By now you’ve heard the news: Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey, a partnered-up homo-deviant who often refers to herself as a Catholic, recently signed into law a bill that effectively legalizes unrestricted abortion.
This isn’t Healey’s first public stand against basic Catholic moral principles.
In 2022, she openly criticized Bishop Robert McManus’ order for a Massachusetts Catholic middle school to take down its Pride flag. Healey stated:
We need to do everything we can as a state to stand up for … our young people in the LGBTQ community who are really going through a hard time right now.
Healey went on to stress that she wasn’t speaking strictly as governor:
And I speak as a Catholic and I say that, and you know I speak as somebody from the LGBTQ community…
After Fiducia Supplicans opened the way for conciliar church blessings of same-sex couples in 2023, Healey applauded the move:
As a person who is gay and Catholic, this is a really important and long overdue step that helps remove stigma and barriers for Catholic LGBTQ+ couples and lets them know they are loved and welcome.
In 2024, the “Catholic” lesbian was invited to participate in a Vatican Climate Summit where she had the distinct … let’s say, privilege … of meeting Jorge the Ecowarrior himself, about whom she had previously gushed:
As somebody who is gay and Catholic, I have been heartened by many things that Pope Francis has done to make the church more inclusive and more welcome…
Healey is also on record as saying:
We need to do everything we can as a state to stand up for people’s civil rights and recognize and value and respect the dignity of all human beings…
Unless, of course, that human being is resting in what should be the safest of all places on earth, its mother’s womb…
The bill that Healey just signed into law allows for the extermination of an unborn child up to the very moment of birth, full term or otherwise, provided only that the gruesome procedure “be performed when based upon the professional judgment of the physician.”
The professional judgment of the physician… That’s it. That’s all it takes to justify murder.
In practice, what this means is that anything from “I changed my mind” to “My husband didn’t get the promotion,” and every miserable excuse in between, will give the abortionist a basis for professionally judging that the mother’s emotional wellbeing merits the slaughter of her innocent child.
The Massachusetts abortion law comes four years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion … the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”
As readers will likely recall, reaction to the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 was swift and extreme. As expected, the pro-life community was ecstatic, in fact, overly so.
One Fox News commentator gleefully concluded, “The Supreme Court is pro-God,” speaking as if allowing We the People to decide whether or not innocent human beings can be lawfully slaughtered (which is what happened in Massachusetts) is a sure sign of godliness.
On the other end of the spectrum, the eugeniacs went ballistic.
Immediately after the ruling was announced, an angry mob of screeching maggots – sweaty tattooed bull dikes, orange-haired skanks, and an assortment of testosterone-free beta boys – flooded the street in front of the Supreme Court building waving signs and coat hangers.
The most telling of responses, however, came from the collection of individuals and organizations that make up Holocaust, Inc.®, the network of perpetual victims that never tire of invoking the mantra “Never Again” ® – a versatile slogan that can mean BOTH never again can humanity allow the extermination of innocent Jews AND never again can we allow governments to limit our ability to exterminate our own babies.
NBC News reported:
In statements following the release of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the ruling that overruled Roe, organizations such as the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, Hillel International and the Women’s Rabbinic Network expressed deep anguish.
“In this moment, our feelings are best embodied by Numbers 11:10: ‘God became exceedingly angry; and Moses despaired.’ … We stand with generations of Jewish scholars who state clearly and unequivocally that abortion access is a Jewish value,” the Women’s Rabbinic Network said.
What the Rabbinettes failed to mention is why God was angry and Moses despaired. The reason is given just a couple of verses later: The stiff-necked Jews to whom the Almighty had graciously provided manna from Heaven, rather than expressing thankfulness, complained bitterly, “Give us flesh, that we may eat!” (Numbers 11:13).
Nothing under the sun is new… (Ecclesiastes 1:10)
And so it is that these same people continue to demand meat while thumbing their noses at the goodness of Almighty God, in the present case, insisting on their right to harvest the flesh of precious children in utero.
And if you think that abortion as a Jewish value is an extreme position limited to a secular fringe, think again. The fact is that so-called “secular Jews” are not fringe at all. A recent Pew survey found that only 26% of Jews in the U.S. claim to “believe in God as described in the Bible,” and a solid majority consider religion “Not too / Not at all important.”
