Massachusetts Attacking Pregnancy Centers With a $1 Million Taxpayer Funded Campaign
These Massachusetts officials are not for choice. Therefore, they are pro-abortion.
Massachusetts has launched a taxpayer funded campaign costing $1 million to attack pregnancy centers. Or, as the officials call them, anti-abortion clinics.
The billboard says, “Get care you can trust.” The link? A government website.
Let’s be real. A government program to promote abortion, which is, again, let’s be real, baby murder since a person is taking the life of an unborn human being against their will.
When I was a teenager, crushed and suffering PTSD after abortion, a pro-life pregnancy resource center was the only place I found the help and support I needed to survive – and then, to thrive.
PRCs save more than just babies.
Anti-PRC is anti-woman, anti-human, & anti-choice. pic.twitter.com/4aXqTJ5Q52
— Nichole Liza (@nicholelizaq) July 8, 2024
“In Massachusetts, we are committed to protecting and expanding access to safe and legal abortion,” claimed Governor Maura Healey. “That includes protecting patients from the deceptive and dangerous tactics that anti-abortion centers often use to stop people from accessing comprehensive reproductive services. This campaign is an important way to provide accurate information so residents can make informed decisions about reproductive care that are right for them.”
The Democrats focused on pregnancy centers when SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade. As National Review pointed out, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) led the brigade against the centers.
These people are not for choice. They are for abortion.
“The troubling practices of anti-abortion centers serve to undermine the trust that people should have in our health care system,” claimed Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll. “Education and accurate information can help counter the misinformation and unethical tactics these centers use to prey on people at a particularly vulnerable time.”
Planned Parenthood endorsed Healy when she ran for Massachusetts attorney general, her reelection, and governor.
Yes, Planned Parenthood also endorsed Driscoll. Emily’s List, too.
I couldn’t even finish reading the press release from Massachusetts. To hear females advocate with such intensity, especially those who have children, for a procedure that kills a baby makes me want to throw up.
These officials claim Massachusetts has more “anti-abortion” centers. They mislead patients to lure them away from baby murder “reproductive health” clinics because, oh my goodness. A woman might change her mind and CHOOSE to keep her baby or give the baby up for adoption.
*gasp*
Again, not for choice. For abortion.
Unless the center is associated with a religion, the pregnancy center likely offers information about abortion.
I know Catholic-run pregnancy centers don’t offer abortion information. (There might be some, but I doubt it. If you know of any, please let me know!)
Either way, we know Planned Parenthood relies on the deaths of those unborn beings. The organization claims to offer options, yet it only promotes abortion.
Disgusting.
The pregnancy centers offer help for pregnant women after they give birth, including Clothes, food, diapers, wipes, financial help, ultrasounds, doctor appointments, etc.
The Infant Crisis Services of Oklahoma has a Baby Mobile that travels to different counties, handing out items to mothers.
Centers also provide information about adoption.
Some centers provide a home to domestic violence victims and homeless women, plus their children. Oklahoma City opened a brand new one to hold even more people.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Geeze. I’d be suing to get that tax money back!
You can’t. In a democracy, the elected legislature has the right to decide what things it thinks is in the public interest, and to impose taxes to pay for those things. If the people of MA have elected legislators who think such a campaign is something the government should do, and there’s nothing in the state or federal constitution barring it, then they have the inherent right to make the general taxpayer pay for it. If you don’t like that, try to pass an amendment to the state or federal constitution barring it.
Of course Clownhouse races to the defense of this… color me shocked
Any decent person would defend this, because it is protected by the first amendment. That you would not defend it, simply because you disagree with the viewpoint being presented, ought to shock me, but I already know what a deeply dishonest person you are, so it doesn’t.
But this goes to prove it yet again, in case anyone doubts me. Just look at what a dictatorial, tyrannical piece of garbage caseoftheblues is, and what an enemy of our fundamental civil liberties.
The government does not have First Amendment rights.
Overreact much?
The first amendments meant to limit the government from limiting our speech, not so that they can steal money in order to direct speech against us.
I am not “pro-life” and I find this totally inappropriate.
