Keegan's Failed Attempt to Make NorCo An Abortion Sanctuary

Pro-lifer waits for meeting

If we've learned nothing else this year, it's that local government does best when it sticks to local government. Sure, there might be times to take a stand on wider issues, but only when there is a broad consensus within the governing body and community itself. We've seen what happens when someone plays politics with a political hot potato, like Easton City Council member Taiba Sultana did when she wanted Easton to intervene with its own pronouncement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She divided both Council and the community she is supposed to represent. What is worse, she made it impossible for Easton to address city issues. The same thing happened a few miles away when Bethlehem City Council member Bryan Callahan instigated a cease-fire resolution. One meeting had to be adjourned without conducting any city business when a riot nearly erupted.  These experiences failed to deter Northampton County Council's Kelly Keegan. At the May 16 meeting, she introduced a politically divisive resolution about abortion. There's certainly no consensus on County Council or within the community on the topic, and it was tabled with the understanding that she would at least remove some controversial language. She refused. At the June 6 meeting last week, her resolution came off the table. Here's what it resolves. 

BE IT RESOLVED the County of Northampton, Pennsylvania declares itself a Right-To-Choose Sanctuary County, recognizing that anyone should have a right to abortion, on-demand, and without question.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Northampton affirms its support for codifying the right to an abortion into federal law and urges the Unites States Congress, the Pennsylvania State legislature and the President to enact such legislation.

Keegan's resolution attracted quite the crowd, most of whom opposed her resolution. Some were nice. Some were not. They easily outnumbered those who came to congratulate Linda Zembo on her retirement as Council Clerk. Or the purple T-shirted SEIU union members who want a better deal than the 13% offered. Or those who support or oppose a tax break to convert the vacant Wilson Borough Dixie Cup factory into luxury apartments. Ten pro-life and two pro-choice advocates dominated courtesy of the floor. Every minute spent discussing a topic over which the county has no authority was a minute away from county business during a four-hour long meeting. 

Beverly Hernandez threatened County Council with the curses of Leviticus and the wrath of an Old Testament God. Mark Bogunovich, a "sidewalk counselor" at Allentown Women's Center, brought and circulated a model of a 10-week old fetus. Council President Lori Vargo Heffner refused to look at it. "You can't look at it because you're probably pro-abortion," concluded Bogunovich. "Sir, you get the right to speak, you don't get the right to judge," fired back Vargo-Heffner.  

Council member Jeff Warren argued that public officials "should put forth messages to the public in supporting issues that face our communities and our neighborhoods, things that can trickle down from the federal and state government to our communities. No, we don't have to do it every time at every meeting. But when it comes to issues like freedom, when it comes to life, ... I want to make sure that women's lives are saved." 

Council member Ron Heckman was a bit more realistic. 'The state and feds don't care what we do. If they did, we'd get a little more funding for mental health," He noted abortion is available in Pennsylvania for those who want it, and said he sees little sentiment in the state house for diving headfirst into that issue.  He was uncomfortable with the language in the resolution calling for abortion "on demand." He said he would abstain because he is unable in good conscience to vote Yes or No. 

Council member John Goffredo observed that Keegan's resolution "is one of the most divisive topics that we can bring up [and] for what?  We're not going to change anything. We're not changing the state law, we're not changing the federal law, we're not changing anything. This is virtue signaling, a divisive piece of legislation that is going to do nothing but upset people ... ." Goffredo also responded the Braveheart Warren's "Freedom" battle cry, noting that claim went out the window when the government decided to shut everything down during Covid.  "We don't get things accomplished because we keep spending time fighting about these things instead of worrying about things like the TIF in Wilson, which is actually going to affect people in our community. All this is going to do is create problems. It is going to create headlines; it's going to create fighting. I don't know why you'd want to bring it to this Council. I don't think it's productive and it's only going to hurt this body." 

