March 2003
Letters to the Editor

Send a letter to the editor

No Comment?
I can't help but wonder why, without commentary, articles from Bay Windows appear on your MassNews email edition. They don't seem to jibe with usual editorial policy.
Dave Garrecht
Grafton

Editor's Comment: It's a judgment call, as is everything in life. We believe that conservatives must know what the opposition is saying and doing in order to respond intelligently and perhaps to understand the opposition position more clearly. We cannot cover our eyes and pretend they do not exist. When we at MassNews believe the opposition is saying something about which we have knowledge that our readers might not know, we will often comment upon it. In the case of homosexuals, most of them know that we do not hate them, although we disagree with their lifestyle, as do most of them when they are honest with you. But this is always a judgment call. We do our best, but we are not perfect.

Why Not Promote Adoption?
For the fifth straight year, Planned Parenthood's adoption referrals have declined while its abortion numbers have increased. It is plain to see that all Planned Parenthood cares about is making big bucks by aborting babies, not humane alternatives like adoption.

According to Planned Parenthood Federation of America's recently released annual report for 2001-2002, its adoption referral numbers were 1,951, while abortion procedure numbers were 213,026. Compared to the year 2000, that is a decrease in adoption referrals and an increase in abortion procedures. In 2001, Planned Parenthood referred one pregnant woman to an adoption agency for every 109 babies aborted. Planned Parenthood's actions have spoken louder than anything it has claimed.

Congress must de-fund this anti-family organization. Americans need to realize that Planned Parenthood is funded, in large part, by their tax dollars - nearly a quarter of a billion dollars for Planned Parenthood's fiscal year 2002 ($240.9 million). People should contact their elected officials immediately and demand that their money stop going to Planned Parenthood.
Thomas Messe, M.D.
Groton, CT

Regarding Feb. 6th Web Page
A headline on the Feb. 6 web edition of MassNews.com said: "Marriage Amendment Plaintiff Has Been Told That She is Wasting Her Time and Money Appealing to a Court in This Liberal State; Sarah McVay Pawlick Does Not Agree, Believes Courts Will Do 'The Right Thing' in Scandal about Marriage Amendment.

Is it really any wonder that this lame advice has been given to Sarah McVay Pawlick?
The citizenry of Massachusetts after voting for the same ineffective politicians like dutiful sheep have no recourse but to live with the fact that the politicians will continue to march to their own tune after having sold themselves to all special interest offshoots of the population in order to buy a vote. Do not expect them to vote for the majority as the majority has not done anything for the politicians. As long as the citizens allow them to continue this way, things will never change. The citizens had the chance in the last election to change some of this and like dutiful sheep, they chose not to.

When special interest groups buy favors, favors are done for splinter groups. These groups enjoy privileges that the majority of the citizens do not have.

In reference to pedophiles, maybe they should be called by their correct terminology, something like, homosexual rapists or molestation of minor children by adults of either biological sex. The public may start to open their eyes and see that there is a problem.
However, through skillful maneuvering, the ACLU as well as several of the homosexual individuals in the state and federal government passed laws to give preference to these criminals. The legislators, in my opinion, do not have the right to attend homosexual rallies, take the podiums and speak in their capacity as an elected official as was clearly the case as reported and shown in a photograph taken at one of the "Fistgate" related incidents published in an earlier edition of the MassNews.

This picture should have been released to the major news networks. Especially since the people get upset at a congressman making passes at adults. Why are elected representatives protected when they are attending homosexual rallies and therefore at least tacitly promoting homosexuality at schools? Others in the U.S. Government who are homosexual and attempting to gain favor promoting their cause should be exposed to the public also.
W. Rhoades
Greenland, NH

Globe Inconsistent on Child Abuse
Whatever one may say about the Globe, one does not have to look far to find unintentional humor there, especially on the Editorial Page. This is a publication that has aided, abetted and supported the most barbaric child abuse of all: the killing of unborn babies in the wombs of their mothers and even the slaughter of babies while they are in the process of being born. This same publication regularly gives advice to the Catholic Church with respect to the latter's current problems. Physician, heal thyself.
Richard F. Russo
Arlington

