DV Journal

Two women running in a special election for state representative in Delaware County had sharp elbows out during a debate.

Those women and a Libertarian are vying for the 163rd seat vacated by Rep. Mike Zabel, a Democrat, in the wake of sexual harassment allegations—a seat that could tip control of the House back to Republicans.

Two women –Republican Katie Ford and Democrat Heather Boyd—sparred in a debate that aired on PHL 17 over the weekend.

Asked about sexual harassment, Ford said, “The first thing I would do is make sure that didn’t happen. And make sure that it didn’t get covered up. And make sure the women who have gone through these challenges are represented correctly…And if something happens, I’m not going to put politics in front of common sense, and common sense says that if someone comes to you and says they’re being sexually harassed, you do something about it. You don’t just let it go. And you don’t continue to endorse someone. You don’t continue to champion for them.”

GOP House candidate Katie Ford

Boyd, chair of the Upper Darby Democrats, said, “The culture of Harrisburg has definitely been one that’s not been a safe one for women. As a woman who has worked in Harrisburg, I’ve witnessed sexual harassment. I’ve experienced sexual harassment.  When (lobbyist) Andi Perez (one of Zabel’s accusers) came to me, she asked for my confidence that I help her change the rules and change the culture of Harrisburg.  So when I met her in 2021, she asked for my help in securing the rule change, which is what I immediately worked to do…She wanted to change the rules to protect all women, and I worked to help her do that.”

“You continued to champion for him,” said Ford. “You continued to let him run. You were the political party boss. Why did that happen? You can protect privacy. But you can also go after the people who are doing this. You’re a woman. You should know better.”

Boyd denied that she endorsed Zabel after she learned about Perez’s allegations.

“Katie Ford fully does not know how the democratic process works,” said Boyd. She claimed she tried unsuccessfully to find someone to run in the 2022 primary against Zabel.

Abortion has become an issue in the campaign, with Democrats, including Gov. Josh Shapiro, hitting Ford with negative ads on the topic that the party sees as a winning issue since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

“Deciding when, where, and how to have a family is a fundamentally private decision,” said Boyd, who stated she supports “a woman’s right to choose.”

“I don’t think the government should be making decisions about how a woman makes her choices. I think it’s intrusive. I think it takes away rights.”

Heather Boyd

Asked whether she supports late-term abortions, Boyd said she does not and agrees with Pennsylvania’s current law that limits abortion to the first 23 weeks, with some exceptions afterward for rape, incest, or to save a mother’s life.

Ford said Boyd is running “a $100,000 campaign to smear me on this issue.”

“Number one, I also believe it’s a woman’s right to choose. I’m a mother of a daughter…guess what? Things happen, and women should be allowed to make that decision. I support the current (law) that’s going on right now, and I would not change it.”

Pressed on the issue, Ford said she would not vote on a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion.

Boyd supports a four-bill gun control package that the Democratic-controlled House recently passed. Ford said she also supports those bills but went even further, saying potential gun owners should be required to have training before being allowed to purchase a weapon.

And both candidates called for more state funding for public education.

Alfeia Goodwin

“Obviously, this election has more significance with control of the House hanging in the balance,” said Christopher Borick, a political science professor and director of Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion.

“The district has been trending increasingly Democrat over the past few cycles, and there are significantly more registered Democrats in the 163rd than registered Republicans. However, special elections have regularly produced upsets, and I think Republicans see an opportunity here. Given that independents are usually closed out of primaries and may not even be aware that they can vote in this race, it may pose a bit of a challenge for the Republicans, who likely need a good yield from this group to offset the Democratic registration advantage,” he said.

Ford answered questions from DVJournal about her positions, but Boyd did not respond.

Asked why she is running, Ford said, “I’m not a politician and never have been. What I am is a regular citizen tired of the politicians failing us and ready to step up and make a difference on crime, on inflation, on schools and education, and on helping real people.”

Ford said her top issue is “Bringing common sense to government and helping people. That’s what is needed on every issue, not just one. We need to make our communities safe again. We need schools to do better for our kids. We need to fight inflation to help working families and seniors. These are all things the politicians have failed on because they are playing partisan games instead of doing what’s common sense.”

When asked why voters should choose her, Ford answered, “I am like the people of the 163rd and want to be their commonsense voice. My experience is that of a lifelong resident, working mom, a volunteer in our schools, someone who works with families with special needs children, a U.S. Army veteran, and the wife of a police officer – not a politician.”

Ford is a special instructor for early intervention working with children and their families aged from birth to three. She is a long-time community volunteer and the mother of three. She met her husband while both were students at Upper Darby High School.