Secondly, even many so-called “religious Jews” are on board with legally granting wide access to abortion. Shortly after Roe was overturned, for example, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (UOJC) issued a statement saying:
We cannot support absolute bans on abortion—at any time point in a pregnancy—that would not allow access to abortion in lifesaving situations.
Yes, but this is only because the rabbis so revere the life of the mother!
No, not really. The UOJC statement specified that “lifesaving situations” include the one-size-fits-all diagnosis the mental health of the mother.
In other words, an unborn child in the womb of even an Orthodox Jewish mother is essentially on death row. If mamala is happy and stays that way throughout her pregnancy, the death sentence may be commuted. If, however, she happens to get farklempt – that is, emotionally overwhelmed, justifiably so or not – well then, sorry babe, it may be time to call the executioner.
Very rare is the rabbi of any stripe (Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, etc.) who teaches that the life of the unborn child is every bit as sacred as that of the mother. For example, according to the teaching of Chabad (a major stream within so-called Ultra-Orthodox Judaism):
But why is it the fetus whose life is sacrificed for the mother, and not the other way around?
Apparently, the unborn child, although a living being, does not yet have a status of personhood equal to its mother. Only once its head has begun to leave the birth canal, are the two considered on equal standing.
From where does Chabad derive such an answer?
The Talmud, a collection of rabbinic commentaries on Jewish law and life assembled between the 3rd and 6th centuries, a text that has more influence over contemporary Jewish attitudes than anything else.
What stands out in the Chabad teaching is the belief that one living human being (the mother) has more intrinsic value than another human being (the unborn child), so much so that the latter is understood to have less personhood.
That’s awful enough but consider that Chabad and the Talmud are speaking to Jews about Jews, i.e., they are addressing the relative value of Jewish life. According to the Talmud, however, Jewish life is far superior to non-Jewish life, in fact, the latter isn’t even considered to be human at all:
O seed of Abraham, the Lord has surely chosen you, as spoken by Ezekial; you are my sheepfold; I mean that you are men, whereas the other peoples of this world are not men, but beasts.(Treatise, Baba-Metsigna, f. 114.f.)
Oh, but none of my Jewish friends have any familiarity with the Talmud!
Neither do mine, but according to Israeli Chasidic Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, one of the world’s foremost Talmudic scholars, its teachings play a major role in forming the contemporary Jewish ethos:
[The Talmud] is a central pillar for understanding anything about Judaism, more than the Bible. The Talmud is not a divine gift given to people. The Jewish people created it. But on the other hand, it created the Jewish people. In so many ways, we’re Talmudic Jews, whether we believe in it or not. (The Times of Israel, August 9, 2012)
In the Talmudic view – which inarguably informs the prevailing Jewish attitude toward abortion given that 81% of American Jews believe that it should be legal in all or most cases (see HERE) – abortion always amounts to the slaughter of an inferior being at the hands of a superior being.
Think about just how much more blatantly evil this understanding is as compared to the “clump of cells” argument.
Chabad plainly admits that the unborn child up for extermination is “a living being.” The underlying Talmudic teaching is based upon Mishnah Oholot 7:6 which reads:
If a woman is having trouble giving birth, they cut up the child in her womb and bring it forth limb by limb, because her life comes before its life. But if the greater part has come out, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one life for another.
Satan’s hand in this teaching is palpable! Notice the duplicity: It speaks of dismembering the child in her womb and ending its life, and yet concludes by saying one may not set aside one life for another. Talk about a subtlety worthy of the Father of Lies!
In any case, as we will highlight below, the vast majority of inferior beings, children in the womb, who are exterminated via abortion are goyim, that is, they are non-Jewish beasts.
Let’s take a closer look at some numbers:
– A 2011 paper in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, available on PubMed.gov, reported that an estimated 10% of OB-GYNs in the US identify as Jewish. It also found that 40.2% of Jewish OB-GYNs perform abortions, while less than 12% of non-Jewish OB-GYNs do so.
[NOTE: I adjusted the figures that I initially posted to better reflect the data.]
– Guttmacher Institute conducted a large national survey of nearly 10,000 abortion patients in the mid 1990s. It revealed that only 1.3% of all abortions were procured by Jewish mothers.
As for the remaining 98.7% of abortions?
If the Talmud could speak it would answer: Who cares? They’re just beasts anyway.
