Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Massachusetts Pandemic Powers: Quarantine for Mental Illness?

To Domenico Bettinelli @ BettNet (re: your post "Massachusetts is NOT forcing vaccines on you"):

OK, Domenico. You make the point that
mandatory vaccination is not in bill S2028, and you’re right on the face of it. You say the “rumor” about the bill’s dangers is unfounded. But you obviously have a lot of unwarranted faith in the trustworthiness of our government and medical professionals.

You’re correct that
bill S2028 reads:

An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction. (S2028, lines 409-414.)

Note that “serious danger to public health” remains undefined. And what’s the cut off time on detention? 
The bill does state that isolation would be only for the period of communicability, and quarantine would be for the usual incubation period of the disease. Individuals who refuse testing or decontamination are subject to isolation or quarantine:

When the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction reasonably believes that a person may have been exposed to a disease or condition that poses a threat to the public health ...[they] may detain the person for as long as may be reasonably necessary for the commissioner or the local public health authority, to convey information to the person regarding the disease or condition and to obtain contact information ... (S2028, lines 432-439.)

An order for isolation or quarantine may include any individual who is unwilling or unable to undergo vaccination, precautionary prophylaxis, medical treatment, decontamination, medical examinations, tests, or specimen collection and whose refusal of one or more of these measures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health. (Lines 464-469.)

This is somewhat vague: no definitions for “reasonably” or “condition that poses a threat to public health." Remember that that Gulag was populated with people like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who assuredly suffered from some “condition”. 

Have you ever heard of what happens in some pediatricians’ offices, when they talk young teenage girls into getting an HPV vaccine (when the wary mother is not present)? It's easy for an authority to pressure a reluctant patient who tries to refuse. Have you ever heard stories of what happens in psych wards, when they tell someone they’re “just doing a TB test” -- when in fact they’re planning to inject the distressed patient with
who knows what?   (No, I’m not speaking first person.)

Now multiply this scenario by a thousand times given fear, panic, uncertainty and irrationality during an “emergency”, and mix in lack of transparency (or competence) from our public servants. Do you still think the newly needle-enabled EMT or dentist will follow the protocol in S2028 to the letter? Do you think a frightened individual who resists will be respected? And what happens when the resister is in 
forced quarantine?  Who’s in charge there? What is the state of mind of the forcibly quarantined citizen? (Line 475 does state, "Isolation and quarantine orders must utilize the least restrictive means necessary." But who gets to determine that?)

And of course we don't really know what's in those flu vaccines. So much for trusting the authorities.

S2028 even includes a provision
“to care for any emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs that individuals may exhibit,” (all terms and places of treatment undefined) -- with their "permission" of course. Might a person resisting the authorities’ entry into his premises be determined to suffer from “emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs”? And when the authorities “exercise ... their powers ... over facilities including but not limited to communications devices” and a person can’t call his lawyer, what then? Well, then we’ve arrived at a police state, and it doesn’t matter that the new law said no one can be vaccinated against his will. The individual's will no longer counts. There’s only the power of the state.

C’mon Domenico. You’re way too trusting. The patriots have come up with the word “sheeple” for a reason.

Let’s end with this.
Who gets to define the governing terms in the law? Current Massachusetts law Ch. 111, section 6 gives this power to the Commissioner of Public Health:

Power to define diseases deemed dangerous to public health; control and prevention
Section 6. The department shall have the power to define, and shall from time to time define, what diseases shall be deemed to be dangerous to the public health, and shall make such rules and regulations consistent with law for the control and prevention of such diseases as it deems advisable for the protection of the public health. 

And if S2028 is passed, it would add after the word “diseases” (in lines 2 and 5) above:
injuries, health conditions, and threats to health. All to be defined ad hoc by an unelected official (the Public Health Commissioner), possibly in time of crisis.

And as the statists have said, never let a crisis go to waste!

Pandemic Bill S2028: What Do Its Sponsors Really Have in Mind?

WorldNetDaily has followed up our post on S2028, focusing on Massachusetts but also referring to worrisome legal actions in other states.

Senator Richard Moore is lead Senate sponsor of the pending Massachusetts pandemic bill S2028, "An Act Relative to Pandemic and Disaster Preparation and Response." So it's worth noting that he began the legislative hearing last March by referring to the "pandemic flu bill"! Hmm, it says nothing about flu in the bill. And the hearing was held in March, before the outbreak of the swine flu in Mexico in April. (We'll be linking to video of that hearing soon.)

Wouldn't the pandemic emergency bill also apply to outbreaks of measles, smallpox, typhus, cholera, tuberculosis, leprosy, HIV, hemorrhagic fevers, and bio warfare in general? (A
pandemic is "an epidemic of infectious disease that is spreading through human populations across a large region.") Why would Sen. Moore single out "flu"?