Boyd has two children and raised two foster children. She taught history and art history and served on the Upper Darby School Board. She has worked as chief of staff for state Rep. Leanne Krueger (D-Brookhaven) and as district director and senior advisor for U.S. Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Philadelphia/Delaware). As well as chairing the Upper Darby Democratic Committee, Boyd founded the Delaware County chapter of NOW.

In addition to Ford and Boyd, Libertarian Alfeia Goodwin is also vying for the office. An Upper Darby resident, she is a retired police officer, Army veteran, and brigade command chaplain.

The 163rd District includes a section of Upper Darby, Collingdale, Clifton Heights, Aldan, and part of Darby Township. The special election will be held on May 16, the same day as the primary.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

This article first appeared in Broad+Liberty

Roughly two weeks before Pennsylvanians will go to the polls in the 2023 primary, Governor Josh Shapiro has inserted himself in the special election for House District 163 in Upper Darby, claiming in a television ad that if voters fail to elect the Democrat candidate, Republicans will make abortion illegal across the commonwealth.

“Delaware County, I need your help in the special election for state representative. The winner will determine which party controls the legislature. If Republican extremists win, they’ll take away my veto power by putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot to outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.”

Shapiro then concludes by asking Delaware County voters in the district to vote for the Democratic nominee, Heather Boyd. The Republican nominee is Katie Ford.

A top Republican campaign strategist said the ad was dishonest.

“Josh Shapiro jumped on the bandwagon for politician Heather Boyd and revealed political power is more important than honesty,” said Bob Bozzuto, executive director of the Pennsylvania House Republican Campaign Committee. “By doubling down on the lies about Katie Ford, Gov. Shapiro adds his name as a co-conspirator in the sexual harassment cover up that led to this Special Election,” he said, referring to the recent resignation of Mike Zabel, a Democrat.

Broad + Liberty asked the governor’s office to defend the statement that Republicans will “take away” his “veto power.” That request for comment was not returned.

It is true the Pennsylvania Constitution does not give the governor any power to veto legislation that would create proposed constitutional amendments, which are voted on by the people. Whether this equates to Republicans “taking away” that power is a matter of semantics. Nevertheless, the constitution does make the process more difficult, given that amendments to the constitution are more legally powerful than simple changes to state statute. For example, the legislation would have to pass both the Pennsylvania Senate and House in consecutive years, would have to survive legal challenges, and then win a majority of votes from the full commonwealth.

Additionally, for Shaprio’s claim to be true, he assumes that all 101 House Republicans would vote for the measure, and that there would be no breakaway votes from the party line — and that they could pull off that feat in consecutive years. Given that House Republicans had a difficult time electing a speaker at the beginning of the 2023 session when they still possessed a majority because of a technicality, maintaining pure party discipline across all 101 members would seem difficult.

The ad further illustrates that Democrats, in the commonwealth and nationwide, have come to see abortion as a winning wedge issue in the wake of the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned nearly 50 years under the ruling Roe v. Wade.

It also highlights the stakes of the special election, given that House Democrats took the majority for the first time in years after the 2022 elections, but did so with a slim one-seat margin that later would become up for grabs when Zabel was forced to resign under a cloud of sexual assault allegations.

Spotlight PA reporter Stephen Caruso earlier this week tweeted that Democrats are trying to rally the troops.

“According to two Democratic sources, House Democrats had a caucus-wide call this weekend asking members to put money into the election, citing concerns about the race,” he tweeted.

“It’s hard to tell what’s justified concern and what’s just irrational panic from Democrats [right now], or as some have described it, a fear of never having nice things,” he added.

Shapiro’s claim in the ad about abortion, however, is heavily disputed.

In the summer of 2022, the Republican-controlled senate did pass a bill that would create a ballot question asking voters to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution, but partisans are passionately divided over how far it would go.

The key paragraph of that legislation proposing the ballot question says, “The policy of Pennsylvania is to protect the life of every unborn child from conception to birth, to the extent permitted by the Federal Constitution. Nothing in this Constitution grants or secures any right relating to abortion or the public funding thereof. Nothing in this Constitution requires taxpayer funding of abortion.”

Republican lawmakers have said not conferring a right is vastly different from outlawing the procedure altogether.

“[Abortion is] legal, but it’s not a right,” Ward said. “The amendment just puts (into the state constitution) that it isn’t a right and that taxpayers aren’t mandated to foot the bill for an abortion.”

Democrats, however, have held to a message similar to Shaprio’s that abortion access would be “outlawed.”

Zabel’s resignation from the seat created its own political whirlwind, especially around the partisan control of the lower chamber, as well as the special election in the Delco.

When the House was deadlocked in January and then-Speaker Mike Rozzi went on a statewide “listening tour,” a lobbyist for the SEIU, Andi Perez, gave public testimony that she had been sexually assaulted in 2019 by a still-sitting member of the House.

