January 2003
Letters to the Editor

Send a letter to the editor

Stop Using 'HATE' to Create FEAR

Once again taxes were due, so as a dutiful citizen, I traveled to Quincy City Hall for payment.
To my dismay I walked in the front door, to be greeted by a large sign on the wall just behind the information desk. "This is no place for a HATE community" with HATE in the boldest of lettering.

What is the purpose of this sign? Who is the target? From the very prominent placement it's obvious someone at city hall believes the citizens of Quincy really need to see this message. I wonder who that could be? Living in Quincy for 10 years I've been to city hall on numerous occasions and never encountered anything in the nature of hate. Nor have I ever heard or read of a hate rampage in the city.

When questioned about the sign the response of city officials was that the poster was presented by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and that the basic message was we shouldn't hate anyone. Of course who could disagree with that, but it seems to me there surely must be another motive to the campaign. Otherwise, if the display of such signs is the new policy, on my next trip to city hall I can imagine the wall full of such messages; No place for murder, No place for stealing, No place for breaking window.

Recently, in getting together with a few friends, one of them was wearing a button with the same slogan, "No place for HATE"; her son is a homosexual. And having some knowledge of ADL from reliable sources, I am concerned that there is a connection.

My experience and that of close friends is that, in this campaign, "HATE" rhetoric is used to create fear. It is intended to intimidate people from discussing important issues. In which case not only is this sign insulting, it's dangerous to citizens of Quincy. I have an idea for a new sign.

STOP USING HATE TO CREATE FEAR.
James Rickert
Quincy

Voice of the Faithful

After reading the MassNews story about the formation of a Voice of the Faithful chapter in Worcester, I was rather surprised to read about your publication's background on your Web site. I was surprised to discover that you accept advertising and subscriptions, because this suggests you're not fully funded by the Catholic Church. Surely, I thought, this must be a Vatican-sponsored publication, an advocacy newsletter, not one for mainstream readers expecting a balanced perspective.

I worked as a reporter for twelve years. My editor would never, in a million years, have let that story see the light of day without my giving Voice of the Faithful representatives a chance to rebut the charges against them. Perhaps you would consider my editor a little strict.
Allyson LaBorde
Los Angeles, CA

Editor's Comment: This was an update on a continuing story. We cannot reprint everything that you have missed. In addition, the Boston Globe prints everything, and more, that the VOF wants to say, but nothing from the other side. If you doubt that, see their December 12th issue with the large story on the front page, "Lay Group Votes to Seek Cardinal's Ouster."

Dems Lose Blue Collar Seniors

Traditionally, the party that holds the presidency loses seats in off-year Congressional elections. This year's results stunned the liberal Democrats.
The Democrats offered no compelling alternatives. Bills to create homeland security were stalled in the Senate. An energy bill that would have provided 100,000 blue-collar hardhat jobs in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in Alaska was defeated. The Democrats have sold out their labor base and completely surrendered to the environmental extremists that have proved to be labor's greatest enemy.

The scare tactics on seniors always employed by Dems are no longer effective because seniors now know why their Social Security benefits are subject to taxation and they know that it was the Clinton/Gore administration that did them in. In what had to be the biggest blow to the Dems in this election was the fact the Republicans carried the senior vote most likely for the first time. That had to send a strong message that the Dem base can no longer be taken for granted.

In another aid to American labor by President Bush was his recent signing of a terrorist insurance bill that will now open up thousands of construction jobs that had been on hold because construction companies could not get terror insurance. Underwriting terror insurance was essential to our economy, and already the usual critics are on the attack. Life goes on, and these construction projects are expected to contribute $30 to $40 billion to the economy. President Bush put his prestige on the line when he campaigned all over the nation for candidates that would support the war on terror and the issues he felt were necessary to enhance the economy. The campaign was a tremendous success. As a result, even some Democrats joined Republicans to pass the homeland security and the terror insurance bills. Both should be positive for America in providing for national security and the economy.
Edward P. Shallow
Dorchester

Sen. Barrios Is Wrong

I sent the following letter to Rep. Jarrett Barrios about the upcoming hearing for the protection of marriage amendment.
My letter follows his response. In all fairness, he gave an immediate reply even though I am not in his district.

While I understand your concern, having personally witnessed paid signature gatherers misrepresenting the nature of their ballot (telling people it was to ban horsemeat) I have grave concerns about this proposal, and voted to adjourn therefore.
Jarrett T. Barrios

Dear Rep. Barrios;
I am writing to express my concern about the ballot question to amend the State Constitution that would define marriage between a man and a woman.
What happened at both Constitutional Conventions earlier this year was a travesty and undemocratic. Regardless of one's opinion of the definition of marriage, the issue should have been brought up for discussion.