It's no wonder so many
Americans are suspicious of the government's efforts to vaccinate us for what appears to be a mild flu. (Why have they fast-tracked the H1N1 vaccine? Why are they fast-tracking everything right now, whether it's Cap & Trade, the stimulus, or the health care takeover?)

As MassResistance has reported,
Senator Moore has worked closely with "big pharma" in the past, significantly when he tried to push through a mandatory vaccination of all schoolgirls with Merck's HPV drug Gardasil. Who has his ear now?

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Massachusetts Pandemic Bill S2028 Update

Update to yesterday's post on S2028 "Pandemic and Disaster Preparation" Bill:

We just heard back from the House Ways and Means Committee staffer, who said that the Committee has not yet decided what to do with the bill. To paraphrase his comments:

It's been filed in past sessions but went nowhere. With the new Speaker (Robert DeLeo), it's not clear what will happen with it this session. The Committee is aware of issues with the bill -- some are valid, some not (he said). The Committee is getting lots of calls about it.

Monday, August 31, 2009

Fascist "Pandemic & Disaster Preparation" Bill S2028 Pending in Massachusetts

We first heard about the very scary "Pandemic and Disaster Preparation" bill, S2028, pending in the Massachusetts Legislature in June. We'd come across a video by the National Vaccine Information Center, which briefly mentioned that Massachusetts was leading the way on forced vaccinations, quarantines -- and even martial law. Since then, with the swine flu H1N1 propaganda, the Massachusetts bill is getting attention online. (See index of general pandemic stories here.)

The Boston Herald reported on the Senate's 36-0 approval of bill S2028 on April 28. New England Cable News ran a brief story: video here. Otherwise, the mainstream media has been keeping it pretty quiet.

A petition to impeach its sponsor, Senator Richard Moore, was posted by the Liberty Preservation Association of Mass. on GoPetition in late May. Great job by this watchdog group! (Note: S18 is now S2028.) They wrote on May 2:


Senator Bob Hedlund has provided a statement, which suggests that he would not vote for execution of S-2028 if and when it comes back for a vote in the Senate.
Several state reps have said that based on our info packets, our lobbying efforts and the unconstitutionality of this bill that it will not go forward.
These are comforting words, but Senator Bruce Tarr, whom still defends this legislation,has stated that this will come back in October during the upcoming, highly anticipated, flu season pandemic.
These are NOT comforting words, but my fears are that Senator Tarr's statement is closer to the truth than what several State reps had suggested.

(Remember that the Massachusetts legislature, led by Senator Richard Moore and the Merck lobbyists, almost passed a law forcing all school girls to be vaccinated with the very dangerous HPV vaccine, Gardasil. There was generalized outrage over that, and the poison vanguard backed down.)

S2028 is enough to make you believe all the fears about the New World Order, its eugenics schemes and martial law plans. (Add this to Obama's coming power to shut down the Internet, and where does that leave us?)

Mike Adams at Natural News reports on the Massachusetts bill's "Forced vaccinations, quarantine camps, health care interrogations and mandatory 'decontaminations' ":
The United States of America is devolving into medical fascism and Massachusetts is leading the way with the passage of a new bill, the “Pandemic Response Bill” 2028, reportedly just passed by the MA state Senate and now awaiting approval in the House. This bill suspends virtually all Constitutional rights of Massachusetts citizens and forces anyone “suspected” of being infected to submit to interrogations, “decontaminations” and vaccines.It’s also sets fines up to $1,000 per day for anyone who refuses to submit to quarantines, vaccinations, decontamination efforts or to follow any other verbal order by virtually any state-licensed law enforcement or medical personnel.

You can read bill S2028 here:
On the history and status of the bill in the Mass. legislature:

We called the House Ways & Means Committee (617-722-2380) today, where the bill is currently awaiting further action. The designated staffer was so overloaded with inquiries about this bill that we only got to his voice mail, and haven't heard back yet. As MassLPA warned above, expect it to be brought up after Labor Day. And we're certain Governor Patrick would sign it. (Governor Romney was ready to hop on board back in 2005.)

Get informed on this double-edged issue, threatening both your health and your civil liberties. For more on the dangers of the vaccines, see NVIC's video, Gardasil & Swine Flu Vaccines: Inconvenient Truths (posted 8/24/09) and articles by Dr. Russell Blaylock. Read the info packet from MassLPA (see above).

Related: The Boston Globe reported on August 13:
Massachusetts health authorities took the unprecedented step yesterday of deputizing dentists, paramedics, and pharmacists to help administer vaccines against both the seasonal flu and the novel swine strain expected to make a return visit in the fall.In another emergency measure, regulators directed hospitals and clinics to provide vaccine to all their workers and some volunteers, a move designed to keep the medical workforce robust and prevent doctors and nurses from making their patients sick. In Massachusetts, disease specialists are expecting to provide up to 9 million flu inoculations within the next few months...
The story makes no mention of S2028.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Kennedy Funeral Mass a "Scandal" Says Catholic Action League of Mass.