In mid-February, Broad + Liberty reported that the identity of the person alleged to have inappropriately touched Perez was widely known in Harrisburg, but the report did not name the individual at that time. The report included a quote from a former Republican member of the House who alleged Democrats were not pursuing disciplining that member because it might flip the balance of power.

About a week later, Broad + Liberty was first to identify Zabel as the member who allegedly assaulted Perez.

The report that named Zabel was possible because of new allegations made by an anonymous member of the House. Rep. Abby Major (R-Armstrong) later revealed herself as that accuser. Zabel resigned soon after Major publicly put her name behind the allegations.

Further reporting by other outlets showed Democrats knew about allegations against Zabel at least as far back as 2019.

Major can be seen in a television ad about the special election in which she claims Heather Boyd knew there were accusations of improper conduct swirling around Zabel in previous years, but that she was complicit as part of the county’s Democratic party machinery in sending Zabel back to the House regardless of that knowledge.

“Year after year, Heather Boyd sent the man who harassed me to Harrisburg by covering up his deplorable actions,” Major says in the ad.

Although the makeup of the district has voted Democratic in most top-of-the-ticket races like governor and president in recent years, there have also been notable Republican wins at the municipal level, making the race all the more interesting.

In the 2022 elections, House Republicans won the statewide vote by more than 300,000 votes but lost control of the chamber because of the way district lines were drawn. The 163rd district last elected a Republican in 2016.

The ad featuring Shapiro was paid for by the Pennsylvania House Democratic Campaign Committee, and was approved by Heather Boyd. The ad featuring Rep. Major was paid for by Friends of Katie Ford.

The primary is May 16.

Mark Houck was acquitted of federal charges, which could have put him in jail for over a decade. He was acquitted of federal charges that would have separated him from his seven children, his wife, and his work on behalf of the unborn. He was acquitted of federal charges lodged by an activist Department of Justice that cherry-picks the targets of its ire, including parents who protest at school board meetings because they refuse to have their children exposed to inappropriate sexual materials.

The fact that he was acquitted is incredibly important. The takeaway from the acquittal is that a jury of regular men and women, selected from a general pool of citizens, was able to see through a political prosecution presented under the guise of protecting women’s access to healthcare.

We in the pro-life movement understand that not everyone, and perhaps not even a majority of people, agrees with our position on abortion. Poll after poll indicates most Americans think abortion should be legal at some level, and an overwhelming majority of those who oppose abortion would still allow for exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother’s health.

It’s no secret that in championing life at all stages and in all circumstances, we do not reflect the current view on this extremely divisive topic.

But we were told, on Monday afternoon, that we are not alone in believing that the full force of the United States government should not be brought down upon the head of a man who has eschewed violence and instead, has attempted to dissuade women from committing violence against the most innocent of beings. What makes this verdict so powerful is that people who might themselves support abortion rights were unwilling to allow federal law to be used as a weapon against someone whose religious beliefs and moral values compel him to advocate for the unborn.

As an attorney, this gives me hope.

Setting aside the pro-life issue, I can still see how this jury upheld the rule of law. Nothing that was presented as evidence in court sustained the allegations that Houck had used violence to prevent women from accessing abortion. The fact that an elderly man who was spouting expletives at a teenager got shoved was, at most, simple assault (and even that was thrown out at the state level). To elevate a mundane skirmish between a pro-life activist and an abortion clinic escort shows how biased this Department of Justice has become when it deals with hot-button controversies like abortion and parental rights. And a jury said, “no, this time you won’t win.”

The truth is, we are all winners in this case. Even if you support abortion up to the last trimester, and even if you would never raise your voice in prayer before a Planned Parenthood clinic, and even if you are angered by the Dobbs decision overturning Roe last June, you should celebrate the fact that a jury of men and women, like you, spoke truth to the immense power of the federal government and said that they would not allow the laws to be manipulated to send out a partisan message.

Today it was Mark Houck. Tomorrow it could be you. This is an extremely important precedent and an affirmation of the rule of law.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

With the Pennsylvania Republican Party paying a D.C. firm a reported $100,000 to study why Republicans here lost so badly in the 2022 midterms, the Delaware Valley Journal asked some politically savvy people for their opinions about what went wrong.

Our pundits believe that there is plenty of blame to go around.

Like many in PA politics who spoke to DVJournal, Delaware County GOP Chair Frank Agovino had two names on his list of challenges for Republicans last year: Mastriano and Dobbs.

“It seems to me that 2022 was more about the inability for Republicans to coalesce around an electable gubernatorial candidate,” Agovino said, a reference to Sen. Doug Mastriano (R-Franklin). “And the surprise of younger voters taking the bait laid by Democrats painting Republicans as extreme on abortion. If the study doesn’t grapple with these fatal flaws, it won’t be worth the paper it’s written on,” said Agovino. Dobbs was the U.S. Supreme Court decision issued last year that overturned Roe v. Wade.