Our Battle for Freedom Begins at Home
During my two-and-a-half year tenure as State Co-Chair for The Fatherhood Coalition, I have seen the interruption of thousands of father-child relationships as a result of intervention by the Probate and Family Court. In many of these cases, the court appears to have been extraordinarily intrusive and heavy-handed, literally robbing fathers and children of the opportunity of their most fundamental right to foster meaningful relationships with one another. These dads and their kids are missing those precious years, and in the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Lost time is never found again." It happened to my daughter, Victoria, and me, and it can happen to you or someone you care about. The effect of this travesty is one of the most pervasive social ills of our time, children without the real influence and teaching of their natural fathers.

Try for a moment to forget about Iraq, other rogue states and terrorist entities outside of our nation. Pause and look within. Americans and Massachusetts citizens must understand that the battle for freedom and democracy begins on our streets within our communities. We must identify the injustices here first and rid society of the bigotry and hypocrisy of a judiciary that creeps insidiously into our lives, homes and families. The trial court forum of the family court, through the devices of its judges and corrupt apparatus, promotes a system so money-driven and politically motivated that it functions predominately to preserve itself at the expense of ordinary families. And many of the appointed authorities, particularly those with conservative-pragmatist or liberal-feminist ideologies resist change by way of their contemptuous power to fulfill an agenda, fill their coffers, or both.

Our elected officials, as well, lose sight of what is fair. In the outset of their service, they should legislate without waiting for the safety net of popular opinion. What good are "leaders" if we, the citizenry, must lead them? They only squander our time and money, and stand in the way of our liberties and pursuit of happiness as guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions. They must be held accountable in action or inaction for unreasonably prolonged social injustice. Listen carefully to your fellow citizens, the victims of the family court. The truth is that our own officials whom we have entrusted are cheating us of our most fundamental, natural and God-given rights. And although I am retiring from my position with one of the most prominent fathers' rights organizations in the Northeast, I will continue to work with other advocates and activists to oppose those who immorally stand between us and our children.
Mike Franco, State Co-Chair
The Fatherhood Coalition

Questions about Romney's Faith
I met Jeanine Graf when she was working for Christian radio on the North Shore. I believe she is a fine Christian lady.

However her knowledge about the Governor's faith is lacking. He is not a biblical Christian; he is a Mormon. In his last debate with Ms. O'Brien he gave his position on abortion. It is that minors can abort babies with the consent of a judge but no parental knowledge. The Democrat said the judge's consent was not needed.
John McGrath
Weymouth

Questioning Gun Laws
Massachusetts enacted a gun control law in 1998, which applies only to lawful, non-criminal Americans.

Does anyone know of a documented study in existence that shows the need of the law, the goals it would attain, and that the regulations imposed by the law, are the least restrictive upon lawful Americans?

How do we even know if the law is working?
Don Schwarz
Stoughton

Arizona Headed the Way of Fistgate
The article "Homosexual Lawyers Still Punishing Brian Camenker & Scott Whiteman" was enlightening, as were all the links to other informative articles from that page. That's what we get for being so tolerant.

Arizona is set up to see the same demise. An openly gay, state senator, who was defeated in the last election, is noted for getting the so-called archaic anti-sodomy laws repealed. Our state legislature and governor bought it. No doubt that Fistgates are soon to appear here, now that the way has been cleared legally. But then that's diversity these days, isn't it?
Wesley Walker
Phoenix, AZ

Swift Could Have Shown More Courage
Concerning Jane Swift's legacy, as a briefly-empowered, unlamented former governor, I never liked her while she was in office. But up to last summer, when she announced that she was not going to run, I always understood that she governed the way she did because she was trying to win the election as Governor in her own right, and believed that in order to win, she had to adopt the Weld/Cellucci formula for success, a combination of fiscal conservatism and a social progressivism. This is why she was pro-choice and pro-gay (except for gay marriage).

However, when she announced last year that she was not going to run for election, none of the above should have mattered anymore. She no longer had to worry about making the gays or anybody else happy. In the sense that "'freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose," when she forfeited her own run at the Governorship and thereby had nothing left to lose, she was free once again. She could have given us a splendid half-year of leadership, since she no longer had to worry about maintaining her popularity.