We have no comment upon the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. (If you can't say anything good ...) But we are eager to share this press release from the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts:



CONTACT: C. J. DOYLE (781) 251-9739


The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts today decried the scandal which occurred this morning at Boston's most historic Catholic shrine --- the Minor Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, known as Mission Church --- where a Mass of Christian Burial was used to “celebrate the life” of one of America's most notorious opponents of Catholic morality, the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Senator Kennedy fought for more than three decades to keep the killing of pre-born children legal and unrestricted in the United States.

Surgical abortion has claimed more than fifty-one million human lives since 1973. The Catholic religion defines abortion as an “abominable crime”.

President Barack Obama delivered the eulogy, in which he alluded to Kennedy's support for gay rights. One of the Prayers of the Faithful was a petition to end divisions “between gays and straights”.

Ecclesial participants included Rev. Raymond Collins, Rector of the Basilica; Rev. Mark Hession, Kennedy’s parish priest from Our Lady of Victories Church in Centerville on Cape Cod; Rev. J. Donald Monan, Chancellor of Boston College; and Sean Cardinal O'Malley, Archbishop of Boston, who thanked President Obama for his words and his presence. Both the homilist, Fr. Hession, and Cardinal O'Malley suggested that the late senator had found eternal salvation.

The Catholic Action League called the event “a tragic example of the Church’s willingness to surrender to the culture, and serve Caesar rather than Christ”.

Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle stated: “Senator Kennedy supported legal abortion, partial-birth abortion, the public funding of Medicaid abortions, embryonic stem cell research, birth control, federal family planning programs, and so-called emergency contraception. He defended Roe v. Wade, endorsed the proposed Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), and opposed both the Human Life Amendment and the Hyde Amendment. Kennedy maintained a 100% rating from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood. In 1993, he received the Kenneth Edelin Award from Planned Parenthood, and in 2000 received the Champions of Choice Award from NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts at the hands of the same Dr. Kenneth Edelin, the infamous abortionist.”

During his 1994 reelection campaign, Kennedy said ‘I wear as a badge of honor my opposition to the anti-choicers’. His successful obstruction of the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 effectively prevented the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Beyond his specific positions on human life issues, Senator Kennedy, along with the late Congressman Robert Drinan, provided the cover and the example for two generations of Catholic politicians to defect from Church teaching on the sanctity of innocent human life.”

“No rational person can reasonably be expected to take seriously Catholic opposition to abortion when a champion of the Culture of Death, who repeatedly betrayed the Faith of his baptism, is lauded and extolled by priests and prelates in a Marian basilica. This morning's spectacle is evidence of the corruption which pervades the Catholic Church in the United States. The right to life will never be recognized by secular society if it is not first vindicated and consistently upheld within the institutions of the Church itself.”

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Why Is Google Harassing the MassResistance Blog?

Brian Camenker at MassResistance sent out the following email, laying bare (uh-oh ... is that "nudity"???) Google's absurd excuse for blocking this blog with a warning page. Yes, it's "nudity":

FOX News in New York asks Google: Why are you blocking the MassResistance blog?
(MassResistance email alert, July 24, 2009)

Google has finally given its reason for blocking the MassResistance blog, but it took a call from Fox News in New York to get it. And it seems to be more political - and frightening - than anything else.

Since 2005 the MassResistance blog has been hosted on Google's blogspot blogging site with few problems. For the last several weeks Google has been blocking the MassResistance blog with a warning screen alleging "objectionable content", and requiring readers to click through to get in. The block was put on almost immediately after researcher Amy Contrada posted some articles and photos from transgender and gay-pride related public events, in preparation for the July 14 transgender bill hearing. Several news outlets, including WorldNetDaily, have covered this incident.

WorldNetDaily: Google blocks blog exposing homosexual agenda; "Actions represent trial balloon for government censorship of 'hate' speech"

Fox News gets involved
Earlier this week in New York called the MassResistance office asking about Google blocking our blog. Fox reporter Josh Miller said they were interested in the story and could see that given Google's huge power it could lead to censorship issues across the Internet. We discussed the details with him. Later that day Miller called us back and said that Fox finally got through to Google headquarters in San Francisco about this. Google told him that we had violated their terms of service regarding content by posting "nudity", and therefore they had put an "interstitial" (i.e., block) on our blog.

Not "nudity" by any rational standard - this is political
This is a completely absurd definition of "nudity." They are referring to our June 27 posting on "gender expression" - a political issue. You can go to the blog page HERE (just click through their warning page) and judge for yourself.
First, the photos they object to are of homosexual and transgender activists doing bizarre things at public events on public streets, where uniformed police were present. Why weren't any of the people arrested for obscenity, one might ask, if Google finds it so offensive?