[NOTE: The above cited studies are the most detailed that could be located. I’ll leave it to readers to ponder why more current data of this nature is not readily available.]
Much is made in pro-life circles of comments made by Margaret Sanger that allegedly indicate her desire to specifically exterminate blacks via abortion. True or not, that narrative actually distracts from a much darker reality that, one hopes, is fast coming into view.
Consider the history of the abortion rights movement and those persons at the tip of the spear (or forceps as the case may be).
– William Sanger (husband of Margaret) who actively supported his wife’s efforts in the lead up to establishing Planned Parenthood.
– Alan Guttmacher (son of a rabbi) who founded the abortion advocacy group, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals.
– Lawrence Lader, principal founder of NARAL.
– Betty Friedan, founding president of NOW.
– Bernard Nathanson, physician and co-founder of NARAL. (He later came to oppose abortion and convert to Catholicism, a noteworthy journey insofar as he had an up-close view of the spiritual darkness of the operation from the inside.)
– Carol Greitzer, politician and activist who played a leading role in NARAL’s formation.
– Bella Abzug, congresswoman and feminist leader known for abortion rights advocacy.
– Gloria Steinem, notorious feminist and abortion advocate.
All of the above named “pro-choice heroes” are Jewish, and the list could go on for pages. In fact, one need not look very hard to find Jewish publications openly boasting about their prominence in the abortion movement.
For example, one headline read: “Jewish women are leaders on abortion rights. But they can’t do it alone.” (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 2022)
As the JTA headline correctly indicates, while Jews have long been leaders of the movement, the proliferation of legalized abortion is not a strictly Jewish achievement.
As a small minority relative to the population as a whole (2% in the US, .02% globally), in order to have a real impact on major pet projects and movements (e.g., Zionism, abortion, climate hysteria, same-sex marriage, transgenderism, etc.) it is necessary for Jewish leaders to secure (by hook or by crook, bribery or extortion) the collaboration (reluctant or otherwise) of non-Jews in positions of power (like Pontius Pilat, Arthur Balfour, Donald Trump), be it in government, finance, media, and even religion.
[SPOILER ALERT: The latter category is where this conversation is going. Stick with me.]
That said, even though abortion isn’t a strictly Jewish phenomenon, let us not forget that prominent rabbis who are looked upon as religious and community leaders openly call it a Jewish value and a matter of religious liberty, i.e., they unabashedly elevate abortion to the status of a pious practice, a veritable sacrament.
Abortion is so Jewish (according to Jews!) that the Times of Israel actually published an article in 2022 under the headline: Being Anti-Abortion is being Antisemitic
Keep this in mind the next time the bought-and-paid-for Servants of the Synagogue in Congress talk about passing new laws aimed at combating anti-Semitism.
More importantly, Catholics would do well to think of this the next time the USCCB or some other conciliar collectivist think tank issues a handbook for tiptoeing through the minefield of Jewish sensitivities. (For example, the handy dandy 2024 manual, Translate Hate, a 61-page fire starter featuring “Catholic commentary” on the American Jewish Committee’s glossary of “antisemitic terms, themes, and memes.”)
This brings us back to the recent Massachusetts abortion law.
Prior to the bill being signed into law, Archbishop Richard Henning of Boston issued a joint statement with three other Massachusetts bishops. It reads in part:
The proposed elimination of any legal restraint on late-term abortion is, in our judgement, a radical measure which is gravely immoral.
NB: The bishops did not have the gumption to state (perhaps because they don’t believe it) that abortion itself is gravely immoral, intrinsically evil, and inexcusable in all cases. As for the “legal restraints” to which the statement does refer, they read as follows in the law that was on the books at the time:
If a pregnancy has existed for 24 weeks or more, no abortion may be performed except by a physician, and only if in the best medical judgement of the physician it is: (i) necessary to preserve the life of the patient; (ii) necessary to preserve the patient’s physical or mental health; (iii) warranted because of a lethal fetal anomaly or diagnosis; or (iv) warranted because of a grave fetal diagnosis that indicates that the fetus is incompatible with sustained life outside of the uterus without extraordinary medical interventions.
So, according to Henning & Co., eliminating these restraints (including the dubious “mental health” provision) would be “gravely immoral” and “radical.” That’s the issue; that’s the hill they pretend to be willing to die on.
Their silence on the gravely evil nature of abortion in all cases is tantamount to suggesting that the aforementioned restrictions impute an acceptable degree of morality to the murder of an unborn infant up to the very point of birth.