Instead, the meeting was adjourned, thus denying any kind of discussion and a vote.
Therefore, 130,000 Massachusetts citizens who signed the petitions to get the question on the ballot were denied their right to see the referendum process followed through.
However, it finally appears certain that a vote will be held on the "Protection of Marriage Amendment" now that Senate President Tom Birmingham has followed the lead of Gov. Jane Swift and asked the Supreme Judicial Court for guidance in his role during an expected vote in the next few weeks.

With that being the case, I encourage you to vote in favor of allowing the marriage amendment question to be placed on the next ballot when the issue comes up for a vote in the House.
I personally feel that it is important that marriage be defined once and for all as the sacred bond between a man and a woman.

The 130,000 citizens (I, personally was one) who legally signed the petition in the first place deserve an open and honest debate by our elected representatives instead of the cowardly adjournment that occurred earlier this year. The House and Senate are bound by our state Constitution to hear and debate a referendum question. The SJC said it this way in 1982, "The 'one-fourth vote' requirement applicable to initiative amendments was intended as a 'legislative minority check' on initiative amendments to the Constitution. Its purpose is to ensure that initiative amendments submitted to the people for approval have at least a reasonable amount of public support, as reflected by the favorable votes of at least one-fourth of the legislators elected to the General Court."

If this referendum issue is not resolved, any lack of action by the Legislature isn't only breaking the law, but it also sets a bad precedence for future ballot questions. The public's trust in state government will also be undermined.

In closing, I encourage you not only to participate in the Marriage Amendment debate, but to also support it.
Peter Brown
Hanson

Editor's Comment: With due deference to soon-to-be Senator Barrios, we must note that the "paid signature gatherers" he refers to were hired only because the safety of the volunteers became a concern after they and the voters were harassed at every mall by in-your-face blockers who were trained by the ACLU.

The "paid signature gatherers" who were then hired by MCM were already in the state working for Carla Howell and the horse people.

The marriage people attempted to cooperate with anyone who made a claim of being tricked but they were totally rebuffed. As we have reported many times, they were rebuffed because the majority of the claims - only five people were ever identified as those who claimed they were tricked - were a fraud used only in an attempt to damage the Amendment.
But you have to give him credit. Sen. Barrios never gives up.

No Right to Have False Records Expunged

In July 2000, a 15-year-old boy was walking through a parking lot in Saugus, when he became the victim of an assault. Little did he know that he would also become a victim of the Massachusetts "Justice" system. He was arrested.

When the trial day came around, the witnesses did not show up. The case was dismissed without prejudice, though the victim protested the judge's decision. Two weeks later, the assault victim petitioned to have the false arrest record expunged from the files. In December 2001, the court ordered the expungement of the false arrest record. The Commissioner of Probation appealed the decision.In August 2002, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in the case Commonwealth v. Gavin G. a juvenile, SJC. 08672 (2002), gave the decision, denying expungement of the false and unproven arrest records, for there is no law enacted by the Great and General Court, that acknowledges the right of a citizens, not to have a false and unproven arrest record on file!

For the rest of his life, this victim of a crime will be victimized by the Massachusetts "Justice" system by having on record, the data of his false arrest, which will always be there to dishonor his good name, and no one cares.

Only in Massachusetts.
Don Schwarz
Stoughton

Editor's Comments: There were two dissenters to that opinion written by Justice Martha Sosman, where the Court said they could do nothing because the Legislature had not given them the power to expunge records. The dissenters were Justices John Greaney and Roderick Ireland (who wrote the dissent) who said there was no indication in the statute of an intent to limit judges in the use of their powers to achieve justice. Their opinion continued, "I believe the unique history, goals, and policies of the juvenile justice system provide the Juvenile Court judge with the inherent power to order expungement. It is only common sense."
I would suggest you get to your state Senator and Rep and see that the law is changed immediately to correct this unfortunate result. Please let us know how you make out.

Abortion, the American Holocaust

Holocaust is a word that means the mass slaughter of people. What then is abortion?

Eleven years ago I stood in line with a number of different women. It was like an assembly line with each of us waiting to enter the infirmary. I remember the girl behind me. She must have been at least six months pregnant because her belly was very large. I kept saying to myself, why did she wait so late? She is killing her baby, not realizing that though my stomach was flat, I was doing the same. I remember a women smiling in my face after I woke up and taking me to a room where I sat and had a cup of tea and two Tylenol. She said it would help with my pain.

Today I ask myself which pain, the emotional pain I have suffered once I realized I took my baby to be slaughtered or the physical pain I have suffered from infertility and now breast cancer. Funny how I have lost a baby, an ovary and now a breast. Abortion has nothing to do with women's health, power or choice. It is a complete loss of humanity.

We pride ourselves on a Constitution that vows everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, yet we allow our laws to protect the same acts and cruelty of Hitler. Every time you see an advertisement for abortion, know that that is an advertisement for the slaughter of people. If there is any question that a child in the womb is not yet a person look at the evidence, look at yourself.
Charnette Messe
Groton, CT

Lack of a 'Baby Safe Haven' Brings a Year of Tragedies
Jean Morrisey and her husband, Michael, of Lexington, have lobbied for one year for a Baby Safe Haven law to pass in Massachusetts following the burial of Baby Rebecca Mary in St. Mary's Cemetery in Dorchester on November 27, 2001.