She could have made the next Governor's job much easier by aggressively controlling spending last year, so that the problem with the deficit would not now be so great.

She could have done the right thing and given a full pardon to Gerald Amirault.

Instead of increasing tolls on the Mass Pike and the harbor crossings, she could have raised whatever highway revenues are necessary by spreading around the pain, by leaving the Pike alone and instead erecting new tolls on I-93 in Medford and on Route 3 in Quincy, both inbound.

Since she was no longer going to use tobacco cessation taxes on cigarettes, she could have rolled back those taxes and returned them to the smokers. Cigarette taxes are the most regressive, anti-poor taxes there are, since it's the poor who smoke out of proportion to their numbers in the population. Keeping a tax advertised as being for tobacco cessation, but using it for general revenues instead, is nothing less than lying and stealing.

And finally, she could and should have ordered the General Court to return to session immediately after their failure last summer to allow a vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment. Even opponents of this measure (such as Barbara Johnson) understood that the legislature's failure to allow a vote was a wretchedly illegal piece of business.

Swift ought not to have had to ask the SJC's opinion concerning her obligation to recall the legislature; she should have known by herself what her duty was. Nor should she have waited a half-year before condescending to ask the SJC what she was supposed to do.

Jane Swift had a chance to become a great lame-duck governor. But she punted even this opportunity as thoroughly as she did her entire governorship. I hope she never resurfaces in the public sector.
James A. Nollet
Billerica
Editor's Comment: When we see where Jane starts working next, we may get a clue about her behavior.

Our Rights are Being Stolen
There is a growing national backlash against recently implemented repressive federal security policies.

Americans of all stripes worry about the implications of a White House that disregards their rights to privacy, equality and fair justice. A year and a half after the terrible events of Sept. 11, we face a critical test. Are we prepared to stand up for our basic American freedom? Or will we allow the government to take advantage of the climate of fear and insecurity to enhance its power at the expense of the freedom that defines who we are as a people?
When Attorney General Ashcroft demands the power to strip citizens of their constitutional rights and orders them to be incarcerated indefinitely without access to the courts, I worry for the future of the country. This is only one of the frightening steps the government is taking to fight the domestic war on terrorism. These steps threaten the rule of law itself without necessarily making us any safer.

Congressional hearings have recently revealed the bureaucratic inadequacies and sheer incompetence of the intelligence agencies. The government should concentrate on fixing those problems and stop meddling with the Constitution.
Ron Beaty, Jr.
West Barnstable

MassNews Can Justify Anything
Your paper panders to the ignorant, the narrow-minded, the intolerant and the prejudiced. Your audience is a dying breed, the dinosaurs of 21st century society. And Catholic priests pose a bigger threat to our children than gays or liberals. The child rape crisis in the Catholic Church is your reward for spreading such hateful, moral hypocrisy. But then again, you'll find some way to justify it.
Jim Duffy
West Roxbury
(where gays are now more welcome than right wing, ultra-conservative homophobic hate-mongers)

Reply From Father Tad About In Vitro Fertilization
We received a letter last month in response to our article, "Priest Discusses Ethics of Embryo Research and Cloning," we reprint last month's letter below and then Father Tad's response.

Last Month's Letter
In this article, Father Tad writes:

"The immorality of IVF is that it turns the gift of life into mass production, he said. Arguments that IVF is immoral parallel those for cloning. Children are not intended to be manufactured products. They have a right to have real parents and to be conceived as the fruit of marital love."

I take great offense at the implication that if my wife and I go through IVF to have children because we can't conceive any other way then we are somehow less deserving than a couple who doesn't have to deal with infertility or some kind of disability. What an ignorant and truly stupid thing to say!

I think Father Tad should be more concerned about Priests molesting children rather than how my wife and I conceived our family.
Mike Kowalski
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

A Clarification from Fr. Tad:
God is concerned both about priests molesting children and about the way that spouses conceive their children, and I am concerned about both as well.