Then you are just as much an outcast as the pro-lifers. The State has decided … end of State-ment. That 65% of the Milgram subjects that chose “lethal” shock are the same group that only favors abortion as the only option. It’s no longer really about “abortion” in Massachusetts but following the state’s commands. The Party has spoken. Welcome to Soviet New England.
The Two-Minute Hate, except this one won’t end,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate
“The political purpose of the Two Minutes Hate is to allow the citizens of Oceania [MA but include all lefty states, CA, NY, Il and others] to vent their existential anguish and personal hatred toward politically expedient enemies [like the unborn and those who love them]”
We used to refer to it as “living behind the Cod Curtain.”
So your pro-death
There is no in between
Both extremes are doing nothing but alienating reasonable people.
Thinking an innocent baby shouldn’t be murdered is “extreme”… says Sanddog… ok noted.
welll
that explains a lot!
They have been pro-abortion for decades. Pro-choice appears to me to be marketing.
A man at my church who was a highschool counselor could not even bring himself to say that the death of the baby was a tragedy regardless even if you believe the reason for the abortion was “justifiable”. He also would not say when the baby was a baby only that it should be up to the woman and her doctor. He also said that science says it isn’t alive.
Isn’t it amazing when it’s supposedly pro-choice people don’t like it when people make choices?
So then, The Science™ favored abiogenesis?
“Pro-choice appears to me to be marketing.”
This is the well established MO of the left. They use false labels and terminology to obscure their true agenda because their true agenda is abhorrent to normal people and they know it.
That’s how gun control becomes “common sense gun safety measures”. how illegal aliens become “undocumented migrants”. How bums and hobos become “the unhoused”. How fiery, deadly riots become “mostly peaceful protests”. It never ends.
And if the term they’re using today for something begins to be associated with the negative aspects of their agenda and therefore becomes unpopular, they don’t change the agenda, they just change the term…again.
They have never, ever been “pro-choice”. That’s just the false term they chose to use in an effort to obfuscate their agenda, and always has been.
Why so many on the right play along and use the false terms that the left picks for themselves is beyond me.
Oceana has NOT always been at war with Eastasia
War is NOT peace
Freedom is NOT slavery
Ignorance is NOT strength
And we need to call them out on it every day. Every hour. Every minute.
Case in point from the article above:
“anti-abortion centers often use to stop people from accessing comprehensive reproductive services”
How is an “abortion is the only answer” approach remotely “comprehensive”?
Answer: It’s not. It’s another obfuscating term used to mask their true agenda. Abortion centers do not offer comprehensive care unless they also provide support and resources for people who choose life. They don’t.
It is certainly alive BEFORE being aborted, I mean killed. And “SCIENCE SAYS” has to be the most overused, dishonest gimmick ever.
As an aging, wealthy, militant lesbian, Maura Healey is uniquely suited to emphasize with the plight of poor, unwed pregnant women.
Empathize, my bad
You forgot home wrecking
Notice how the left can’t articulate a position but can only attack what they hate
Someone needs to sue on the basis of disparate impact given the black abortion rate. Apparently the official policy of the state of Massachusetts is that black babies should die.
they’re more “worried” about how cigarettes affect poc cause there you can reap money from the shakedown of those companies
Sue whom, for what? There is no such thing as an action simply for “disparate impact”. Disparate impact can be adduced in specific cases as evidence that there is secret discrimination going on, but it’s not a cause of action on its own.
And in any case an advertising campaign is not subject to any of the anti-discrimination laws. There is no law that would prevent someone from explicitly running a campaign encouraging black women to abort their babies and white ones to keep theirs. Good luck finding an ad agency willing to handle it, but there’s no law against it.
If a GOP governor or legislature were putting up billboards warning it’s citizens to stay away from abortion centers you would be the first one racing to LI to drone on and endlessly on about how and why they should be sued and stopped
What a filthy, disgusting, and transparent liar you are. Everyone here, including you, know perfectly well that I would not. You lie even when it’s blindingly obvious. How do you live with yourself?
Anti-human is a good description for these democrats. Soulless works too
Honest question. Could this be seen as the government’s attempt to suppress speech? It certainly is telling people that the message and work of these centers is a lie. Which to me suggests, if not outright censorship, a softer side of the same. “We can’t tell you not to tell pregnant women about fetal development. “But we can get the word out that they should not believe you.”
