennedy might not recognize it but he is much luckier than Ted. He has a bishop who is willing to call him out publicly in an attempt to save his soul. The Bishop knows that he will be be pilloried nationally because of it, yet the soul of this man was a prize worth fighting for. Tobin his a profile in courage. It looks like we can’t say the same about Kennedy.

If Kennedy wants to profess himself as a Catholic Pol then he needs to get himself right with the church. If he doesn’t want to I’m sure the media will celebrate him as they did Ted and he will be respected by them for the rest of his life…

…after that he’s on his own.

A: Why calling on them to act Catholic of course.

Glenn Reynolds notes this is foolish but it is not unexpected. The blogger escaped from Communist Cuba:

Ave Maria is my second “ prom­ised land.” When my family and I freed ourselves from the grip of the Communists in Cuba and arrived in the promised land of the United States, we left behind years of per­secution, political imprisonment, executions, and hunger. But most of all we left behind the inhuman practice of silencing dissent— si­lencing our ability to speak the truth of the injustices we suffered. Free speech, and the ability to express dissent is what separates civilized societies from uncivilized ones. It is what my father was im­prisoned for — and many mem­bers of my family gave up their lives for, as devout Roman Catho­lics.

Her Full Critique is in four parts the other three are here.

Read them. They might shock you, but after my experience with Anna Maria College it didn’t shock me. (I’ve talked to quite a few students there and I’ve yet to meet one who doesn’t have the impression that I did although there is at least one promising sign.)

So the banning of her as a reporter is no shock:

America’s oldest Catholic newspaper, The Wanderer, assigned me to cover Ave Maria. Of the articles I have written for The Wanderer, only four have been about Ave Maria University. Yet, the University, of which Nick Healy is the President, banned me from Tom Golisano’s press conference on November 5th, and from the entire campus– allegedly for being disruptive at a public meeting held by the town’s Stewardship Committee. Stewardship Committee meetings have nothing to do with Ave Maria University.

The hubris and lack of credibility in that excuse of President Healy is evident.

Ave Maria University’s heavy handedness in not only banning me from the press conference, but also from the entire campus with County Sheriff deputies, shows how frightened they are of conservative and pro-life Catholics learning who “Tom” Golisano is—a man who ran for governor three times on a pro-choice platform and gave $1 million last year for Barack Obama’s coronation in Denver.

For our friends in the Cafeteria two quick quotes:

Let’s begin with Luke 9:26

Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

And finish with 2 Timothy 2:12

if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.

The Lure of the world is a dangerous thing lets pray Ave Maria decides to resist it.

As anyone who has read this blog for any length of time knows one thing that drives me crazy are “Cafeteria Catholics” people who proclaim Catholicism but then act directly against it’s precepts. I’ve pointed out the voluntary nature of Catholicism and people’s ability find another denomination if they don’t care for it.

I’ve also said in the past that liberalism has two Sacraments the First is Abortion and the Second is Gay Marriage.

Well the acolytes of liberalism have finally reached a line they would not cross. Some principled liberals have noted for a while that this administration really has no principles.

But now the great sacraments of modern liberalism have been defiled so action must be taken:


Gay “Boycott” of the DNC:

The bloggers have published a comprehensive list of reasons and say the money should “pause” to the organization until promises are kept: “We are not calling for a boycott of donations to the DNC. We are simply calling for a pause until the party follows through on its campaign promise to repeal DADT and DOMA, and pass ENDA. The party will get the same donations it would have gotten, when the promises are kept. The Democrats could choose to make good on their promise today. And by doing so, they will only further motivate the Democratic base to again turn out for the next election, a decidedly good thing.”

Jane Hamshier is on board:

“LGBT Americans, our families, and our friends kept our promise at the ballot box, we now expect President Obama to keep his in the White House,” they wrote. In addition to Hamsher, cosponsors include the liberal blog Daily Kos, writer and editor Dan Savage and radio host Michelangelo Signorile.

The boycott will be lifted, Aravosis and Sudbay write, when legislation is signed enacting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama pledged action on all these issues but has not pressed them since entering office.

Huffpo talkes about it too:

I think the freeze in fundraising is a great idea. I also think the problem with the gay rights agenda in Congress has more to do with the political system than the particularly spineless nature of most Democratic representatives.

Oh it’s a freeze a Pause, what is it 90 days same as cash?

And then there is abortion and it looks like some members of the house are making a line in the sand:

The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.

That’s unequivocal, with no wiggle room. The Washington Post reported this morning that Rep. Diana DeGette had collected 40 signatures vowing a No vote, without noting the language of their vow or how this would be communicated.

Now we know — at least 41 House Dems are writing directly to Pelosi, telling her that they will not vote for anything “that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.”

Yes we know 41 house dems are so unequivocal about their opposition that they are unwilling to release their names publicly.

These people consider pro-life and pro-marriage democrats “Cafeteria Democrats” unworthy of the true faith.

What these people don’t realize is the democratic party unlike the Catholic church and modern liberalism is not a religion. It has positions but not sacraments. But apparently some don’t see it that way.

As a republican I am encouraged, I guess they didn’t learn as much as I thought.

I still say we should consider 4 parties, Two conservative (fiscal & social) and two liberal (fiscal & social) it would be interesting to see what the composition of a congress of these parties would be.