Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Massachusetts House votes to repeal century-old, pre-Roe abortion ban
LifeSite News ^ | 7-19-18 | Calvin Freiburger

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 state’s 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 Roe’s 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 Roe’s 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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: abortions; massachusetts; prolife; roevswade
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last
Sad but not surprising. In fact, the only surprise I have is that the Bay State legislature had not done this years ago. I'm guessing the laws where a remnant of the state's pre-1973 Roman Catholic past when even the Kennedys claimed to support the right to life position.
1 posted on 07/21/2018 10:13:12 AM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Sick and evil.


2 posted on 07/21/2018 10:14:34 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj ("It's Slappin' Time !")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

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.


3 posted on 07/21/2018 10:16:31 AM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

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.


4 posted on 07/21/2018 10:19:21 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Herod v.2.


5 posted on 07/21/2018 10:20:15 AM PDT by bgill (CDC site, "We don't know how people are infected with Ebola.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

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 wrote the Massachusetts state constitution. It is amazing that it was possible to find a “right to taxpayer-subsidized abortions” in such a document.


6 posted on 07/21/2018 10:22:35 AM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hanamizu

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.


7 posted on 07/21/2018 10:24:37 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Ahhhh....precedence!!


8 posted on 07/21/2018 10:30:58 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan
"The Negating Archaic Statutes Targeting Young (NASTY) Women Act"
Triggered!!! I stopped right there. How dare my equal, gender-neutral, theybys state pass a bill that only supports abortion for WOMEN! Rewrite it now to include the other 27 genders!!!
Sorry Freepers, but these people are making a very good argument FOR abortion. If only ultrasounds could detect extreme leftism and stupidity (redundant, I know)in the womb!
~I'm not serious
9 posted on 07/21/2018 10:31:37 AM PDT by small farm girl (....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego; hanamizu

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.


10 posted on 07/21/2018 10:32:04 AM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego; hanamizu

11 posted on 07/21/2018 10:35:01 AM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Massachusetts, The Baby Killing State!


12 posted on 07/21/2018 10:39:03 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

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 don’t like it, but we are a republic and this is how it should work.


13 posted on 07/21/2018 11:21:21 AM PDT by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

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.


14 posted on 07/21/2018 12:10:23 PM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Gone but not forgiven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: ReformationFan
Even though the repealed law was unenforceable anyway, repealing it is another sign that Blue States have conceded that Roe v. Wade will be overruled within the next five years. They know Kavanaugh will be confirmed and that President Trump will likely get to replace one of the Liberal Justices. So they are updating their laws to prevent accidentally outlawing abortion once Roe is overruled.
16 posted on 07/21/2018 12:24:59 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ...
Sad but not surprising. In fact, the only surprise I have is that the Bay State legislature had not done this years ago. I'm guessing the laws where a remnant of the state's pre-1973 Roman Catholic past when even the Kennedys claimed to support the right to life position.

They flowed from Puritans as do these (still listed if not all enforced):

Massachusetts General Laws:

CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE I.

CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 272.

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.

PART IV.

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.

17 posted on 07/21/2018 1:22:53 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Trust the risen Lord Jesus to save you as a damned and destitute sinner + be baptized + follow Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan; John Semmens
The Negating Archaic Statutes Targeting Young (NASTY) Women Act,

Satire is dead.

And the Mass. legislature is demon-posessed.

18 posted on 07/21/2018 1:26:33 PM PDT by NorthMountain (... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glorgau
old “unenforced laws” should be removed

Not when they are "unenforced" due to anti-constitutional Supreme Court edicts.

19 posted on 07/21/2018 1:28:07 PM PDT by NorthMountain (... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

God is taking names. . .those babies are HIS creation. They are only on loan to parents for a little while. Woe to Massachusetts.


20 posted on 07/21/2018 4:01:13 PM PDT by Maudeen (http://ThereIsHopeinJesus.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson