In MA, pregnancy resource centers push back

Years of covering the work of pregnancy resource centers in New Hampshire have left me sure of a few things: each center is highly responsive to the needs of women in its specific region, each is committed to providing life-affirming alternatives to abortion at no cost to clients, and each is led and staffed by people who have no interest in getting involved in politics.

Sometimes, politics comes knocking on the door anyway. 

That’s what’s happening a few miles away in Massachusetts. I took my first post-Covid trip to Boston the other day to learn more. The Massachusetts State House was the setting for a program highlighting PRCs and countering a pro-abortion taxpayer-funded “public education campaign” to undermine them.

If such a campaign is happening there, it can happen a few miles away in New Hampshire. I doubt that any state is immune from having its budget weaponized against pro-life services.

The Great Hall at the Massachusetts State House was the scene for the standing-room-only crowd at Celebrate Life Day, June 25, 2024.

A million taxpayer dollars 

A June 10 press conference headlined by Massachusetts government leaders launched the campaign to urge women to “avoid anti-abortion centers.” From the event’s press release: “This public education campaign, which will appear on social media platforms, billboards, radio, and transit, was funded through a $1 million investment that the Massachusetts legislature passed as part of its FY2023 supplemental budget.”

A million bucks could provide care for a lot of pregnant women. Prenatal care, housing, child care, transportation, clothing, furniture, even diapers: imagine what any nonprofit organization could do with a million dollars allocated to those needs. The state of Massachusetts is afraid that somebody somewhere might have those needs met by a group of people opposed to the direct intentional taking of human life.

PRCs aren’t political entities, but they’re run by people savvy enough to know a threat when they see one. Meet the Pregnancy Care Alliance of Massachusetts (PCALL), an affiliate of Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL).

PCALL’s pushback on the state’s campaign was highlighted by Celebrate Life Day, held on June 25 in the State House itself. I was there to listen and take notes (which unfortunately didn’t include any guide to the spelling of speakers’ names). Here’s a bit of what I learned. Photos in this post are my own.

To the State House to celebrate life

I arrived at the Massachusetts State House that day to find a line from the front door extending almost all the way to Beacon Street, waiting for the security screening that’s unfamiliar to visitors to New Hampshire’s seat of government. Young adults dressed in suits mingled with people like me clad more casually in keeping with the summery weather. Were we all there for the same reason?

Not all, perhaps, but certainly most of us were there for the pro-life event, which was held in the capitol’s impressive Great Hall. It got started a bit later than expected thanks to the number of people who needed to go through security. The tables that had been set in the Hall, each with ten places, were quickly filled, leaving standing room only. Even the event’s organizers were surprised by the turnout.

I saw a lot of people with the wide-eyed look of citizens getting their first look at the inside of the State House. I was pleased. All pro-lifers should feel at home in their own state’s capitol – more at home than the politicians, actually. An elected official’s job is in theory temporary, while citizenship endures.

Early arrivals had time to browse the information tables lining the Great Hall and to speak with PRC representatives. I met Alicia, who directs two offices of a three-location PRC in Massachusetts’s Merrimack Valley. I remarked on the number of young people entering the hall, and she told me she wasn’t surprised. “Our younger people come in and want to volunteer, and I wonder ‘hmm…they have no experience.’ But they want to learn.”

Merrimack Valley, Metro West, Greater Boston, the Cape: PRC staff and volunteers were present from all these places and more. One of the attendees with whom I chatted was from Springfield, an hour and a half away. Commitment to PRCs was evident – as was concern over the state’s anti-life campaign.

“The one thing we don’t do: abortion”

After an introduction by Myrna Maloney Flynn of MCFL, PCALL co-chair Teresa Larkin gave a brief history of the Alliance. Solidarity among Massachusetts PRCs was reinforced In the post-Dobbs atmosphere in which PRCs were vandalized and threatened. She reviewed the services provided by various PRCs at no cost to the client, ranging from pregnancy testing and options counseling to ongoing support for pregnant and parenting women. She said that the state’s current million-dollar smear campaign “is about the one thing we don’t do: abortion.” The state’s campaign is designed to intimidate service providers and will put clients at risk of losing services. “It’s time to truly unite. Fight back, graciously and kindly.”

