CNA Staff, Dec 8, 2020 / 12:21 am (CNA).- Legislators have sent to the Massachusetts governor a $46.2 billion full-year budget plan that includes provisions to expand access to abortion, additions which have drawn strong pro-life criticism.
An amendment to the budget bill would allow 16-year-olds to obtain an abortion without parental consent, a change from the current age of 18 years. Minors under the age of 16 could obtain a judicial bypass waiver to get an abortion without parental consent. A waiver could be granted via teleconference, according to the bill’s sponsor, State House News Service reported.
The provisions would also allow abortions after 24 weeks into pregnancy, even to the point of birth, for diagnosed fatal anomalies. Under the proposed amendment, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurse midwives could perform abortions.
Despite Democratic leaders’ statements appearing to reject major policy riders, the budget bill includes these and other abortion provisions. Also included is some of the language of the “Roe Act,” a 2019 proposal to maintain legal abortion if Roe v. Wade and other pro-abortion precedents were to be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The abortion proposals did not draw much comment in the Senate session, though Republican lawmakers were critical of it elsewhere, the news site MassLive reports.
House Minority Leader Brad Jones criticized the use of the budget process to pass an abortion amendment.
“I don’t care what side of the issue you’re on, this being done as part of the budget process in a lame duck session, under the cover of darkness, in the midst of a pandemic is wrong,” Jones said last month, according to State House News Service.
Democratic State Sen. Marc Pacheco, who opposed the budget bill, speculated that Republican Gov. Baker could return the bill to lawmakers with amendments and further extend debate on the bill, the Boston Globe reports.
Baker is a pro-abortion Republican. The Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund was neutral in the governor’s 2018 reelection campaign, and it is not clear whether he will run for a third term in 2022.
However, he voiced disapproval of the proposed Roe Act’s abortion expansion last year.
“I don’t support late-term abortions,” Baker said. “I support current law here in Massachusetts.”
In 2017 the governor pledged state funds would make up any shortfalls in cuts to Planned Parenthood’s federal funding. In 2018 he challenged the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Protect Life Rule, which blocks recipients of Title X family planning funds from performing or making referrals for abortions. He also approved the repeal of a 19th century law that criminalized abortion.
The Massachusetts Catholic Conference had sought to rally voters to ask their senators to vote against the budget amendment. On Nov. 11 the conference said amendment would “expand abortion access in the Commonwealth well beyond what is enshrined in state law.” Under the changes, abortion “would remain an option under certain circumstances for the full term of the pregnancy.”
The conference stressed that “the Catholic Church teaches that life itself starts at conception and ends with natural death.”
The Catholic conference criticized the proposed changes to parental consent law, arguing that “a 16 or 17 year old girl would be deprived of the guidance and support of an adult at the time of making this life changing decision.”
While the measure does require “life-saving equipment” to be present in the room when an abortion is performed past 24 weeks, the conference suggested this is a toothless requirement. The amendment’s language is “nuanced enough that the physician would not be required to use the equipment” if a baby survived an abortion attempt.
In addition, the bill calls for life-saving equipment to be in the room when a doctor performs a legal late-term abortion, but only says the equipment is to “enable” the doctor to safe the life of a baby surviving an abortion. Pro-life groups have warned that the language allows “passive infanticide” by not specifically requiring a doctor to save the infant’s life.
The amendment to the larger budget bill was adopted by the state House by a 108-49 vote, State House News Service reported. A dozen Democrats voted against the amendment, while one Republican voted for it. On Nov. 18, the state Senate passed amendment 180 by a vote of 33-7.
Though the full budget bill passed the House, it did not have enough votes to prevent a veto.
Michael New, a visiting professor of political science and social research at The Catholic University of America, testified against the Roe Act’s proposal to reduce the age of consent. The current law, he estimated, has saved 10,000 to 44,000 lives from abortion.
In his review of 16 peer-reviewed studies, every one “finds that state-level parental involvement laws reduce the in-state abortion rate for minors,” he said in his testimony.
[…]
Honor to this President for standing up for Palestinian rights and for warning our nation against the inordinate influence of Israel.
May God grant salvation to President Jimmy Carter.
Yes, let’s pray for his soul. But let’s not forget that Carter—in addition to being pro-abortion, pro-“gay marriage”, and slanderous towards pro-lifers—praised Castro and Cuba, China, Tito (“a man who believes in human rights”), Kim Il Sung, Yasser Arafat, and the PLO, Mengistu, Cédras, Assad, and Hamas. Jimmy was most inept (whereas Joe is mostly corrupt), but he was also a sanctimonious embarrassment far more often than his hagiographers (that is, the legacy media) will ever admit. For more, see my July 2009 post at Insight Scoop.
Upon Carter’s election, the astute and long-time Singapore President Lee Qwan Yew wrote (of world leaders) in his own autobiography, “we knew we would just have to put up with him for four years.”