Honest answer: No. The government is expressing its opinion that you shouldn’t listen to those other people. It is 100% entitled to do so. That is the freedom of speech. Proponents of opposing views each have the right to persuade people not to listen to the other one.
Thanks for the reply. Honestly, not being snarky. I understand that the government also has freedom of speech. If they put out billboards reading “Want to find true support for your pregnancy choices? Don’t be mislead. Contact 555-1212 for accurate information.” I would totally see it as them exercising that right.
What I see as a grey area is the implication that pregnancy support centers are lying to women. Now be patient with me. For you or me to imply another is telling a lie well that may or may not have a impact on whether they can continue making sure people get their message across. However if a person in authority (who may even have jurisdiction over the business) implies the business is being dishonest it certainly can have a detrimental effect on the ability of that business to get its message out to the people it wants to serve.
So the government is hoping their bill board will result in the message of these centers being suppressed and perhaps shut down. A sort of sideways regulation for 100% political reasons.
I am sure your take would prevail is this was ever challenged. Just trying to figure where government choosing sides becomes an issue that touches on the free speech rights of those they oppose.
The freedom of speech simply means that you are free to say what you like, and people can listen to you if they like. It does not mean you are guaranteed an audience. If I can persuade people not to listen to you, then they won’t, and if that means you can’t stay in business then you will have to close down; but I didn’t force you to close, all I did was be more convincing than you to your potential customers. Persuading people not to listen to someone is not suppressing speech.
Now if the government were ordering people not to listen to you, and they somehow thought they were legally unable to listen to you, then there would be an issue. But that’s impossible. People know the government can’t do that. And if they’re stupid enough to think the government will never lie to them, then they can’t be helped.
The government is accusing these centers of fraud. These centers now have standing to sue for defamation.
There’s not a great distance between what Massachusetts has done here and NRA v. Vullo, which SCOTUS decided unanimously against NY state.
The government is accusing these pregnancy centers of fraud and is telling people not to go to them. Which is interference in the operation of a legitimate and legal business operation w/out proper authority to do so.
No, they don’t.
On the contrary, there is no similarity whatsoever. Vullo is all about government coercion. There is none here.
No, it didn’t. The case is still in the preliminary stages in district court. All the Supreme Court decided was that the case should not have been dismissed out of hand, and should go to trial. It decided that if the NRA’s factual allegations are true, then it has a good case. Of course if they are not true then it doesn’t. Whether they are true, and if so whether Vullo has some valid defense (such as qualified immunity), remains to be determined by the district court.
There is no such thing. The first amendment is all the authority the government needs for this campaign.
Yet they continue to thwart our 1A rights through the proxy censorship of socialist media and direct censorship, under the guise of “misinformation.”
“Freedom of speech” is a right.
Governments don’t have rights. Governments have powers.
I have “freedom of association.” A government does not.
Mr. Bowman, you are so correct.
That is not true at all. Governments, like all corporate entities, have the same rights that natural people do. They are, after all, composed of people. See Citizens United.
If governments didn’t have rights then the tenth and eleventh amendments would be mostly meaningless.
Unalienable rights like free speech reside in each individual. Government has no right to free speech. It’s sole function is to protect such rights.
That is not true, and it is certainly not the law.
Freedom of speech belongs to the people, not the government.
The government is a person too. It is a corporate entity, made up of people and sharing their rights.
Then government has the “right” to remain silent against incrimination? I do not see government as having the same natural rights as individuals. Government is a vehicle not a person.
I really should have read further before I posted. As usual.
abortion and the pill were the hallmarks of womens freedom from the patriarchy
except they *forgot* these same women always go back to wanting those traditional “liabilities”
family husband love children >>>>another lefty lie abortion the pill etc will give you freedom
its done the opposite
its enslaved the female to the matriarchy aka the welfare system
the dnc is the matriarchy and the welfare system is its new fashioned whips
the plantation is the housing projects now re-named affordable housing
the step fathers are the police and the courts which have now,, in truer lefty form,
transitioned into a matriarchy where the discipline from the step dads
is being replaced by sjw>>social workers>>>> incompetent lefty judges
stop the welfare system
99% of these problems go away
“In Massachusetts, we are committed to protecting and expanding access to safe and legal abortion.”