Some of the women served by Massachusetts PRCs spoke about their experiences with the agencies. Valentine talked about being pregnant, uninsured, and dealing with other health issues when she came across a web page for the Boston Center for Pregnancy Choices. She found the support she was looking for, during and after her pregnancy, with direct services and referrals for her and her child. “Even a baby shower,” she smiled. “This is the work of God.”

Charlene described how she came to a local PRC fourteen years ago at the age of 17, pregnant and dealing with her own childhood trauma. Influenced by the ongoing experience with the staff and volunteers who supported her when she was most vulnerable, Charlene today is doing what she can to pay it forward to other women in challenging circumstances.

Darlene of Abundant Hope in Attleboro spoke about abortion pill reversal, in which a woman who changes her mind shortly after taking the first dose of an abortion-inducing drug can receive medically-administered progesterone in an attempt to maintain her pregnancy. While abortion advocates have derided APR and questioned its safety, Darlene said that more than 5000 pregnancies have been brought to term using APR. Crystal, an Abundant Hope client, told the crowd that she had taken advantage of APR – and her child was with her, delighting the crowd.

MCFL’s Flynn had this to say about APR: if the media calls it “junk science,” people like Crystal and her son put the lie to that. “It is safe, and it is another choice.”

Another PRC director spoke of post-abortion healing. She introduced a member of her staff, once a client, now involved in her center’s post-abortion ministry.

A few staffers for legislators were in the room to hear these testimonies. Notably absent were legislators themselves, never mind anyone representing the Governor.

I’d like for every abortion-friendly legislator who has ever said “trust women” to listen to the women who spoke to me that day in Boston.

Citizens line halls and stairways at Massachusetts State House to deliver petitions
At the Massachusetts State House, PRC supporters lined the halls and stairways as pro-PRC petitions were carried to the Governor’s office.

The petition campaign

According to PCALL, its members collectively provided more than $1.3 million worth of services in 2022, including pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and material assistance to pregnant and parenting women. As one realizes after listening to the Celebrate Life Day speakers, the services offered by PRCs extend beyond those items. All services are free to clients, thanks to the support PRCs receive from donors.

No wonder a threat to those services sparked a petition circulated by MCFL and PCALL, with this appeal at its core: “We call on Governor Healey, Attorney General Andrea Campbell, each state senator and representative, as well as Robbie Goldstein, MD, PhD, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, to withdraw all attempts to thwart the work of our PRCs. We respectfully ask that these leaders issue a public acknowledgment that PRCs offer the choice women deserve.”

The last event within Celebrate Life Day was the presentation of 4000 signed petitions to the Governor, or rather to her office. The PRC clients who had spoken earlier in the day had the honor of carrying the stacks of petitions, walking between cheering supporters who lined the halls and stairways linking the Great Hall and the chief executive’s office.

That’s when I saw people who had nothing to do with the morning’s event stop and take notice as they went about their State House business. I heard “what’s this for?” repeatedly. Asking the Governor to support pregnancy care centers, came the answer. That got some startled looks.

Maybe being startled is what people need in order to be moved to constructive action.

Will the Governor back off? Not likely, although I’m open to being surprised. Individual women who are PRC clients and former clients can tell their stories publicly just as they did on Celebrate Life Day. Further, while public events have their place, one-on-one conversations with policymakers could change a few hearts.

That’s what we need to be prepared for in New Hampshire, individually and collectively. Watch diligently for anti-PRC legislation and state budget provisions next year. Until then, conversations between lawmakers and women who freely choose to share their PRC experiences could head off mischief like the Massachusetts million-dollar campaign.

As for ordinary people like me, we can continue to support our local pregnancy resource centers, and tell our elected officials why we do so. We could even invite them to join us.

Massachusetts Citizens for Life has produced a short video on Celebrate Life Day, available on YouTube.

