DONATE

Major public hearing on radical bills to change society - Massachusetts State House, Tues. July 9.

A preview of what may be coming across the country.

Also: Fighting back with pro-family bills.

But why you shouldn't bother going to this hearing.

POSTED: July 8, 2013

Radical bills pushing transgenderism, weakening abortion laws, and repealing law against bestiality & laws for public morality!

Many people think that the radical agenda to change our laws would slow down after "gay marriage." Well, the rest of the country needs to follow what's happening in Massachusetts. After "gay marriage" comes the intense transgender agenda, extending into the schools. But also comes the push to repeal all laws supporting the moral structure of society, and a further push in particular areas such as abortion.

In Massachusetts this year, the homosexual lobby and the radical left have filed a series of bills to do that. Across the country, it's up to pro-family groups like MassResistance to step up and stop such bills from passing.

Most of the Massachusetts bills will be taken up at a public hearing this Tuesday, July 9, before the Joint Judiciary Committee at 1 pm in Room A1 in the Massachusetts State House.

Below are the major anti-family bills to be heard:

(A) Repealing the law against bestiality!

Sexual "freedom" is one of the driving forces of the "gay" movement. Back in 2005, the year after "gay marriages" began to be performed in Massachusetts, the homosexual lobby pushed a bill to repeal the bestiality law. (The same bill had also been filed in 2003 as H3357, as the official State House document shows.) But MassResistance (then known as Article 8 Alliance) publicized it, and after nationwide pressure they backed down and the bill died. (See some of our blog coverage from 2005 here.)

This year, after their success with the transgender law, they appear to be ready to try it again. It's such a bizarre move that it even took us by surprise.

Current Massachusetts law, M.G.L. Ch 272, Sec. 34, describes both homosexuality and bestiality to be an "abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with a beast." Similar to the Bible (Lev. 18:22-23) it lists them together.

They actually filed two bills regarding this. Bill H1592 was filed by Rep. Byron Rushing (D-Boston). Bill H1673 was filed by Rep. Chris Walsh (D-Framingham) along with Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville) and Rep. Cory Atkins (D-Concord). Both of these bills completely repeal the anti-bestiality / anti-sodomy statute. And just to be sure, both bills also repeal an additional "morality" statute, M.G.L. Ch 272, Sec. 35, regarding "unnatural and lascivious acts."

(B) Repealing ban on adultery and other traditional public morality

Public condemnation of adultery has long been a target of the Left.

Rep. Walsh's bill "bestiality bill" H1673 also includes these other repeals of public morality laws, which are duplicated in another bill, H1591, filed by Rushing.

Both of these bills would repeal the statute against adultery. They would also do away with the statutes regarding soliciting in taverns for immoral purposes (i.e., prostitution), public blasphemy, and fornication - which are all considered "out of date" by the Left but have lingered as part of society's understanding of what holds civilization together. So the Left wants to officially stamp these out.

(C) Repealing the law requiring teaching children about values and virtues

Rep. Walsh is also carrying water for the radical educators. In addition to the above, his bill H1673 would also repeal M.G.L. Ch. 71, Sec. 30. This law once represented the bedrock of children's education, but has been a thorn in the side of left-wing school officials for decades because parents keep bringing it up. It reads:

This is exactly what most parents in America would want to have as state law. But as we have seen so often across the country, the Left wants to purge those values from America's youth.

(D) Pushing the envelope further on abortion

The Left wants to remove the few important restrictions on abortion that are still in state law.

Bill H1630 was filed by Reps. Ellen Story (D-Amherst) and Byron Rushing (D-Boston), and its Senate counterpart S641 was filed by Sen. Harriett Chandler (D-Worcester).

These identical bills would completely remove the requirements that abortions after 13 weeks of pregnancy be performed in a hospital authorized to provide facilities for general surgery, and that for abortions over 24 weeks it must have facilities for obstetrical services. (This would give Planned Parenthood clinics more business.)

In addition, these bills repeal the law that sets out punishment for people who unlawfully help a woman have a miscarriage by giving her drugs, poisons, or using an instrument. (And these are the people who keep talking about "women's health.")

(E) Repealing laws on vagrancy and public begging door-to-door

Some of these bills seem fairly minor, but eat away at quality-of-life issues.

Rushing filed an additional bill, H1593, that would repeal the laws dealing with vagrancy or allowing local police to stop people begging for money door-to-door. and deterring known pick-pockets from mingling in public areas such as railroad stations. The "freedom" of the homeless (many of whom are mentally ill) to be allowed to beg and camp out in public places is important to the Left. But it helps no one, while endangering and fouling our public spaces.