That seems quite the opposite of the song the leftists like Hillary were singing, i.e. “safe, legal and rare.”
The abortion enthusiasts have a death grip in MA. They laughingly call the pregnancy resource centers “unethical.” I guess the word “ethical” has been bastardized by the left too…
Just another facet of the left’s War on Children.
Yep. But we never believed them when they were saying it, so this should not be any surprise. I don’t think anyone believed them; I don’t think they even expected to be believed. They were just saying it as cover. “We know we’re lying and you know we’re lying and most people who are paying attention know we’re lying, but the low-information voter doesn’t know that.”
Thank you, Mary, for standing up for Life, and against
Reproductive Health CareAbortion.Abortion is such a nasty thing that those who promote it use euphemisms instead of calling it by name.
I suggest anyone on the fence about abortion view the movie Unplanned.
Abby Johnson, an abortion center director, changed her mind when she was asked to help with a CT guided abortion. She was horrified watching the unborn baby ripped apart.
She soon railed against the very center she overlook.
While I don’t agree with the “state” making accusations such as this on a billboard, it’s within their power to advertise. I going to make a point here that may have been missed. The Supremes returned abortion to the states. Massachusetts has been a liberal enclave for decades. The state and large percentage approve of abortion. Fine. That’s their choice. They don’t get to run out of the state those who don’t approve and help those who may want an alternative to Planned Parenthood. FJB
Nope. It ain’t within their “powers” to tell people to “avoid anti-abortion centers” because
anti-abortion centersPregnancy Centers are not violating any law(s) of the state of Massachusetts. Pregnancy Centers in MA are operating in an apparently legal fashion and violating no laws of the state. It’s just that the state of Massachusetts simply doesn’t like these Pregnancy Centers operating in the state and are waging a campaign to get them shutdown. So no, they don’t have the “power to advertise” in this manner.So what if the centers are not breaking any laws? How does that prevent the government from persuading people not to patronize them? The government has an absolute right to do so. It is not ordering anyone to avoid them, it’s just informing them that in its opinion they should. Yes, it doesn’t like them, and it doesn’t have to like them. But it is not “waging a campaign to get them shutdown”. The most it can hope for is that people will voluntarily stop using them and they’ll go out of business. It’s entitled to hope for that.
Why should the government have the authority to spend public funds to demonize a lawful business? They are not attempting to force women to bring their babies to term in any way. This is a benefit for the citizens and it would seem that the state is interfering with women’s access to reproductive health through lies meant to scare them away from those places.
Seems there is a lot of money to be made in the abortion industry selling baby body parts (as exposed by O’Keefe), then funneling of $ back to DNC.
Sickening.
Everyone going in for an abortion should have to watch a video of one – a real one. They should also be required to have and watch a sonogram of their baby, which has proven to save many babies when the mother sees it as a living being.
Thirty years ago (back in the previous century), my sister got a videotape of her ultrasound. (Before they were eliminated due to liability concerns.) Seeing my nephew when he was about the size of a small shrimp is still one of the most awesome things I have ever seen.
“Have to”?! “Required”?! That sounds pretty coercive.
Just think of it as due process for the baby.
Who’s surprised a leftist government would spend taxpayer money on behalf of baby butchery? The leftist ideology is across the board one of slaughter.
the deceptive and dangerous tactics that anti-abortion centers often use
This is abusive and they should sue for defamation, IMO. It’s definitely malicious and “with aforethought.”
Governments are suppose to stay neutral
yeah,, laughing at that too but its the reason that this billboard is in violation of that
unless or until the good people are willing to do what the blmplo did……….
sufferrrrrrrrrrrr!!!
“How dare you want to give birth to a healthy child!”
Sure sounds like they’re interfering with (real) reproductive health.
I suppose almost every one knows that there are crisis pregnancy support centers. I’m Hoping these government funded advertisements have a streisand effect of making more people Consciously aware of that option. I would hope most people could see through the bias and find something that they might benefit from even if the presenter (government funded billboard) is putting it in a negative light.
Leave a Comment