Council President Lori Vargo Heffner said she respected Keegan's right to introduce this resolution but wished she had done so on a less busy night. She said she was abstaining. "It feels like such a gotcha' move because you got to make a choice here." Vargo-Heffner said she disliked the way the resolution is worded and its focus solely on abortion She also resented having a rubber fetus shoved at her. "Give me a break! It's offensive. We're here to do government work, as Mr. Goffredo said, and I don't need that."

Council member Tom Giovanni was the most succinct. "This is not county business and I'm not going to vote for it."

Voting in favor of the resolution were Ken Kraft, Warren and Keagan. These are Lamont McClure's rubber stamps and I suspect the real motive here was to gain an issue with which to hammer Vargo-Heffner should she seek re-election or primary McClure. Voting to abstain were Vargo-Heffner, Heckman and Council member Jeff Corpora. Voting No were Goffredo, Giovanni and Council member John Brown.

The curses of Leviticus will have to wait for another day.

NorCo Council Needs To Stay In Its Wheelhouse

In recent weeks, well-meaning if rowdy college students and pro-Palestinian residents have invaded the city councils of Bethlehem, Easton and Allentown to demand a stop to the conflagration in Gaza. They've been egged on by Easton City Council member Taiba Sultana, but most other local elected officials have rightly recognized that foreign policy is well outside their wheelhouses. They deal with potholes and parking, bridges and administering elections, not the tragedy of war. While Northampton County Council has yet to demand a free Palestine, members are using their elected office to advance agendas that have nothing to do with county government. Lat night, Council member Kelly Keegan introduced a resolution on the divisive topic of abortion. The resilution declares "that the County of Northampton, Pennsylvania declares itself a Right-To-Choose Sanctuary County, recognizing that anyone should have a right to abortion, on-demand, and without question."

In Easton, Council member Crystal Rose told pro-Palestinians, "[W]e want to get back to city business and I think that if we keep bringing this up, we're getting away from the things that the people elected us to do here. I have had an overwhelming amount of people come up to me and email me and ... most of them have been angered that we are focusing on issues that don't involve Easton." Her views sum up the opinions of most local elected officials. They are elected to deal with issues like affordable housing. Easton City Council member Frank Pintabone states residents "did not elect me to represent them on international business. They elected me to represent them in City of Easton business."

County Council member Kelly Keegan has been elected in the Easton district to represent its citizenry on county issues, not hot button topics like abortion or declaring that the county is a sanctuary for this medical procedure. 

I'd love fighting to end everywhere. I believe a woman should be able to choose what she does with her pregnancy without interference. But these are not county issues. 

Keegan's toothless resolution has been tabled for now, but only because Lori Vargo Heffner is uncomfortable with calling NorCo a sanctuary. It will no doubt be brought up again at the next meeting for a vote. All this does is open a Pandora's box for a host of other issues that have nothing to do with county government. 

Red State Ohio Appears to Support Women's Choice

Yesterday, Ohio voters rejected a ballot measure that would require 60% of the plebiscite to approve a change in their state constitution instead of a simple majority. The state legislature placed this matter on the ballot to prevent a citizen initiative that will give women the right to seek an abortion. 

Ohio joins red states Kansas and Kentucky, which have also rejected measures under which the state constitution creates no woman's right to choose. 

The hard-right's war against letting a woman make her own decision, appears to be a loser. 

Is Allentown Abortion Clinic Dodging Health Inspectors?

That's the conclusion suggested by pro-life blogger Jill Stanek, who claims the clinic somehow was tipped about an unannounced inspection in late March, and responded by closing that day.

I can't vouch for this, but am passing it along.

Who Is Amanda Catherine Hein?

Princess in 2009, alleged murderer in 2013

Amanda Catherine Hein, who has been charged in the grisly bathroom stall slaying of her own newly born son, is certainly viewed as an evil monster. But is she? Originally from Coopersburg, she's a graduate from Southern Lehigh and attended Marymount Manhattan College and then LCCC.  She never finished her studies.