Second, none of the pictures show genitals or fully "nude" people. Interestingly, they are mostly pictures of women who have amputated their breasts to "become" men, and who are marching shirtless as a statement of their "masculinity". (Ironically, according to Google's own absurd transgender-support policies these women would be considered "men" anyway since that's their "gender identity"!)

Google clearly knows that these are photos of public political events, not Playboy pinups or pornography. And, of course, Google certainly knows what happens at homosexual-related events because Google participates in them. Google is a frequent participant in Gay Pride events around the country, including the ones in San Francisco and New York which are particularly obscene. Furthermore, Google's blogspot site also hosts some of the most obscene, hateful and outrageous homosexual blogs. It's hard to believe that people would even write some of that stuff. Somehow they don't get flagged by Google for anything "offensive". Most people around the country who see this have agreed that this is viewpoint censorship: unquestionably a political act by Google, not an "anti-pornography" move. And as we said to Fox News - it's MassResistance now, but later it could be you.

Scene from in a recent San Francisco Gay Pride Parade

Story dropped by Fox News
We spoke to today and they informed us that at the last minute they decided not to publish the story on their site. They didn't give a reason. However, the reporter reiterated that these facts still stand and it's definitely a concern.

As we've said before, we think people need to take this seriously. Certainly WorldNetDaily and others are...

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Proof: "Gay Marriage" Still NOT Legal in Massachusetts (July 2009)

Today (July 14, 2009), the Massachusetts Judiciary Committee will consider the bill to legalize "gay marriage". That's right -- "gay marriage" is still NOT LEGAL in Massachusetts!

current Massachusetts marriage statute allows only man/woman, husband/wife couples. So Rep. Byron Rushing has filed a bill, every session since 2004, to change the law to allow same-sex couples to marry. His bill reads:

H1708: Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the
following new section:—
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.

Why has the Legislature never voted on this? Why has the press never recognized that the law was never changed?

Legal means permitted by law.

Rep. Byron Rushing smiles as he sponsors the most radical bills
in the Mass. legislature, including legalization of "gay marriage"
and decriminalization of sodomy.
Even the Supreme Judicial Court recognized that, and told the Legislature to change the marriage statute back in 2003, which it never did. Only because of Mitt Romney's promise to the Log Cabin Republicans do we have phony "gay marriage" -- now celebrated by 16,000 couples. Romney's orders to his executive branch officials to implement such "marriages" was unconstitutional, lacking statutory authority. So those "marriage" licenses aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

One reason MassResistance is so hated by the GLBT movement is that we've pointed this out for years. And the 16,000 "married" same-sex couples just don't want to admit that they're part of a Big Lie.

Note: The law criminalizing sodomy has still not been overturned either. Since sodomy is the basis for "gay marriage," the GLBT lobby's
bill to decriminalize sodomy will also be heard today. Can't have a "marriage" without consummation!

- Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
- Copulation with a member of the same sex.

- Bestiality.
- Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

GLAD: Perversion, Public Sex and Censorship

So -- now that this blog has made history as possibly the first to be semi-blocked by Google for “objectionable content” -- what exactly is it that is so effective on this blog? First, we publish only facts, “uncomfortable truths,” not rumors or personal attacks. And obviously, our photos reveal the ugly truth. Then, we identify those public figures who are twisting the law to enable public perversion and subversion of our youth and culture.

Jennifer Levi (on right) – GLAD's transgender
rights attorney [GLAD photo]

How did we earn the "objectionable" award? Who's gunning for us? We're sure GLAD, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, is very unhappy with us (along with their co-conspirators on the GLBT blogosphere). Since we recently posted on GLAD's transgender rights bill [here, here, here & here], we assume it riled quite a few individuals on its staff.

Ms. Lee Swislow, GLAD Executive Director, used to head a transgender/transsexual clinic. [GLAD photo]

GLAD -- the legal advocacy group behind “gay marriage” and “transgender rights” – has a rich history of defending public perversion. The organization was founded to defend the right of homosexuals to have sex in restrooms at the Boston Public Library. That was in 1978. They brag about this on their web site. Bay Windows tells the story [Ethan Jacobs, “GLAD turns 30,” 1/16/08]:

Back in 1978, about 30 years before Larry Craig and his "wide stance" had pundits and late night comedians buzzing about bathroom hook-ups, Boston police launched a sting operation targeting gay men cruising at Boston Public Library (BPL). They sent in undercover cops to solicit and arrest men, and in two weeks they made 103 arrests. Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), said that such arrests had been common in Massachusetts and around the country and that most men arrested under those circumstances opted to handle the matter quietly, forgoing legal representation and accepting whatever deal police or district attorneys were willing to offer. But the BPL sting triggered an outpouring of anger in Boston’s gay community, and activists organized demonstrations in front of BPL, accusing police of entrapment. The protests also convinced a young attorney named John Ward to found GLAD, which would go on to win marriage rights for same-sex couples in Massachusetts, secure disability protections for people living with HIV across the country, and win numerous other legal victories on behalf of LGBT people and people living with HIV/AIDS throughout New England.