(F) More transgenderism: Outrageous "public accommodations" bill

In Nov. 2011, after a huge, expensive lobbying effort by the homosexual lobby, the Massachusetts Legislature passed the horrific Transgender Rights Bill. This horrible law has already allowed the radical transgender agenda to be pushed in public schools as well as in businesses, corporations, government, and other areas statewide.

Failed pro-family "bathroom bill" strategy. One of the reasons the lobbying effort worked and the bill was able to pass the Legislature involved the deeply flawed strategy used by certain well-funded pro-family groups in Massachusetts and other states. They avoided confronting the insane concept of "transgenderism" and its forced imposition on society. Instead, they called it a "bathroom bill" and claimed (falsely, in fact) that it would allow regular men to go into female restrooms and prey on young girls. The truth is that men dressed as women simply using women's restrooms -- and forcing people to accept them anywhere else -- is a bigger problem.

So to deflect the "bathroom bill" charge, the bill's proponents merely removed the "public accommodations" section of the bill (which includes restrooms), and it sailed through the Legislature. Now the radicals are back with the public accommodations part. They are claiming that since the rest of the transgender rights law "works fine" that it's now simply a "civil rights" issue to include public accommodations.

New bill to add public accommodations. Identical versions of this bill have been filed in the House as H1589 by Reps. Byron Rushing (D-Boston) and Carl Sciortino (D-Medford), and in the Senate as S643 by Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz (D-Boston).

Here's what the transgender "public accommodations" bill includes:

1. All businesses that serve the public. It extends the protections of transgenderism and cross-dressing to every store, restaurant, hotel, business, public transportation, health club, etc. (including restrooms) that serves the public. Violation of such protections and privileges can lead to fines and jail time by business owners.

2. Locker rooms, showers, restrooms, etc. It specifically writes into law that all legally sexually-segregated facilities (such as locker rooms, showers, restrooms, health clubs, etc.) must be open to transgenders. Thus, men dressed as women must be allowed to use women's facilities and vice versa.

3. "Any place open to the public." It also applies to hospitals, libraries, churches, museums, government offices, auditoriums (even if event is held by private group renting the space), beaches, parks, sidewalks, playgrounds. In fact, it will include any place but a private home. The legal definition of "public accommodation" in M.G.L. Ch. 272 Sec. 92A is very broad. The law notes a list of places but says it includes but is not limited to that list. This widens its reach to almost any place imaginable.

4. Fines and imprisonment. In any of the above situations, if any person discriminates in any way, or even makes a "distinction" (such as a comment) between transgenders and others, that person can be fined $2500 and/or imprisoned for a year.

5. Fluid definition of "gender identity." It reiterates the absurd definition of "gender identity":

"Gender identity'' shall mean a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth. Gender-related identity may be shown by providing evidence . . . that the gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of a person's core identity; provided, however, that gender-related identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose.

6. Allows the radical tribunal, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, to create further rules and regulations to "enforce" this in businesses and government offices throughout the state.

The homosexual lobby has made this its top priority this year to get this passed. We think this can be stopped with a lot of hard work. Unfortunately, we're up against their "civil rights" momentum. We wish everyone had used the right strategies to stop this whole thing two years ago.

Fighting back: Important pro-family bills filed by MassResistance and others also at Tuesday's public hearing.

There are several important pro-family bills filed and others that are being heard on Tuesday:

1. Repeal the Transgender law. H1479 filed by Rep. James Lyons (R-Andover) and Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica). This would completely repeal the odious transgender rights law passed in 2011. This is probably the most important pro-family bill being heard that day. [This is a variation of a bill submitted by MassResistance.]

2. Repeal the Buffer Zone. H1478. Filed by Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica). (MassResistance) This bill repeals the "buffer zone" around abortion clinics. [NOTE: There is also a case before the US Supreme Court on this, which we will be covering in an upcoming email.]

3. Prohibit partial birth abortions. Bill H1452 filed by Reps. Kevin Kuros (R-Uxbridge) and Rep. Eliz. Poirier (R-N.Attleboro). Unfortunately, this is needed.

4. "Women's right to know bill." Bill H1565 filed by Rep. Eliz. Poirier (R-N.Attleboro). Known as "Laura's Law," this would require abortion clinics to give a woman seeking an abortion detailed information about the nature and risks of abortion, and an ultrasound image of her child.

5. Prohibit abortions for purposes of sex selection. Bill H1567 filed Rep. Eliz. Poirier (R-N.Attleboro)

6. Makes it a crime to injure or kill a fetus -- except in abortions. Bill H1404 Rep. Bradley Jones (R-North Reading) This is an odd bill. It would criminalize acts against a woman which cause bodily injury or death of her fetus. But it specifically does NOT apply in cases of an abortion that does the same thing.

