…while national elections continue to dominate the news a couple of local stories keep people’s interest in town.
On the Planned Parenthood front the pro-life forces have suffered yet another setback:
The City Council has never voted in favor of a petition filed by pro-life advocates intending to keep Planned Parenthood off Main Street, and it didn’t begin to Tuesday night during a hearing on a petition to require a special permit for medical offices looking to open downtown.
We will keep on fighting nonetheless, but I think the thing needed frankly are different counselors if we want to see different results..
Meanwhile most people in town have something else on their mind:
Police are searching for a white male who robbed a bank on John Fitch Highway shortly after 2 p.m. on Monday, according to Sgt. Glenn Fossa.
Fossa described the suspect, who fled with an undisclosed amount of money, as a white male of heavy build, about 5 feet 10 inches to
Amazing how little attention elections out of state generate when armed bank robberies are taking place in broad daylight a few blocks away.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 
In order to have people who will put their personal beliefs above the law and the interests of the town, then yes, you will need to replace the mostly reasonable and honorable members of the city council.
Chris Chris Chris are you suggesting that if an ordinance defining what a medical office is that violates the law? I think not.
It’s a very dangerous thing to decide that only the people who agree with you have the interests of the town at heart or believe in the law.
Dr.Rouleau (sp?) attempted to change the town definition of what a “medical office” is to include everything but what he doesn’t like. This is illegal, and would persecute a completely legal organization.
The town solicitor thought it was illegal, the city council president thought it was illegal, and the majority of the city council thought it was illegal.
It isn’t because I disagree with the beliefs of the doctor – it’s because it was an illegal attempt. Anyone who isn’t blinded by religious zeal would be able to look at this clearly and see that.
Abortion is legal in the United States. If someone has a problem with that, the correct response is not redefining what constitutes a medical office in Fitchburg by illegal means.
Can you point me to something in actual law that states what a medical office is defined as? Can you point me to specific text in a law that would make that definition “illegal”.
There is a big difference between something being illegal and something that is not passed by a city counsel or someone’s opinion on the legality of an item.
Not only is it illegal to attempt to kick them out of town by attempting to create a town definition of what a medical office is, but what hurt them the most was their attempt to create a nature for all future medical offices trying to come to town.
Either you are unable to look at this objectively, or you’re being intellectually dishonest, because the problems with this attempt are obvious to any objective party.
Dr. Rollo even stated his goal was to keep PP out of Fitchburg. Abortion is a right, and they were clearly attempting to take that right away through whatevev means necessary, at the cost of the town and downtown growth from future medical offices. The City Council squashe their thinly veiled efforts, seeing them for what they truly are – religious zealots who will stop at nothing to enforce their moral code on everyone else.
that is not kicking them out of town at all, that only defined what a medical office is. Since they claimed it they were not doing Abortion on main street it would certainly not keep them from opening.
You still haven’t answered the question. Show me where it is illegal to define the word “Medical office” have you ever read a federal law, they constantly define what terms mean not only in laws but define terms differently within laws.
His stated goal is not relevant to the question “Is it legal or not to define term medical office” Please give an actual text to back up your claim that it is illegal to define the term “medical office”
OK, since you will harp on that one issue that I have no doubt you know the answer to, I’ll get the specifics.
I imagine it’s the same law that would stop someone from defining a black person as not a legal “person,” or redefining a religion out of eligibility.
I have an email in to the City Solicitor, as well as GWH’s resident lawyer to get details for you.
Here’s a basic, non-specific ordinance that applies:
http://www.ecode360.com/ecode3-back/getSimple.jsp?guid=10429847
” to protect each individual in the enjoyment of his/her civil rights; “
The answer to that one is worth it’s own post although it will be a repetitive answer.