How very Jewish of them, no?
Bear in mind as well that those bogus “restrictions” only applied to abortions after 24 weeks, i.e., abortions from conception up to and including a gestational age of 23 weeks / 6 days remain legally available with no restraints to overcome, no questions asked.
And now, poor naïve tradservative Catholics are signing petitions and practically begging these same conciliar bishops to formally announce the excommunication of Maura Healey?
Good luck with that!
At this, one may be moved to ponder the same question that many asked regarding the SSPX: Excommunicate Healey from what?
The increasingly obvious reality is that the false religious enterprise to which both Healey and Henning belong is one that embodies – in practice, even if not in all of its stated doctrines – Judeo-Conciliar values that stand in opposition to authentic Catholic values, including as it relates to abortion.
No, the conciliar enterprise hasn’t yet gone so far as to openly profess its assent to the diabolical Jewish view of major moral issues, but as the weak-kneed statement issued by the Massachusetts bishops indicates, conciliar opposition to abortion (if it was ever real in the first place) is waning even as the public face of its tolerance is growing.
This much has long been obvious to anyone, Catholic or otherwise, who has been paying even a moderate amount of attention.
Readers will likely recall, for example, how Jorge Bergoglio (stage name, Francis) publicly honored Italy’s most notorious abortion advocate, Emma Bonino, not only by praising her and granting her an audience at the Vatican, but even going so far as to make a personal visit to her home (with flowers and chocolates, no less) when she was ill.
Francis also appointed Mariana Mazzucato to the Pontifical Academy for Life despite her having made a number of public statements in support of so-called “reproductive rights.” The Academy for Life!
The conciliar enterprise is also well-known for inviting notorious abortion advocates (like Maura Healey, Paul Ehrlich, Chelsea Clinton and others) to participate in various Vatican sponsored meetings and symposia.
A similar deference to notorious abortion advocates has been witnessed under the leadership of Bergoglio’s successor. For example, Robert Prevost (stage name, Leo XIV) publicly supported a plan by the Archdiocese of Chicago to give a lifetime achievement award to Senator Dick Durbin, a notorious abortion rights advocate who also claims to be Catholic.
Leo notoriously made statements suggesting that the death penalty and the alleged mistreatment of illegal immigrants are “pro-life” issues on par with abortion.
Just yesterday, Novus Ordo Watch posted an article detailing what appears to be the Vatican’s tacit approval of the decriminalization of abortion in the nation of Andora, a micro-state that is governed by a diarchy featuring a “Catholic” bishop as Co-Prince. I highly encourage you to read it.
You get the point.
Bear in mind, the conciliar church’s posture with respect to abortion isn’t the only evidentiary thread that, if followed objectively, testifies loudly and clearly to the Judaizing of the Vatican since the time of John XXIII forward.
[NOTE: For a treatment of the successful Jewish effort to steer the direction of the Second Vatican Council and thus the church that emerged therefrom, see HERE.]
Perhaps the most obvious and stunning testimony to this fact lies in the conciliar church’s heretical treatment of Judaism as a religion, a blatant denial of Jesus Christ that was well summed up in a 2025 article written by Cardinal Timothy Dolan who said in part:
According to our faith, Jesus brought about a New Covenant that exists side-by-side with the Old Covenant between God and the Jewish people. As Pope Saint John Paul II often observed, “God’s covenant with the Jews is unbreakable.”
Contrast these blasphemous sentiments with the faithful Christian witness of Pope St. Pius X conveyed in the words spoken to the Zionist Theodor Herzel:
The Jewish religion was the foundation of our own; but it was superseded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot concede it any further validity.
The reality of our time, as difficult as it is for some to admit, is obvious:
The enterprise presently in occupation of the Vatican under the headship Leo XIV is not the Holy Catholic Church, the Pillar of Truth. It is a counterfeit church, one that is more and more boldly coming to embody not the Gospel of Jesus Christ but rather the values held dear by the staunchest of His enemies, the “adversaries to all men.” (1 Thessalonians 2:14)
As for Maura Healey?
Given her public record of advocacy for climate alarmism, LGBTQ+ activism, and abortion on demand – far from being a candidate for excommunication from the counterfeit church – she is one its most shining examples of Judeo-Conciliar values in action.