Somewhere along the way, she began abusing drugs. She worked at a local hospital, but was fired when she was caught stealing drugs. Her must recent job was with a dog shampooing business.

She developed an addiction to heroin, but reportedly kicked it a year ago.She was a habitual marijuana smoker, and suffered from depression.

She has already two abortions before resorting to infanticide.

On her Facebook page, back in 2009, she penned an apology poem called "Sandwich."

Sandwich

I heard your heart breaking
from the next room.
before I spoke, even,
your tears hung humid
in the apartment's atmosphere.
The apologies stuck
like peanut butter to my tongue
and all the spitting could not
unstick them.
So I spread "I'm sorry"
on toast, with blackberry jam.
And served my penance
with your lunch.

Unfortunately, she'll never be able to deliver an apology sandwich to her son.

What's Good For the Goose ....

Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, in an effort to demonstrate the absurdity of pre-abortion ultrasounds, has proposed legislation allow Viagra to be dispensed only after a man has seen a sex therapist, a cardiac stress test and a notarized affidavit of impotency.

Ultrasound Bill Not So Sound After All

Pennsylvania's ultrasound bill would require a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound procedure, after which a photo would be placed within her line of sight. In addition, she would be asked if she'd like to listen to the fetal heartbeat. Obviously, the legislation is intended to make a woman think twice. But instead, the legislature has thought twice, deciding to table the matter.

Here's what the Pennsylvania Clergy for Choice told state legislators:

We Pennsylvania Clergy for Choice urge you to vote NO when HB 1077- the ultrasound bill- comes before the House.

We are clergy of a variety of faith traditions who believe that no legislator with compassion could possibly vote for such a brutal proposal. It is the position of Pennsylvania Clergy for Choice that this deceptive bill with its authoritarian and paternalistic requirements is being proposed for the sole purpose of instilling guilt or shame in an effort to make abortions more difficult, presenting an undue burden for women. It deserves to be rejected by the full House of Representatives. Further it is based on a series of deceptions that we urge you to examine in our following statement.

Orwellian Deceptions on the way to an Ultrasound

In 1949 George Orwell wrote “1984”, a novel illustrated 63 years later when the Pennsylvania House of Representatives crafted HB 1077. This bill, requiring an ultrasound before a woman can have an abortion is classic Orwellian, authored by a privileged Inner Party elite and sold by naming things the opposite of what they are. This paper will explore the bill’s masterful Orwellian deceptions.

DECEPTION # 1, The Title.

HB 1077 is called a woman’s “right to know”, but both the noun “right” and the infinitive “to know” are misleading. The bill does not contain a “right” as used in law and neither does it provide knowledge beyond that obtained by viewing the ultrasound of one’s fetus.

This is an odd and strange bill, a remedy in search of a problem. It proposes to give women a right to view their fetus’ ultrasound, although this right is not now denied. Abortion providers routinely provide an ultrasound to their clients, an inconvenient fact acknowledged by the authors of this bill who try desperately to fashion a mandated right that is not needed.

What is called a “right to know” turns out to be a series of required observations that are demeaning and intimidating. It is immoral and inhuman to impose the bill’s requirements on women. The act treats women as if they are incapable of knowing what is common knowledge. Who does not know that a fetus goes through various stages of development and can be visually represented by an ultrasound?

DECEPTION # 2, The Woman is Not Required to Look.

The inhumane hoops through which a woman must jump begins by the requirement to schedule an ultrasound at least 24 hours prior to an intended abortion. The woman is then positioned physically so she can view the full ultrasound, listen to a heartbeat if present, and have a doctor explain everything that is seen and heard. Of course she doesn’t have to look but not looking requires a very awkward posture. It is as if the legislator is acknowledging that you can lead a horse to water but you can not force the horse to drink. The procedure is a humiliating ritual requiring woman to see, hear and listen and then in pure Orwellian doubletalk the bill states that the woman is not required to look.