Mr. Kowalski points out that if he and his wife happen to be infertile, that fact doesn't somehow make them any less deserving of children than other couples. True enough, but no couple, whether fertile or infertile, can ever claim that they have a "right" to a child. A child is always a gift, to be received from the Giver of life. When a couple marries, this doesn't entitle them to a child (as if it were a possession or a piece of property); rather, their marriage entitles them to those acts of sexual self-giving which are in and of themselves ordered to the procreation of new human life. If a child comes, great! If not, it would be incorrect to suppose that their infertility somehow throws open the door for them to use any means they can come up with to get a child of their own flesh and blood.

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is an immoral means to arrive at a good end (the good of holding your own baby in your arms). Consider the case of a 15 year old high school girl who becomes pregnant and gives birth after fooling around with her boyfriend. She experiences the very real blessing of holding a child of her own in her arms. But this in no way legitimates the immoral means she chose (pre-marital intercourse) in order to achieve the good end. Moreover, it is not in any way the baby's fault that it came into the world in this manner. It is the mother and father's fault alone.

The same holds for IVF. The child born of IVF is a blessing, a gift, plain and simple. But the parents have adverted to immoral means to achieve this good end. And what is so immoral about IVF? First, it undermines the meaning of sex, because it says, in effect, that intimate sexual self-giving is not essential to the generation of new human life, but that it's OK to simply manufacture life in the lab as if it were a commodity.

Human life is meant to be the fruit of conjugal love, not the outcome of manufacturing protocols and technical domination. Second, IVF requires masturbation on the part of the man, an intrinsic violation of the gift of human sexuality. Third, because IVF treats human beings as objects, rather than subjects, it ends up condoning the freezing of embryonic humans, abandoning them in a state of suspended animation, or worse, pouring them down the sink if it appears they might not be useful for the utilitarian purposes of the technicians and the couple.

We have hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos to contend with in this country because of IVF. These children of infertile couples are condemned to an absurd and unjust fate. Fourth, IVF violates the exclusivity of the couple's marriage covenant, since they allow a third party, the laboratory technician, to impregnate the wife, albeit artificially, in the place of her husband. Fifth, recent statistical studies raise the possibility that children conceived by IVF may suffer an elevated risk of birth defects and other disorders when compared with those conceived naturally. Overall, then, IVF always violates the sacred link that exists between the generation of new life, and the specific acts of marital intercourse which bind the two spouses together into one flesh.

If a couple finds themselves to be infertile, this should elicit a different response, namely, recognition that their fruitfulness as a couple is not simply defined by their biological procreativity. Rather, they can share their love and fruitfulness as a couple in other ways, for example, through adoption, or through becoming mother and father figures to others in the community who are in need.

Mr. Kowalski's tangential arguments fail to recognize the numerous and deep-seated moral concerns that invariably accompany IVF. I would refer him and any others who wish to more fully understand the Church's rationale in these matters to The Gift of Life, (Donum Vitae), released by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1987, and widely available on the internet.

Mr. Kowalski's closing statement regarding molestation reflects his desire that the entire Church should fixate itself on the moral failings of a few of its members. The Church's experience with far worse scandals over her 2000 year history has led her, wisely in my opinion, to fix her attention instead on a renewed call to holiness and fidelity to the Lord both among her lay members and among her priests. That call to holiness has many dimensions, but one of them includes the proper use of God's gift of human procreation, and in vitro fertilization always misappropriates and contravenes that gift.

Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.
Ethics Committee
St. Anne's Hospital
Editor's Comment: A new Dutch study has found that IVF children are five- to seven-times more likely to develop retinoblastoma, a rare cancer than are other children.

Judge Releases Armed Suspect Who Threatened Policemen

I know that the media and some members of the public are tired of hearing me attack the judiciary. However, it is very hard to overlook obvious malpractice and ineptitude on the part of our appointed-for-life judiciary.

Just this month, members of the Holyoke Police Department and members of the DYS Apprehension Unit went looking for a juvenile who was known to be armed and possibly dangerous.