GLAD has gone on to intimidate the Massachusetts State Police into allowing all sorts of public sex – in the Fens (in Boston’s Back Bay), in historic Minuteman Park in Lexington, in Estabrook Woods in Concord (where an informant told us they recently even had mattresses in the woods, left undisturbed by the police), in public lavatories across the state. If the sex is taking place behind a bush or lavatory door, that’s “private” so it’s OK, thanks to GLAD! (We hate to imagine what’s going on in the Boston Public Library lavatories these days.)

Mary Bonauto, the GLAD attorney who argued the State Police case, later argued for "gay marriage" before the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, and is now challenging the federal Defense of Marriage law (DOMA).

Mary Bonauto, GLAD attorney who argued for
“gay marriage” in Mass before SJC;
now leading lawsuit against federal
Defense of Marriage law (DOMA). [GLAD photo]

(GLAD is now pushing to decriminalize even more open public sex. They had a forum in January 2008 called "Sex on the Margins." We heard the discussion was "out there.")

If GLAD gets its way on “transgender rights,” this blog won’t just contain a warning from Google. Its author will be slapped with a criminal discrimination charge, and Google will have its green light to begin censoring all blogs standing for traditional values. Get ready.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

"Gender expression" defined in photos

"Gender expression" has not been defined, but may soon become a "civil right" in Massachusetts.

The pending Body Mutilation ("Transgender Rights") Bill declares it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of "gender identity or expression" yet fails to define either "gender identity" or "gender expression" in any meaningful way. (Likewise, the phrase "sexual orientation" remains undefined in the law.)

The inclusion of "expression" is heavy with implications on how this bill will play out. Whereas "orientation" and "identity" are states of mind, "expression" connotes ACTION, and guarantees that perversions will be protected when played out in the public sphere.

Soon, scenes such as those below will be unstoppable in public places ("public accommodations"). They will be considered a "civil right" to "gender expression." And as we've pointed out, GLAD is readying its defense for public sex acts. (Thanks to GLAD, pervs can already can do it in restrooms or behind the bushes in the Fens without worry of arrest.)

We see no need to warn anyone of the upsetting nature of these photos, since we'll all be seeing similar things in public within a few years. [Photos by MassResistance, except as noted.]

"Folsom East" street fair, New York City, June 21, 2009

Nudity at Boston Dyke March, June 2008

Men dressed as women, Transgender Pride, Northampton, Mass., June 14, 2008

Women proudly showing their breast removal scars, Transgender Pride, Northampton, Mass., June 14, 2008

"Gays" at Folsom East street fair, New York City, June 21, 2009

Sadomasochists with lashes cheered by crowd at Boston Pride, June 2008

None dare call him "Sissy": Mark Snyder (QueerToday) soaking up the rays at Randolph Country Club [from his blog]

Boston Pride celebrant in a public street, June 2009
[EdgeBoston photo]

Woman in kilt with breast removal scars and beard
at Transgender Pride, Northampton, Mass., June 14, 2008

Transsexual leader of BAGLY, "Grace" Sterling Stowell,

Young woman strutting her "manly" chest, Transgender Pride,
Northampton, Mass., June 14, 2008

Man or woman (?) in skirt with beard & mustache, Transgender Pride,
Northampton, Mass., June 14, 2008

Adam Shanahan (left), aka "Raquel Blake", & friends at Boston Pride, June 2008

Eugene Tan, aka "Becca d'Bus", reaching out to teens
at Mass. Youth Pride, May 2007

Queens at Boston Pride, June 2008

More queens at Boston pride, June 2008

How many new perversions ("identities") can they invent? Mass. Transgender Political Coalition T-shirt at Boston Pride, June 2008

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Questions That Must Be Asked at "Transgender Rights" Hearing

More on the Body Mutilation Bill, H1728/S1687:

