Skip to comments.Massachusetts House votes to repeal century-old, pre-Roe abortion ban
Posted on 07/21/2018 10:13:12 AM PDT by ReformationFan
BOSTON, July 19, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) -- By a 136-9 margin, the Massachusetts House has voted to repeal the states old, unenforced bans on abortion and contraception that predate Roe v. Wade.
The Negating Archaic Statutes Targeting Young (NASTY) Women Act, named after a campaign trail insult President Donald Trump leveled at his Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton which feminists embraced as a rallying cry, is meant to ensure that abortion remains legal in Massachusetts even if a more conservative Supreme Court repeals Roe in the near future.
"Today, nasty women and their nasty men are here to say we're not going to stand for this!" Democrat Senate President Harriette Chandler declared, according to MassLive.
Massachusetts is one of ten states that never bothered to repeal the laws after the Supreme Court rendered them unenforceable. Another four states have passed newer laws that will automatically ban abortion upon Roes fall, and in all the rest the issue will be left to voters to decide for themselves. Congress could pass a national abortion ban as well, citing its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The NASTY Women Act already passed the state Senate unanimously in January, and pro-abortion Republican Gov. Charlie Baker has said he conceptually supports it.
Pro-life advocates in the state dismiss the bill as mere partisan play-acting, noting that a 1981 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found a right to taxpayer-subsidized abortion in the state Constitution, regardless of Roe. The proposal is more about agitprop, fund-raising, and posturing than lawmaking, CJ Doyle of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts told the Boston Globe.
The truth is that Massachusetts is one of the fifteen states which have abortion enshrined in their state Constitutions. Overturning Roe v. Wade will change nothing in the state, Anne Fox of Massachusetts Citizens for Life wrote Tuesday. The only way we will be able to pass any abortion restrictions will be to amend the Massachusetts Constitution, not just on funding, but on abortion as a whole.
Pro-abortion activists are currently hard at work to insulate abortion-on-demand from a hypothetical case overturning it. New York Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo has called for codifying Roes requirements in state law, and pro-life activist Rebecca Kiessling warns that pro-abortion groups in states like Iowa, North Dakota, and Minnesota are filing lawsuits claiming a right to abortion rooted in state constitutions rather than Roe.
Sick and evil.
Hey, let’s kill them kids. We don’t want to wait 18 years for them to vote; we’ll get the illegal aliens a hell of a lot faster.
Agree or disagree about the issue, but old “unenforced laws” should be removed from the books on a regular basis. On that basis, this was a good thing.
a 1981 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found a right to taxpayer-subsidized abortion in the state Constitution, regardless of Roe.
John Adams would also have been surprised, that they found a right to homosexual marriage in his constitution. Massachusetts liberals are proud of their state being the first to recognize homosexual marriage by court order.
Indeed. Abortions and so called same gender “marriage” go together like a horse and carriage.
And the second President of the US would indeed have been surprised that either of those things were found in his constitution.
Massachusetts, The Baby Killing State!
I am no fan of abortion. I am certainly no fan of Roe.
But this is how the Constitution says things like this are supposed to be done. I dont like it, but we are a republic and this is how it should work.
Every law should have to be renewed every ten or twenty years or else it should automatically terminate. Except for rights specifically guaranteed in the constitution.
They flowed from Puritans as do these (still listed if not all enforced):
Massachusetts General Laws:
CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER
Section 36: Blasphemy
Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously [without respect; in a disdainful manner] reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
Section 38: Disturbance of assembly for worship
Whoever wilfully interrupts or disturbs an assembly of people met for worship of God shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars.
Section 14: Adultery
A married person who has sexual intercourse with a person not his spouse or an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person shall be guilty of adultery and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.
Section 15: Polygamy
Whoever, having a former husband or wife living, marries another person or continues to cohabit with a second husband or wife in the commonwealth shall be guilty of polygamy, and be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail for not more than two and one half years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars; but this section shall not apply to a person whose husband or wife has continually remained beyond sea, or has voluntarily withdrawn from the other and remained absent, for seven consecutive years, the party marrying again not knowing the other to be living within that time, nor to a person who has been legally divorced from the bonds of matrimony.
Section 17: Incestuous marriage or sexual activities
Persons within degrees of consanguinity [related by blood] within which marriages are prohibited or declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry or have sexual intercourse with each other, or who engage in sexual activities with each other, including but not limited to, oral or anal intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, or other penetration of a part of a person's body, or insertion of an object into the genital or anal opening of another person's body, or the manual manipulation of the genitalia of another person's body, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years.
Section 18: Fornication
Section 18. Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars.
Section 34: Crime against nature
Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.
Section 35: Unnatural and lascivious acts
Whoever commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail or the house of correction for not more than two and one half years.
Section 16: Open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior A man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars.
Satire is dead.
And the Mass. legislature is demon-posessed.
Not when they are "unenforced" due to anti-constitutional Supreme Court edicts.
God is taking names. . .those babies are HIS creation. They are only on loan to parents for a little while. Woe to Massachusetts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.