Adding insult to injury, the same ritual required 24 hours in advance of an abortion is required again at the time of an abortion. Only this time the legislated requirement is for the image of the ultrasound put in front of the woman is not hers but one provided by the Health Department depicting a fetus that, as near as possible, is the same gestational age as the woman’s fetus. The woman is thus treated like a slow learner who must take the time to see, listen and be told the same facts twice. Moreover, again treating the woman as if she were intellectually daft, the woman must sign the same statement at both ultrasound sittings acknowledging that she is either looking or not looking. We believe HB 1077 should be re- titled “How women are intimidated by an ultrasound when all they want is an abortion.”

DECEPTION # 3, It is No Big Deal

“It is no big deal deal.” wrote a Pennsylvania Representative, an obvious put-down by a male who it is guaranteed will never be confronted by this humiliating treatment. Women on the other hand will very likely find the inconvenience, humiliation and impositions required by this bill to be a big deal indeed. Using language from the Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, women will find the provisions of this bill to be an “undue burden” and hence by the wisdom of the Court, unconstitutional.

DECEPTION # 4, Transforming Guilt into “Informed Consent”

HB 1077 rightly states that it is in the interest of the state for a woman to make an informed decision regarding a possible abortion. The bill then asserts that by viewing an ultrasound a woman is in the position of making an informed decision. But that is an Orwellian stretch of the imagination. The only information provided is the gestational age of the fetus. This information is passed off as “informed consent” This one item of information defies the usual meaning of informed consent.

It may be that having an ultrasound presented to her face may experience guilt and regret. But to experience either emotion does not make it a more uninformed decision. A true informed decision involves science-based information coupled with potential moral, financial, social, spiritual and personal considerations. However by the time an abortion decision is made and an appointment established at an abortion provider, the gestation age at that moment is an irrelevant consideration. Contrary to the claim, in this bill there is no information or resources made available by which a woman could make an informed decision regarding her already-scheduled abortion.

DECEPTION # 5, Call It Something Else

In true Orwellian fashion, a fact is called by some other name in order to distort reality and change moral judgment. So in HB 1077 a single definition is erroneously used twice. Fetus is defined as an “unborn child.” For some this may be a distinction without a difference. But both the reality and the language of aborting a fetus has much less emotional baggage than the killing of an unborn child. This manipulation of language is clearly meant to conjured up a moral revulsion against killing babies, an obvious crime. Language matters and the bill deliberately distorts language reflecting its bias. It is a fetus that is being terminated, not an unborn child being murdered. To say otherwise is to reflect a particular religious view of a minority of citizens that is not shared by many other faith traditions and certainly has no place state law.

DECEPTION # 6, Only the State Knows Best.

One of the co-sponsors of HB 1077 made the intent of this bill obvious. He stated, “Someone needs to be supportive of the ‘baby’.” And that, more than a woman’s “right to know,” is what this bill is all about. The state, it turns out, is the someone he believes who must support the fetus in spite of the fact that the State has no constitutional authority to do so at its earliest stages. Throughout history it is the woman and not the tribe, nation or State who has been responsible for the fetus. Women rightly object to the state’s possession of a responsibility that has always been associated with the dignity and meaning of being a mother.

The bill’s co-sponsors assume that when women view the ultrasound of a fetus they will be so moved by the awesome nature of life that they will change their minds and refuse an abortion. But not only is each woman placed in front of an ultrasound screen, wired for sight and sound, without an opportunity to have a spiritual guide or psychological counseling at her side, none of her reasoning for making this decision has changed. George Orwell could hardly have a better illustration of Big Brother at work as she sits confronted and alone with the awesome powers of the state manipulating her emotions.

However, incomprehensibly the State makes four exceptions to the viewing of an ultrasound of one’s fetus; if the fetus is less than eight weeks old, and thus too young for a heart beat, if conceived via rape, incest or the health of the mother is jeopardized. But why these exceptions to a woman’s “right to know”? The fetus bears no responsibility for the circumstances of its conception or for the health of the mother. One fetus with a heartbeat is not significantly different than any other fetus of the same gestational age. If a woman supposedly has a “right to know” why would she not have this same right “infringed” because of her health or the circumstances of conception? The bill is internally inconsistent and morally unsustainable.