  • Why does the state want to promote mental illness in its populace? (See DSM-IV, "gender identity disorder.") "Sex-change surgery is a collaboration with a mental disorder, not a treatment."
  • What are the long-term health effects of years or decades of opposite-sex hormone injections? (If the medical profession so concerned about female hormone replacement therapies for women, why should we not be even more concerned about transgender hormone treatments?)
  • What about the children? Experimenting on young children’s bodies is reminiscent of the Nazi era. Yet a doctor at Boston Children’s Hospital is doing just that. It was this blog that first broke the story on Dr. Norman Spack -- the endocrinologist who is injecting supposedly “transgender” children (who are not physically "intersex") with puberty-blocking chemicals so their "gender reassignment" will be easier later. Should the state condone such horrific medical experimentation? (Dr. Spack’s treatments will most likely make the young person infertile, so too bad if they should change their mind later and remain their actual sex.)
  • What will happen when confused teens are pushed into this world by their schools (through the “Gay Straight Alliances” and GLBT events)? The transsexual world is especially dangerous for male youth who want to behave as women. Do we want our public schools suggesting to young girls that they might have their breasts removed to become "bois"?
  • What are the long-term physical effects of the various bodily mutilations of sex-change surgeries? An unnecessary hysterectomy? Removal of healthy breasts? Penis amputation? -- especially when done early in one’s life?
  • What are other risks of sex "reassignment" surgeries -- especially an artificially constructed vagina or penis (with techniques constantly evolving)?
  • What are typical psychological outcomes of sex-change surgeries? Reports suggest that patients continue to suffer psychological distress, are not satisfied with their “new” bodies, and continue to demand more surgeries and treatments.
  • What happens when an individual changes his or her mind after sex-reassignment? They can’t go back. Will the state continue to pay for this person's coninuing demand for therapy and physical change?
  • Why should we let mentally disturbed individuals be in charge of their sexual identification? What does that mean for people they interact with? Dr. Paul McHugh described a situation which will surely arise:
    Dr McHugh warned the [NYC Health] board that such changes would make sexual identification impossible. "I’ve already heard of a ‘transgendered’ man who claimed at work to be ‘a woman in a man’s body but a lesbian’ and who had to be expelled from the ladies’ restroom because he was propositioning women there," he said. "He saw this as a great injustice in that his behavior was justified in his mind by the idea that the categories he claimed for himself were all ‘official’ and had legal rights attached to them."
    • Tuesday, June 23, 2009

      Flood of GLBT Lawsuits Predicted after Passage of Mass. Transgender Bill, ENDA, & Federal Hate Crimes Bill

      Get ready for a flood of lawsuits if the “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes” bill (H1728/S1687) is passed in Massachusetts. The how-to documents are already in place, and test cases have already hit the courts.

      We haven’t already seen lots of anti-bias lawsuits on the basis of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” -- but only because the sexual radicals don’t yet have all their ducks in order. Once the federal bills become law (ENDA and the “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act”), along with the Massachusetts “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes” bill, they need no longer fear a backlash.

      Lawsuits will come to the courts, and complaints will be filed with MCAD -- the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. We’ve warned of the danger of that shadow court system. Its new Chairman, Malcolm S. Medley, recently noted that the GLBT community has been holding back on filing anti-bias complaints, apparently waiting for dust to settle after their “gay marriage” coup. And we believe they’re also waiting for the transgender rights/hate crimes bill to be passed. According to the Bay State Banner (April 30, 2009):

      There has not, however, been a sharp rise in formal complaints of discrimination against those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community since the legalization of same-sex marriage statewide in 2003, Medley said. Some gay rights advocates feared a backlash would follow the state Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the monumental case that made Massachusetts the first state in the nation to legally recognize same-sex marriages. While there are still those who disagree with the court’s decision, Medley said that his agency must uphold laws set by the state regarding sexual orientation.

      The Massachusetts Bar Association reported (June 2008) that MCAD is awaiting action on the transgender rights bill:

      Medley said MCAD is watching with interest several bills pending in the Legislature, including the so-called height and weight and transgender bills.

      GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) is certainly ready to roll, and has posted a page of “how-to” brochures.

      GLAD is the primary legal assault team bringing down traditional values throughout New England. They argued for “gay marriage” in the Goodridge case in Massachusetts, conducted a well-funded campaign to bring “gay marriage” to all six New England states by 2012, and have been busy with pioneering “anti-bias” lawsuits on the basis of (conveniently undefined) “sexual orientation” or “gender identity”.

      Formal charges of “anti-LGBT” bias will soon become commonplace, and GLAD is helping with
      its tutorial. “Verbal harassment” alone can result in criminal or civil prosecution.

      GLAD even has brochures informing
      GLBT students and “transgender youth” of their rights. On this issue, GLAD erroneously states:

      Prohibitions against discrimination in public schools require that transgender students must have equal access to ‘the advantages, privileges and courses of study’ of those schools. (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 76, sec. 5). This must include access to safe, clean, appropriate restroom and locker room facilities.

      In fact, that section of the law applies to “sexual orientation” – but not transgenderism or “gender identity.” This raises the question: If “sexual orientation” already covers “transgender rights”, why is the transgender rights bill needed? Since neither phrase is defined in the law, anything goes! But GLAD now wants to ensure the broadest possible protection for perversions yet untried with another vague law.