Not finding him at home, the officers checked several places where this juvenile is known to hang out. The officers located this juvenile inside a liquor store, identified themselves and approached him. The juvenile, while the officers were approaching him kept attempting to place his hand into his pants pocket. The officers repeatedly informed the juvenile to keep his hands away from his pocket. The officers placed the juvenile under arrest and on frisking him, found a fully loaded .357 S& W magnum in the pocket the juvenile tried to reach into. The bullets in the weapon were .357 caliber jacketed hollow-point rounds. Upon checking the weapon through NCIC and BAFT, it was found to be stolen out of South Hadley.

On January 15, 2003, the Clerk Magistrate held the juvenile on $2,500 bail because of the seriousness of the violation. A juvenile judge on January 15, 2003, upheld the bail. The juvenile requested a bail reduction hearing and on January 24, 2003, Judge Tina Page, in her infinite wisdom and knowledge, revoked the $2,500 bail and placed this juvenile criminal on home detention with an ankle bracelet. On January 27, 2003 the ankle bracelet was attached and the juvenile was released to go back to school and continue with his other activities.

This juvenile should have been locked up. However, he is now free to continue his nefarious criminal activities. The officers risked their lives apprehending this juvenile and this judge has made very light of their lives and that of the community.

I wonder what the judge would have done if this juvenile had resided in her neighborhood. Would she still have been so lenient with this juvenile?
Anthony Scott
Chief of Police, Holyoke
Editor's Note: For more information on Chief Scott's campaign to restore judicial accountability in the Massachusetts court system visit: http://www.massjudgesaccountability.us/.

A Letter Not Published by Globe
Dear Editor:

Another letter from Jane Doe ?!

I assume that this 307-word epistle is consistent with the Letters Page protocols described and defended by the Ombudsman earlier this year. She noted then that the editor requires letters to be less than 200 words and those that are generally more controversial (from the Globe's point of view) rise to the top of the stack.

Ooops! It isn't. Oh well . . .

(For those of you who are not in the loop, those were the arguments that were presumably used to not publish a letter from the Fatherhood Coalition after we were directly attacked by Jane Doe in your Letters Page. The Jane Doe letter was a response to your story on male domestic violence fatalities and Steve Basile's Gardner District Court study that exposes the double standard used to prosecute restraining order requests. Our response, our defense, was effectively censored.)

I wonder, do any of Jane Doe's letters ever get rejected? Even when their Executive Director is replaced because of financial misconduct?

Why does Jane Doe bat 1000 with your letters page editor? Inquiring minds want to know.
From empirical observation, here is the Boston Globe's editorial policy:

1. Always publish anything written by Jane Doe.

2. Always publish any "news" report that deals with male-perpetrated domestic violence on women.

3. Never publish anything that criticizes battered women's groups such as Jane Doe.

4. Never check facts when the source is Jane Doe or the story focuses on female victimization by men.

And, just to remind you one more time - you lied when you published the list of domestic violence victims at year's end and failed to include the man who had been shot in the head by his wife while sleeping. (Why did you do that? Oh, I forgot Rules (1) and (4). This information comes from Jane Doe.)
Mark Charalambous
Spokesman, Fatherhood Coalition

Another letter that the Boston Globe
did not Print

Have Women Achieved 'Equality' with Roe v. Wade?

Dianne Lube of Planned Parenthood ponders whether the promise of equality granted by Roe v. Wade has been fulfilled for women (''The promise of equality in Roe v. Wade decision,'' op ed, Jan. 21). The answer is no, they have not achieved equality.

What they have achieved is an overwhelming superiority.

Men do not have veto power to stop an unwanted pregnancy and are yet subjected to paying decades of support to raise that child. Nor do men have the power to stop an unwanted abortion, yet a domestic battering that causes the death of that unborn child is considered murder.

There is no equality unless there is no choice or equal choice for both men and women. There are plenty of fathers who would choose to raise their child, without the aid of child support. It is just as reasonable to force a woman to continue pregnancy for nine months as it is to force a man to pay child support for 20-plus years.

Equal choice may be a compromise that would save the lives of many unborn children.
Steve Basile, Director,
No. Central Chap., Fatherhood Coalition
Westminster