DECEPTION # 7 The Bill Treats All Women Equally.

Although it is a constitutional mandate of the state and a requirement of the 14th Amendment to treat all citizens equally, HB 1077 treats women differently in terms of social class. A woman in the middle class may well have advantages of an education, community connections, access to transportation and communication and thereby learning of her pregnancy earlier, securing medical, spiritual and community support, locating an abortion provider and scheduling an abortion and thus be spared the humiliating impact of HB 1077. On the other hand, a poorer woman with access to fewer resources is not as likely to secure an abortion until after eight weeks. Thus the provisions of this act prevail. If HB 1077 is viewed as punitive attempts to reduce abortions then poor women, those less able to raise a child will be disproportionately impacted. If legislators believe HB 1077 is providing information of vital importance, then poor women are disproportionally “blessed.”

It is our responsibility as religious professionals to name these falsehoods that are being instigated by the powerful few against the personal and intimate lives of the many. This bill is morally reprehensible in both its design and purpose. We call on legislators of good conscience to denounce HB 1077 as inappropriate legislation for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Ss Simon & Jude Convent to Become Shelter For Pregnant Women

Instead of the Sisters of St. Joseph, the convent at Saints Simon & Jude Catholic Church, located at 6th and Broad in Bethlehem, will soon be home to 6 or 7 pregnant women. Bethlehem's zoners, in a unanimous May 26 ruling, paved the way for Mary's Shelter to "bring hope to the hopeless," in the words of Bethlehem supporter David Muething.

Executive Director Christine Folk told the Zoning Hearing Board that, as ironic as it sounds, convents are actually an "ideal location" for pregnant women in need of housing because they are "designed for group living." In the eight bedrooms available, a "house mother" will occupy what was the Mother Superior's bedroom. The remaining seven bedrooms will be available for pregnant women with an average age between 17 and 25.

During their stay, pregnant guests will get an education, job training and learn to be self-sufficient. Folk testified that a professional social worker will be at the convent during the day, and there will be supervision by between two and four employees, 24 hours per day. Once the child is born, the new mother will be able remain at the convent for up to six months.

Mary's Shelter already operates at two different locations in Reading and, according to Folk, is licensed by the Department of Public Welfare. She added that seven different states are now using their program as a model.

Asked whether neighbors should be concerned about visits from the fathers, Folk told zoners that "[u]nfortunately, the fathers of the babies are not usually involved."

John McGeehan, a Public Safety Administrator with Northampton County and a parishioner at Saint Simon's, said that a "home for unwed mothers is highly laudable, but not right next to the Church." Although he acknowledged that he's pro-life, he was also troubled by a home for unwed mothers being located right next to Seton Hall Academy, a Catholic school. "Young children in the Church, in the school and in the neighborhood will ask: 'What is an unwed mother?'"

McGeehan noted that 48 churches have closed in the Allentown Diocese, and is dismayed by the "cavalier attitude" he sees from the Church.

But his strongest point is a provision in the Bethlehem Zoning Ordinance that prohibits any residential treatment facility within 800 feet of another. McGeehan produced an aerial map that clearly demonstrates that Valley Youth House, a residential treatment facility at 539 8th Avenue, is only 458 feet from the convent. "No means No," argued McGeehan.

Attorney John Miravich, representing Mary's Shelter, denied that this proposed home for pregnant women provides is a "treatment" facility.

West Bethlehem resident David Muething also took issue with McGeehan's claim that this home is inappropriate so close to a Catholic Church. "This is very much in keeping with the values of the Catholic Church," he argued.

In addition to this home, Catholic Charities has a program for the "adoption" of unwed mothers by "special friends" to give these women a safe place to stay.

Immediately after the hearing, McGeehan was excommunicated and struck by a lightning bolt as he tried to cross the street.