      Friday, June 19, 2009

      Transgender Rights Bill H1728: "Body Multilation Bill"

      Trans Rights marchers (men) in Northampton, Mass., June 2008 (MassResistance photo)
      The "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill" (H1728, S1687) is once again pending in the Massachusetts legislature, now with an astonishing 104 sponsors (a majority in both houses!). The Judiciary Committee has announced a hearing on July 14, where it must be stopped. No, it's not just about men in dresses using women's restrooms. It's much more far-reaching and dangerous than that. See our lengthy study (originally published in 2008) for a detailed examination.

      Gunner Scott, the woman leading the radical "Mass. Transgender Political Coalition," at the Transgender Pride march, Northampton, Mass. in June 2008. (MassResistance photo)

      How is the “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes” Bill -- H1728/S1687 -- a threat to your rights?

      This bill would criminalize any objection to bizarre behaviors covered by the undefined phrase “gender identity or expression.”

      Gender identity confusion is considered a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. But if Bill H1728 passes, the disordered behaviors of “transgender” individuals would be protected as a “civil right”! And power will rest with disturbed individuals who self-identify as the opposite sex, or who act out some public “expression” he or she insists is part of his or her “identity”. This bill is about protecting public, not private, behaviors. It is part of the radical strategy to leave the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” undefined in the bill.

      And it’s not only about allowing cross-dressing and sex changes. It would normalize and mandate support for cross-dressing, sex changes, and various other perversions and practices. For example, “gender expression” (and the likewise undefined “sexual orientation”) could be interpreted to protect voyeurism, sado-masochism, prostitution, incest, or even sex in public places. Already, hotels are scared by “sexual orientation” anti-discrimination laws, so won’t deny access to transgender (or sadomasochist) conventions. Things will only get worse if this bill is passed.

      In the “public accommodations” portion of the bill, for example:
      “Whoever makes any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of … gender identity or expression … or … treatment in any place of public accommodation … or whoever aids or incites such distinction, discrimina- tion or restriction shall be punished by a fine … or by imprisonment … or both.” [MGL, Ch. 272, Sec. 98, with phrase “gender identity or expression” added by Bill H1728.]

      - In Mass. law, “public accommodations” could be interpreted to include any place other than private homes.

      - Individuals and churches will lose their freedom of speech and religion to object to transgender behaviors or “gender expression,” or even publicly oppose the new law. No sermon could be delivered, no seminar held disagreeing with this new “civil right” (as it could be considered “incitement” to “distinction or discrimination.”) No effort to overturn it could be organized in any “public accommodation,” no referendum signatures could be collected on sidewalks to overturn the law.

      - A crime committed against a self-identified transgender person will receive extra penalties as a “hate crime”.

      - Business owners will lose the ability to choose employees suited to their particular environment or clientele, no matter what it means for their profitability. Charges of discrimination could be brought if a “transgender” person is fired for valid causes totally separate from “gender identity”.

      - Schools will normalize this psychological disorder to our children, exposing them to unimaginable stresses. Restrooms and locker rooms will be open to the opposite sex. Sports teams, proms, and homecomings will see “transgender” youth demanding “equal” treatment. Children of all ages will be given sensitivity lessons when teachers, staff or even parents undergo “sex changes” (which has already occurred in Newton, Oxford, and Brookline). The youngest children will be forced to imagine the removal of body parts as a healthy and reasonable option. “Anti-bullying” lessons will add this new category of victims.

      - Landlords and property owners will not be able to deny rental or sale to anyone protected by the loose phrase “gender identity or expression” – which could include groups of “swingers”, sadomasochists, or even prostitutes.

      - Restrooms and locker rooms at any public accommodation will be forced to allow a person who claims to be the opposite sex to use whichever restroom or locker room he or she chooses. It is especially frightening for women to have (often very large) men dressed as women sharing their restroom space.

      - “Gender expression” will open the door to sexual activity in public or public nudity. Women claiming to be men will expose their scarred chests (from breast removal) in public. Exhibitionists could claim “expression” when exposing themselves. GLAD – the legal group behind “gay marriage” in New England, as well as transgender rights – actually held a forum recently promoting public sex called “
      Sex on the Margins.”

      Jennifer Levi (blue shirt), lead attorney with GLAD for transgender issues, pushes baby stroller at Transgender Pride march, Northampton, Mass., June 2008 (MassResistance photo).

      - Sensitivity training at work will normalize cross-dressing and "transitioning" employees.

      - Transgender medical care will be mandated coverage for insurers (including state health insurance) – costs which can run into hundreds of thousands – subsidized by you. This includes hormone treatments, cosmetic treatments, radical body-mutilating sex change surgeries, and psychological counseling.

      Get ready to see lots more of this if H1728 passes: A young woman who has removed her breasts to become a "boi" or "transman". Transgender Pride march, Northampton, Mass., June 2008. (MassResistance photo)

      - Hospitals, doctors and therapists will be forced to provide this medical care and offer pro-transgender counseling; no religious objections are provided for.