And, on the domestic scene, we recall that it was President Carter who gave us the cabinet-level position U.S. Department of Education, surely as a reward to the teachers’ unions that helped him get elected (formed on May 4, 1980, as a result of the Department of Education Organization Act–Public Law 96-88–of October 1979; President Jimmy Carter signed the bill into law.) The gift that keeps on giving.
Educationally speaking, Shakespeare gives us a clue: “The fault is not in our ‘stars,’ but in ourselves” (“Julius Caesar”). That is, the fault is not in those who are elected but in those who elect them. The corporate Peter Principle transferred to the gummint.
Yes, the establishment of the Department of Education was foolish. Yet, who kept it going, despite, as I recall, promises to the contrary? Oh, yeah, his successor, that “great conservative” Ronald Reagan.
Bravo! Sick to death of the hagiographies popping up everywhere.
Not that Pres. Carter endorsed this policy, but something to keep in mind from the late, great Huey Long:
“I don’t know much about Hitler. Except that last thing, about the Jews. There has never been a country that put its heel down on the Jews that ever lived afterwards.”
— Huey Long
For all his faults, Huey had some wise insights. May he & Jimmy Carter rest in peace.
Palestine must earn nationhood. Terrorism must never be rewarded. For over three quarters of a century, the only thing that Palestinians have excelled in is their ability to inflict incalculable suffering on a global scale, not only on others, but also on themselves.
It will only be by a direct intervention from God Himself that the hearts and minds of radical Islam will be converted.
It is for this we must pray.
Aside from rationalizing numerous acts of Islamic terrorism, possibly to downplay and make his years of cowardice not seem so bad while president, the post-president, “great humanitarian,” Carter met with leaders of the terrorist group Hamas. He embraced Nasser al-Shaer, the man who ran the Palestinian education system, brainwashing children into believing Jews are the descendants of pigs and dogs. He laid a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat, the most notorious terrorist thug of the 20th century.
Oh I forgot. Francis seems to indicate the Islamic world can’t do much that is morally wrong. He once reminded us that beheading children was the equivalent of domestic abuse, which he assumed was done by Catholic men since he read it in an Italian newspaper.
Freemasons defend the reputation of fellow members. Not suggesting that is what Bergoglio is doing at all, what so ever.
Thanks for your counter-witness, Carl. I confess my (naive) views of Carter have hitherto been based on the so-called mainstream media.
If Carter was mainly inept, what does that make Francis with his (supposed) assessment of him?
I volunteered in Jimmy Carter’s campaign & he was the first president I ever voted for . (And the last Democrat.) He really was a decent & faithful man in many ways but a very incompetent president.
In the beginning we believed he was a solid Christian believer but over time he veered off in some strange directions. God rest his soul.
Good question. I think there are a few factors involved. First, Pope Francis had to say something nice; it would be uncharitable to do otherwise. Secondly, Francis (I’m guessing) knows very little about Carter’s faith, life, policies, etc. Some of that is to be expected, as the Pope isn’t supposed to be an expert on all previous and current world leaders. But, thirdly, his remarks (praising “the deep faith” of Carter) just follow the standard, mainstream line, which is par for this pope and his inner circle. Fourth, I think that Francis is so keen on politics and political gestures that he probably believes Carter was a good president of deep faith. After all, that’s what the media legacy is trying to feed us here, even though the record says otherwise. Fifth, I think both men, in real ways, are 1970s liberals who have “evolved” on certain stances. Carter (as noted already) ended up embracing a hazy form of liberal Protestantism—or, better, of Protestantized liberalism—and jettisoned core moral beliefs, which in turn meant dismissing any sort of traditional, biblical Christian anthropology.
The bottom line, for me, is that Carter was mostly a disaster as POTUS and while he did some good things afterwards, he was a pro-tyrannical, pro-abortion, pro-“gay marriage”, post-1970s liberal whose Christianity was thin at best.
Carter’s was a failed presidency and American voters rejected him and his policies. I find it amusing and laughable how the leftists (inclusing Bergoglio) are tripping over themselves to canonize this man. Some of us are not fooled by the posturing. The guy was book smart but had the leadership skills of an idiot.
Carter was not a good President. I voted against him twice. He let the Iranian Shiite fanatics push him around, that said, he did become a decent ex President with the Habitat for Humanity business. I recall seeing a picture of him years ago, after he left the White House, wearing a tool belt and hammering nails at a construction site. I thought that was nice that he found some task that he can accomplish.
🤭
Agreed on his presidency. It was, overall, a train wreck. Carter was a nice guy, and that meant that he did some nice and good things. But “nice” isn’t the same as principled or strong, and Carter (in my estimation) was neither of those.
Jimmy Carter’s single greatest accomplishment was in giving the United States of America eight years of Reagan.
👍
I took your recommendation, Carl, and read your 2009 article. I believe I am now sufficiently inocculated against the current media and papal hagiography.
I do think Habitat for Humanity does good work.
Respectful farewell to Jimmy Carter. RIP.