Haddad Abortion Bill Is Indefensible [OPINION]
An advancement of abortion rights called the Roe Act has moved forward in Massachusetts. Liberal Democrats have pushed forth a bill that will now make abortion an option at any point during the pregnancy. It also ends the requirement of consent to the abortion by the parent of a pregnant teen.
House Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad (D-Somerset), Rep. Jay Livingstone (D-Boston), and Senate President Emerita Harriette Chandler (D-Worcester) are the sponsors.
Hard to imagine a compassionate human could proudly support it, but this bill would allow a pregnant woman to end the life of the developing baby in her womb if it has been determined that the unborn child has been diagnosed with a terminal health condition, if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother by physical issues in the womb–or even if the mother simply states that she would be depressed if she carried any further in gestation.
This proud offering now allows, for any reason, to kill the child in the womb right up until delivery. Elements of this bill are barbaric.
While I can respect some aspects of the bill, I cannot support some of the indefensible expanded options.
I do share support for an expecting mother to have the right to make a tough choice if the fetus or unborn human has what they call in the bill "lethal fetal anomalies," in which case the doctor has determined that the unborn will die before birth or shortly thereafter.
What is the point of forcing a mother to carry a baby further into a likely short, suffering existence while her emotional investment in the child grows, making the loss more traumatic than the decision to stop the life from going further?
I'm pro-life but also opposed to expanding suffering. This is not an easy decision and many women who would identify as being pro-life would tell you that this scenario needs to be considered.
But Representative Patricia Haddad has been a leading voice in opposing compromises in abortion access. Pro-life groups have, in the recent past, been open to scenarios such as the one above but the pro-choice lobby like NARAL and Planned Parenthood have been militant against any such discussions.
Over the years, Haddad has sounded more like a NARAL parrot than the Roman Catholic Christian that she claims to be. When told of her bill being called "an infanticide bill," she called the accusation "outrageous."
But is it outrageous? With Haddad's bill, an expecting mother due July 14 can simply say she'd be too depressed to carry any further, may possibly harm herself and thus is given access to abortion even on that same July 14.
Her co-sponsor, Jay Livingstone of Boston, is an established nutjob radical who grew up in North Attleboro but now resides in the Back Bay neighborhood in Boston. Always on the wrong side of the issues as far as I'm concerned, Livingstone is best known for his bill designed to end all criminal sentences of life without parole in Massachusetts.
Haddad's co-parishioners may not be so inclined to vote for her next time around, knowing that she is, by definition, profoundly not in full communion with the Roman Catholic church's position on abortion.
Never mind sponsoring a bill that advances the right to persecute even later the unborn in the womb who, according to Scripture, are known to God and valued by him even before they were formed there.
Secularist progressives have been widely successful from keeping Christian moral values off of Beacon Hill, but that doesn't mean the consciences of the Somerset Catholics have to continue to send a callous, defiant and indifferent representative who does these things in their name.
The difference between a devout Roman Catholic and Patricia Haddad appear to be even bigger than the Somerset Town Hall-provided image of her home and the more realistic version found in the aerial shots on Google Maps.
It's an odd thing to stare down Haddad on this issue. She and Livingstone probably look at me in disbelief, thinking how odd it is that I could care about an organism denied personhood status in contemporary law, but this "hypocrite" would want to allow for the death of a person proven guilty of murdering, and a sodomizing rape of a child.
Meanwhile, I stare at them in disbelief thinking how odd it is that they want to spare the lives and free murdering, sodomizing rapists like Charles Jaynes and Sal Sicari, who did these horrific things to 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge. They raped him, suffocated him to death over 11-20 agonizing minutes, as he struggled with a gasoline-soaked rag pressed over his mouth and nose, and then disposed of his body by dumping him in a concrete-filled barrel into a river in Maine.
"Twenty-five years is enough" for any crime, according to Rep. Livingstone. If he has his way in the asylum on Beacon Hill, Jaynes and Sicari would be free in 2023, when Jaynes will be 49 and Sicari will be 48.
Mercy for those two, but none for the victim's families who would have to watch the news showing the smiling monsters walk out of the prison gates as free men.
No mercy, either, for any of the innocent babies being carried around by their mothers in the Commonwealth until any such reason is made to end their lives, too.
As I said, there are scenarios where we need to rethink our rigid position as pro-life citizens. The scenarios are rare and unfathomably difficult to deal with, but they do exist.
With laws like this being shoved down our throats, how long can the Almighty smile on our nation, if that smile hasn't disappeared already?
Ken Pittman is the host of The Ken Pittman Show on 1420 WBSM New Bedford. He can be heard Saturdays from 9 a.m. to noon. Contact him at ken.pittman@