Archive for February 3, 2010

The city counselors seemed very nervous before the meeting particularly with an overflow crowd that reached down the entire hallway, but nobody seemed more nervous than the counselors who had supported the initial petition. That was a bad sign.


Once things were gaveled open the first speaker was the City Solicitor, Michael Ciota. A legal opinion on the various resolutions had been asked of him. He maintained that any resolution disapproving planned parenthood or any attempt to zone them out of main street was unconstitutional. When he spoke it became very clear that not only was the fix in, but that he had talked to the counselors before the meeting and put the fear of God litigation into them.

With the exception of Rosemary Reynolds nobody challenged said opinion, in fact as she pressed him on his basis counsel president Hay restrained the questions. Planned Parenthood with the wind now behind them was invited to make their presentation:

Ms Dianne Luby (right) made her case, detailing the government grant that they obtained and why Planned Parenthood demographic studies suggested that their services would be useful for Fitchburg. There is no question that this woman was well practiced for such an event and was ready for whatever the counsel was prepared to ask.

After her presentation the questions began with Ward 4 Counselor Kevin Starr

Starr’s questions were primarily concerning the location. Specifically why not use the open space at the Burbank Campus (formally Burbank Hospital) rather than downtown Fitchburg? The question was asked by several counselors and was ducked effectively with “That is not our Model”. (nobody asked about the Model or why “their model” should be the city’s model.

When asked why Fitchburg, a city that had notable success in dropping it’s teen pregnancy rate with a high school using an abstinence model. they continued to stressed demographics and a desire to be “part of the solution”

Counselor Tran stressed the proximity of Worcester in his argument against PP but underestimated the driving time to the (accurate) hoots of local PP supporters. The most amazing statement came from Counselor Kaddy suggesting that PP would attract “Bad” people to main street. PP suggested that their customers were the families of the people in the room and that PP would attract foot traffic to Main Street. When Counselor Joseph challenged it saying that a Methadone clinic would also attract foot traffic she parried it effortlessly and without challenge.

The majority of the arguments made was “Why Fitchburg” and “Why main Street” but Rosemary Reynolds pressed them concerning what would take place on main street. Luby stressed that no surgical abortions would take place and the federal grant prevented them from doing them. Reynolds pressed her about the length of the grant and what happens then, Luby answered that they would re-apply for the grant. Reynolds then asked about chemical abortions but could not remember the name of the abortion pill. (Ru486)

Luby incredibly maintained she had no idea what Reynolds was talking about. (perhaps the president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts should consult PP’s own web site.) When Ms. Reynolds asked permission to consult Dr. Mark Rollo (sitting behind her) for the exact name, Mr. Hay disallowed it and the question concerning chemical abortions remained unanswered.

Much to the surprise of the assembled audience no other people were allowed to speak. (They were unaware that the counsel was meeting as a “committee of the whole”) and when the vote to table the resolution disapproving planned parenthood the vote was 8-1 with only Counselor Reynolds voting against, counselors Tran and Conry abstaining.

At this point the bulk of the Planned Parenthood supporters their victory supposedly won, and a large amount of the people waiting outside who opposed them began to leave not realizing that there was a lot more to come.

(Part 3 later today)

He was the first “citizen” speaker before the city counsel after the initial votes.

His arguments were pragmatic and exactly the type that will be most likely to make a difference when things come to a head.

And they will.

I put the “two” in quotes because the Telegram is out of Worcester. From their story:

Dianne Luby, executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said the grant her agency has received will allow it to “be part of the public health solution.” Though the teen birth rate in Fitchburg is 17 per 1,000 — lower than the state average of 49 per 1,000, she said — the city’s demographics make it ripe for a family planning program. The grant wouldn’t allow for abortions and the office wouldn’t have surgical equipment, she emphasized.

One thing that I found frustrating at the meeting is nobody on the counsel asked “what demographics”? What makes Fitchburg ripe for their services when the rate is way below the state avg and has been dropping?

The Sentinel’s coverage noted something else interesting:

Those who had originally wanted to draft a resolution against Planned Parenthood two weeks ago, but ultimately voted to take no action, cited legal advice by City Solicitor Michael Ciota, who said a resolution may be unconstitutional and could make the city vulnerable to legal recourse.

Ciota said the City Council must protect the constitution of the United States, which gives women the right to have an abortion.

“I am concerned finally that even if (a resolution) were not to open the door to liability in any immediate sense, the expressions of the individuals in this chamber which form the government of this city can,” Ciota said.

The counselors reaction to Mr. Ciota’s representations were the real story of the night and I’ll be discussing that in later posts on the subject.

Although it is not yet up FATV routinely puts up the city counsel meetings online. They will be broadcasting and re-broadcasting it on local TV as well.

How good was the reporting? There is a lot that was left out that I believe was significant but these were not meant to be essays, fact that the meetings ran so late might have been an issue since both papers run in the morning and deadlines looming.

As I continue to post on this I hope to add some insight that time and space might not have permitted for them.

…beat her breast over Andrew Young as the enabler of John Edwards and his book?

Were none of these people employed as journalists in 2008? They certainly believe that Morning Joe viewers don’t read Kausfiles.

You want to see enablers of John Edwards Tina, look in the mirror.

Update: Byron York Elaborates:

Dec 2007:

At the time, Edwards thought he had outsmarted the watchdogs of the press, frustrating their best attempts to uncover the story. But it later turned out that many journalists just didn’t want to report the news and hadn’t tried very hard to uncover the facts.

And then again July 2008, Edwards is actually caught in a Hotel:

The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the broadcast networks and the cable news outlets — none reported the story. And yet this time it bubbled up, from the blogs to talk radio to late-night television. By the second week of August, Edwards appeared on ABC News to semi-confess.

An explosive scandal had been kept out of the press for months at a time when the man at the center of it was an important player in national politics. Why? Young thought it was because the Edwards camp so tightly controlled information that journalists weren’t able to find sources to corroborate the Enquirer’s reporting. Perhaps that was part of it. But the fact was, many editors and reporters just didn’t want to tell the story. They admired Elizabeth Edwards. They saw no good in exposing John Edwards’ sordid acts.

Journalists saw no good in exposing the sordid acts of a former, senator, vice presidential and presidential candidate.

Remember Media when you ask why you aren’t trusted or respected remember that you did this to yourselves.