In a year following the burial of Baby Rebecca Mary, the newborn baby found dead of exposure in the St. Mary's Cemetery in Dorchester, I regret but two things. First is that with my own hands, I should have lowered her tiny white coffin into the ground. Second, that Massachusetts in the following year has not seen fit to pass and enact a Baby Safe Haven law so that the tragedies that have followed with three more newborns found dead need not have happened.

The first I cannot change, the second I must and will do as soon as possible before more moments-old babies perish because their scared and secretive mothers decide that hiding their newborns through death and disposal is their only option. In 42 states the options are to bring their babies to a Safe Haven, a hospital, a fire station or a police station and, with no questions asked, hand their precious secret to the safety of a caretaker.

I cannot understand why Massachusetts hasn't passed this statute to save lives instead of expending political gamesmanship over tiny newborn citizens of the Commonwealth. They have no political standing whatsoever, I guess.

A version of the Safe Haven bill had been in the Legislature for 19 months before I became involved, and over three-quarters of the country had seen passage within their states. Now, ninety percent of Americans are covered by state statutes. I lobbied hard; I called and wrote of the successes of saving lives from Connecticut to California.

The miracle at the Bay State Medical Center happened on February 8, 2001. A TV show that I appeared on with the country's top experts on Safe Haven laws and programs was watched by a couple who brought a three-and-a-half pound preemie to the emergency room, the young man leaving the tiny foundling for safe keeping in the Bay State Medical Center. Can our Legislature get it now, the law worked right here in the Commonwealth!

But the Massachusetts Families for Kids had other ideas, we stole that baby's ancestry, its medical records vanished, along with its parents. To them this was a worse tragedy than being stolen from death, the only supposed crime I guess. Life begins with opportunity and ends when death steals all opportunity from us. Imagine having all your opportunities and losing them within minutes, then being a political tool because of a loss of heritage or medical recording and substantiation.

It's now one year to the day since the last flower was placed on Baby Rebecca's coffin, and the earth covered your heritage and history. The lobbying continues in your name and I'm joined by all of the gubernatorial candidates, pro-choice and pro-life groups, many more legislators who sponsored bills that became law in other states, then saved lives. An Emmy Award winning TV actress, Patricia Heaton, filmed public service announcements for Massachusetts and many other states to use, but we cannot show them without a law.

If our legislature stalls one more day, one more week, it certainly becomes one more month, then two, and more. We'll awake one day to the tragic news of a newborn found dead and abandoned. Only then we may act, but the toll for politics of this type is a tragic legacy that will only end with a Baby Safe Haven law.
Jean Morrisey
Lexington

A Letter to Senator Kerry

Dear Senator:
Our legal system has made some very creative decisions. For example a woman successfully sued McDonald's after accidentally spilling hot coffee on herself while riding in a car. I don't understand the thought process that found McDonald's liable.

Imagine the possibilities if we had a law where the decision-making process didn't have to start with any facts. Instead judgments could be made on factors that are either real or merely perceived, whether or not that perception is correct. As an example, consider what could happen if laws like this apply to bank robbery. You could be found guilty of robbing a bank even though no robbery had occurred but someone thought that one of your friends looked like someone who might rob a bank.

Problem: Someone might notice the government crime statistics list 10,000 people convicted of robbing banks when only 100 bank robberies occurred. Something doesn't seem right.

Easy Solution: Simply add a provision to the law that expressly prohibits the collection of related statistics so there can be no accountability and people won't be able to find out what's really going on.

Would you vote for a law like this? Apparently the answer is yes, because a couple sources list you as a supporter of S1284/HR2692. Lurking behind the innocent sounding "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" (ENDA), is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The Senate Committee's report is quite long so I can understand why many would just read the summary and not notice the hidden dangers.

Here are some of the interesting parts: Facts don't matter. According to the act, judgments would be made on a characteristic that is either "real" or "perceived." (Section 3) Footnote 9 clarifies the definition of "perceived" to include cases "whether or not that presumption is correct."

Guilt by association; the bill also allows claims to be based on characteristics (real or perceived) of "someone with whom an employee associates." (Section 4)

Accountability; It "expressly prohibits" the collection of statistics. (Section 7)

Estimated cost for implementation; (Part IV) about $5,000,000/year-Federal government (60-90 additional staff) would not exceed $58,000,000/year for state & local governments. Probably would not exceed $115,000,000/year for the private sector.

The basic goal is good; we should treat everyone equally and fairly instead of categorizing people and applying different rules to different groups. However, this proposed law is just plain lunacy because it is so vague and subjective.

A couple lists indicate that about 48 Senators have already jumped on this bandwagon. Did they bother to check where the driver is really taking them?
John Langner
Chelmsford