      - The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) – a shadow court system without usual legal procedures – will come after all offenders with huge fines, with no appeal possible. (This is already happening in Canada on “sexual orientation” issues.)

      - Charges of “bigotry” and “transphobia” will intimidate citizens who object.

      CONTACT the Judiciary Committee with your testimony!

      Sunday, May 24, 2009

      Deval Patrick's Empathy and Obama's Supreme Court

      Obama is searching for a Supreme Court justice with "empathy" -- so we're sure he'll seriously consider Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick. A few days ago, we recounted Patrick's appearances at Boston Pride and a Harvard Law School GLBT candidate forum. For more on Patrick's support of transgenderism, we reprint our Sept. 21, 2006 post: "DEVAL PATRICK'S RECKLESS PROMISES" (to transgender activists):

      Seems that Deval Patrick will promise anyone anything. Take the example of "trans rights". At the Harvard forum on GLBT issues, he told a "trans" attendee, "You need to teach me how you experience it in your life.… I’m all for extending the laws, but how to get at the issue, what to tell my prosecutors to do, what to tell my bureaucrats to do, you need to educate me on that, that’s all.” In other words, just tell me whatever your latest lunatic radical demand is, and I'll do it for you.

      From Bay Windows, "Pressing the Flesh: Patrick, Gabrieli go at it on gay issues," Sept. 14, 2006:

      The question of how to protect transgender people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations and credit under state law also teased out a difference between the candidates. Though both agreed that the state’s hate crimes laws should be expanded to protect those who are victimized on the basis of gender identity, Gabrieli flatly stated he wants to ensure that “our civil rights protections include gender identity and gender expression,” while Patrick approached the issue more cautiously, acknowledging that transgender issues were an area “where I have a lot of work to do.”

      “I can’t see limiting our civil rights laws so that they exclude those who identify across gender,” he said “But frankly, beyond that principle and that approach there is honestly a lot I’ve got to do to understand exactly how we need to come up with, and in what context, and how then we change not just our legislation but our practices so it really does get at the issues people are facing in their lives.”...

      Patrick’s statement that he needed further education on transgender rights raised a flag for at least one audience member. Following the forum, Jakobi Gorham, a 24-year-old Northeastern University student who works at Harvard’s science center, approached Patrick to discuss the issue. “If you deeply believe that people are people regardless of what the issues are, it set me back, and it actually hurt me for you to say that you need to educate yourself,” Gorham told the candidate.

      “I’m sorry to hear you say that,” Patrick replied. The candidate then explained that he supports expanding the state’s laws to protect transgender people, but said, “how you enforce that, how that comes up in your life, you need to teach me that. I know how it comes up in the life of the gay kid or a lesbian. I know that. You need to teach me how you experience it in your life. … I’m all for extending the laws, but how to get at the issue, what to tell my prosecutors to do, what to tell my bureaucrats to do, you need to educate me on that, that’s all.”

      Tuesday, May 19, 2009

      Deval Patrick: Bad Choice for Obama's Supreme Court

      We saw in the Boston Globe that Obama may be considering Deval Patrick for the U.S. Supreme Court. We say he's eminently unqualified. From his September 2006 appearance at the Harvard GLBT candidate forum, he's committed himself to the most extreme demands of that movement.

      To understand Patrick's extremism, look at the company he keeps. Last June, he marched in the Boston Pride parade to support his teenage daughter's "coming out". But he was also lending support to frightening groups promoting dangerous perversions, for instance the sadomasochists who marched right before him.

      Deval Patrick marching at Boston Pride, June 14, 2008.

      Marching just before the Governor and his teenage daughter were New England Leather Alliance members, who had trouble keeping their pants on and their whips under control.

      As a candidate for Governor, Patrick met with the radical GLBT group at Harvard Law School (photo above). Not only is he fully behind "gay marriage" and "hate crimes" laws. While admitting that he didn't know anything about transgenderism, he also promised that he'd support the movement's demands.

      See our postings from September 2006:

      Gov Candidates Gabrieli and Patrick Favor "Transgender Rights":
      "Although Patrick initially conceded that he didn’t understand issues like Transgenderism very well, Gabrieli’s insistence that there should be specific laws protecting transgendered and cross-dressers forced Patrick to affirm that he too, was in favor of specific legislation protecting the rights of transgendered individuals. ... Both candidates stated that they believed in the SJC gay marriage decision, and that they supported more legislation and action by the Governor’s office to extend new rights to the GLBT community."

      When a CNN/Opinion Research poll is showing that most Americans (72%) want to see a conservative or moderate appointee, Deval Patrick just won't do.
      A random perv at Boston Pride 2008.