7. Re-defining "gender identity" for restrooms, etc. Bill H1354 Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut). This would change the meaning of "gender identity" for all sex-segregated facilities and public accommodations to mean "an individual's anatomical sex of male or female" In other words, in this one narrow situation, citizens would be allowed to use common sense. This doesn't solve the overall transgender law problem, but it's certainly a start. It's interesting that a Democrat is filing this one! [Sadly, we can also envision a loophole: "Post-operative" transgenders could claim that they ARE anatomically the sex they've had surgically created!]

It's important that pro-family activists not back down, but rather push just as hard!

It's the State House event from hell: Why you should probably NOT go to Tuesday's public hearing to testify.

Joint Judiciary Committee Public Hearing
Date: Tuesday, July 9
Time: 1:00 pm
Place. Massachusetts State House, Room 1A (adjoined with Room 1B)

We will be there. But as important as this hearing is, most people should probably not bother going to testify. Unless you have a lot of time to spend, the odds are you'll never get to speak.

An impossibly large agenda that day

The official agenda for that hearing shows 209 bills being heard. That is insane. The average public hearing has around 15-30 bills, usually covering a few topics. And besides the topics we listed here, there are bills regarding a wide range of very contentious topics. (This is just another sign that our governmental system is failing us, and the people's voices are purposely being shut out.)

In 2009 the Judiciary Committee crammed 237 bills into one hearing. This was the scene as the hearing began. By 10:30 pm, just about everyone had left. [MassResistance photo]

Topics of the 209 bills being heard in this hearing include: Restraining orders, domestic violence, witness intimidation, assault and battery, emergency disaster victims, heroin trafficking, corporate criminal conduct, crimes against the elderly, access to criminal records, abuse of animals, violations of hunting laws, protection of police officers, safety in courthouses, missing children, HIV testing in prisons, enforcement of laws regarding illegal immigrants, sentencing for gang-related crimes, updating the wiretapping law, enforcement of marijuana laws, credit card fraud, organized crime, reinstituting capital punishment, classification of controlled substances, protection of sources of news reporters, assault of public employees, illegal sale of tattooing devices, and more. Also, the ACLU has filed a major bill regarding the protection of online privacy.

In addition to pro-family groups and the ACLU crowd, many of these bills have their own sizeable constituencies or special interests affected by them, besides just the people filing them. If only five minutes were devoted to each bill (an unbelievably low figure) it would take over 17 hours to get through it. A more realistic figure would be a minimum of 30-40 hours to get through it all properly. And public officials are allowed to testify whenever they walk in, and are given as much time as they desire, while mere "citizens" have to wait until they're called by the Chairman and are usually limited to 3-5 minutes.

On top of that, both the House and Senate Chairmen of the Judiciary Committee have histories of animus against the pro-family position. Our side consistently is made to wait until the end to testify. We've had Judicial Committee hearings where pro-family people waited almost until nearly 11 pm to testify, after the "gay" contingents had testified on the same bills nearly eight hours earlier.

In fact, the hearing will start at 1 pm and people will be signed up to speak. But by 10 pm almost everyone will have given up and left. The few pro-family stragglers and others will finally get to testify. That's how it always works.

You'd be much better off sending the Committee your testimony in writing.

Why do they do this?

Why does the Judiciary cram an impossibly large number of bills into one afternoon's public hearing?

From time to time various committees will knowingly do this, especially with bills regarding the "culture war" or other topics that they would like to avoid but know will draw a big crowd. For example, in 2009, the Judiciary Committee scheduled 237 bills into one hearing that also included an earlier "transgender bill" attempt and similar "culture war" bills.

After nearly 20 years of watching the Legislature, it's not hard to figure this out. To Massachusetts legislators, public hearings are a dreary, boring formality. Much of the time, only the committee chairmen actually stay until the end. Occasionally there are some unusual topics where they are interested in the testimony, facts, and reasoned arguments.

But in this case, the bills and topics are completely on the other end of that spectrum: The committee's not interested in them, they've already made up their minds (or they've been told what to do by the leadership), they don't care to hear what the public thinks, and they simply want to get it over with. So they create a circus where the vast majority of people come promptly and sign up to speak, but end up leaving after hours and hours of waiting. Meanwhile, the committee chairmen pick and choose who gets to testify -- usually their political allies and the public officials who show up. There's no shortage of arrogance and condescending attitudes in most State Houses.

The real work is behind the scenes

We've said for years that public hearings are in the big picture almost always a waste of time. It's good for our side to be seen, and hear what one's opponents are saying. But we've never seen any bill of any importance decided on the basis of what was heard at a public hearing. We like to think that legislators are swayed by reasoned arguments, or even emotion. But in reality it's much more cynical. Unfortunately, most of the ugly stereotypes about politicians are true. They respond to pressure or promise of reward of one kind or another, occasionally shock -- in their offices, in their districts, or by the leadership.

That's how our opposition does it. Our side needs to do it, too.