By Michael Gaffney


Last cycle the following City Councilors and School Committee member received the endorsement of Planned Parenthood:

  • Joe Petty (Chairs City Council and School Committee)
  • Morris “Moe” Bergman (City Council)
  • Khrystian King (City Council)
  • Sean Rose (City Council)
  • Candy Carlson (City Council)
  • George Russell (City Council)
  • Dante Comparetto (School Committee)

Many will say “does the endorsement matter?” After all, it’s a local election and Planned Parenthood isn’t about local elections. Yet, they endorse and promote. And the above elected officials sought that endorsement. So it must be asked of them:

Why did they seek out the endorsement?

Why did they want the media push for getting the endorsement?

More importantly, what does the endorsement mean?

That’s the question that is never asked about such endorsements. Why did you want it? Why did you get it? And what does it mean?

One of the first few questions to get the endorsement from Planned Parenthood dealt with “age-appropriate” sex education for children. By “age-appropriate”, Planned Parenthood was targeting 12 year old children. They weren’t just teaching safe sex, they were teaching far more. [See Massachusetts Senate Bill 2128 (it died in the House) – one of the recommended curricula was “Get Real,” published by Planned Parenthood. “Get Real” teaches how to properly use a “dental dam,” which is “placed over the vulva … or anus during oral sex.”]

Free-thinkers can debate whether teaching 12 year olds such things is meritorious, but Petty, Bergman, King, Rose, Carlson, Russell and Comparetto have never publicly advised of their support despite the endorsement. Obviously, they agree with it. They simply never disclosed their agreement to the voters.

This doesn’t mean that the elected officials that didn’t get the endorsement of Planned Parenthood are pro-life. It could mean that they didn’t agree with all the requirements of Planned Parenthood to get the endorsement. Or, it could just mean that they didn’t see why Planned Parenthood was involved in a local election.

Since Petty, Bergman, King, Rose, Carlson, Russell and Comparetto sought the endorsement of Planned Parenthood, they should be given the opportunity to explain where they stand on Planned Parenthood’s push for infanticide.

We are well aware of the law just passed in NY to allow for abortion up until the time of birth. Abortion that can be performed by non-physicians, such as mid-wives. The attempted spin claimed it was about the “health” of the mother as determined by a physician and outlined by the Supreme Court. The truth is a bit more elusive as “health” as defined by the Supreme Court is “all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well-being of the patient.”

However, the disingenuous arguments were dispelled a few days ago when Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam stated “If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered,” speaking of babies born with anomalies that would’ve warranted abortion. He went on to say “The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” No clarification as what such a “discussion” would involve, or what “anomalies” justify for infanticide.

The VA bill (that failed to get out of committee), “…eliminates all the procedures and processes, including the performance of an ultrasound, required to effect a woman’s informed written consent to the performance of an abortion; however, the bill does not change the requirement that a woman’s informed written consent be first obtained. The bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be substantial and irremediable.”

The bill’s sponsor, Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran, confirmed to her fellow committee members that the proposal would allow abortion up to 40 weeks, even when the woman is in active labor.

Are the NY law and VA bill the kind of things Petty, Bergman, King, Rose, Carlson, Russell and Comparetto believe in?

They told Planned Parenthood that they stood with them. So what do they believe and why?

It is certain to be a very complex discussion, but it is one that they brought onto themselves.

Further, several used their faith to promote their campaigns. They have an extra duty to explain their positions.

More importantly, they owe it to the voters to state their positions in clear and unequivocal language.