A coalition for life has a good day: assisted suicide bill fails in NH

I was just another ordinary citizen at the State House this session as an assisted suicide bill was debated. I found myself a tiny part of a coalition along with people who had nothing to do with the conventional pro-life movement, some of whom have absolutely no use for conventional pro-lifers. We had one goal: kill the bill.

Today, the bill suffered a parliamentary death. That’ll do for now.

I got more from the coalition than I gave. I listened to veterans and survivors of suicide attempts who wonder why some types of suicide should be prevented and others encouraged. I learned from people with disabilities who don’t want prescribed death to become “medical care.” I spoke with people who do not share my faith or most of my policy preferences, but who agree with me that health care providers – not to mention insurers – need to forge new paths to support medically vulnerable individuals without resorting to a lethal dose of pharmaceuticals.

We’ll have reason to work together again. Our conversations need to continue.

End of the road for assisted suicide bill in 2024 – so be ready for the next one

An unconventional coalition resists assisted suicide bill

My days as an official pro-life lobbyist are over. I’m back to being what I was when my kids were little and I dragged them to hearings: a state resident of no particular distinction, come to register my opinion at the State House.

Yesterday was one of those days. Assisted suicide, already enacted into law in other states under various euphemisms, is subject of legislation in Concord this year.

The very first bill I ever testified on, back in 1988 or ’89, was an end-of-life policy bill. Living wills, as I recall. No danger, said the sponsors, allaying concerns from the likes of me. This is about choice, not death. There’s no such thing as a slippery slope.

And here we are.

This week, I wasn’t alone as I came to stand outside the hearing room as the “end-of-life options” bill had its hearing. There are coalitions forming now that I couldn’t dream of 35 years ago.

I was with people with deep respect for the value of human life, from both faith-based and secular perspectives. The Diocese of Manchester’s public policy director was right there where he needed to be. There were conventional pro-lifers, and some unconventional ones who would probably flee in horror from a “pro-life” label.

I was with people who took it personally to think that the state might oppose suicide for some groups but support it for others. I was with longtime advocates for the rights of people with disabilities, who know how appealing shortcuts can be within our health care system. The idea of third-party payors seeing suicide as medical treatment helped motivate attendance.

There were people simply offended by the language of the bill. It would prohibit the use of the word “suicide” on a death certificate for someone exercising that “end-of-life option.” Excuse me, but the intentional taking of one’s own life is suicide, and providing the pills to do it is assisting the suicide. Own it, for heaven’s sake.

Why didn’t I testify? Because nearly every senator on the committee had heard from me before, some of them many times through the years. There’s a tendency to see a familiar face and think she’s just saying the usual stuff. I wanted to leave the spoken testimony to people the senators didn’t know. I wanted the legislators to sit up and take notice of the people who don’t normally come to Concord. I didn’t mind standing in the hall to free up a seat in the hearing room.

There were advocates for the bill present, of course. But they, like me, have to come to terms with the coalitions that didn’t exist before assisted suicide became a matter of public policy. Such coalitions can drive high turnout.

Did the senators really hear the people who came to the hearing? We’ll see. The vote is pending. I know this subject – so much more than a mere “issue” – won’t go away. The intense anguish of seeing a loved one suffer will always make us reach for a solution. That’s something to be faced by each of us who knows that the direct intentional induced termination of human life is not the way.

I ended the day with great hope. When I go to a hearing and see people I’ve never met before doing a better job than I ever could in making a point, I’m grateful. When I see people who went to a great deal of trouble to come to a hearing so we can support each other, I want to cheer. When I see familiar allies, I feel deep respect for their perseverance.

I love my state, with its mammoth legislature (400 reps, 24 senators) and wide-open State House. Those legislators get paid $100 a year, by the way, which helps squelch any incipient notions of superiority. I’m convinced there’s no other hall of government in the country so welcoming to ordinary citizens with something to say.

So I have no excuses. Resisting an assisted suicide policy is up to me. Better yet, as I saw that the hearing filled with fresh faces and new voices, it’s up to us.