Liz Preate Havey, chair of the Montgomery County Republican Committee. also used the “E” word to analyze her party’s failures.

“The Democrats were successful in convincing a majority of voters that our candidates were extreme,” she said. “And clearly, the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v Wade was much more of a motivator for pro-choice voters than Republicans anticipated.  Those things, along with no significant statewide mail-in ballot push by Republicans or conservative groups, put our candidates at a disadvantage.”

Guy Ciarrocchi, the former president of the Chester County Chamber of Commerce who ran for Congress in 2022, said, “Biden and the Democrats’ priorities caused obvious failures—from inflation to broken supply chains, more violent crimes, parents’ roles being undercut by school boards and an unsecured border. Yet, Republicans underperformed nationally. In Pennsylvania, it was a train wreck, with the highest ‘casualties’ in the suburbs.

“Independent voters either didn’t blame the Democrats for this mess, didn’t see these problems as their top priorities, or they didn’t trust Republicans to fix the mess—or, a bit of everything. It’s imperative that we find out what went wrong—especially in the suburbs. Far more important than reviving the GOP, our quality of life and our nation’s future depend on our connecting with these Independent voters and growing our base,” Ciarrocchi said.

In an interview with radio talk host Dom Giordano, Mastriano offered his own take on what went wrong. Not surprisingly, he argued that his campaign was a relative success. Instead, he said Democratic advantages in fundraising and mail-in voting doomed him from the start.

He pointed out that Democrat Josh Shapiro had raised $75 million and spent $70 million while the Republican National Committee and Republican Governor’s Association “walked away,” leaving him with only the money he could raise on his own so he was not able to get his message out.

“Every week there was another $1 million anti-Doug ad,” Mastriano said.

He also said that the GOP must embrace mail-in voting and believes that was also key in the Democrats’ wins.

“We set a record,” said Mastriano. “Over 2.2 million votes for Mastriano, 90 percent on Election Day…This is more votes than a Republican governor candidate received since  1962, William Scranton.  (It was) the second highest in our state history. The grassroots did fantastic. We won on Election Day in-person voting but we were killed, slaughtered by no-excuse, mail-in voting.”

Republican consultant Charlie O’Neill wasn’t quite as forgiving.

“Ultimately, Pennsylvania electoral woes in 2022 boil down to Doug Mastriano’s inability to run an effective campaign. Candidates matter, and while Mastriano ran away with the primary, he was no match in the general elections. The best thing Republicans in Pennsylvania can do is take candidate recruitment and vetting more seriously, along with engaging local leaders on the kinds of candidates who play in their areas. The electorate, right, left, and center is showing they want competent, serious candidates who have a plan to lead. We have leaders and activists who fit that bill. We need to get them to run.”

Commonwealth Partners President & & CEO Matt Brouillette said, “The misses of the last election stem from three major flaws: Poor candidates, poorly delivered messages, and poorly run campaigns. In our statewide races, Republicans put up weak candidates against established candidates with exceptional fundraising prowess and years of campaigning behind them.

“GOP candidates criticized what they opposed but failed to present a vision of what a better future looks like,” said Brouillette. “And Republican campaigns ignored basic tenets of winning, including shoring up their base and reaching out to swing voters. Combine this with massive outspending by the Left (with massive infusions of political cash from outside Pennsylvania) and a refusal by Republicans to embrace mail-in voting (which gave Democrats a 50-day voting window versus the Republicans’ 13 hours on Election Day)—and the recipe for Republican failure was nearly foolproof.”

“Generally speaking, the Dobbs (abortion) decision changed the calculus for many voters, particularly those in the suburbs.  That decision, coupled with a historically weak gubernatorial candidate, spelled some trouble for Republicans.  They still won the congressional vote, but these two factors had a major impact on the state house races,” said Berwood A. Yost, director of the Floyd Institute for Public Policy and the Center for Opinion Research at Franklin & Marshall College.

Republican political consultant Albert Eisenberg with BlueStateRed said, “Voters saw a national ticket affiliated with former President Trump, who hasn’t ‘won’ since he was elected in 2016 and has at every turn mobilized opposition more than he’s generated support. In Pennsylvania, we had a ticket led by a messianic who went out of his way to alienate moderate voters and a Senate candidate who had substance and quality but was unfortunately perceived as a carpet-bagger and did little to respond to that attack even when his radical opponent was hamstrung by health issues.”

But for longtime centrist Republican John Featherman, who ran for mayor of Philadelphia in 2011, “all roads lead to Doug Mastriano.”

“And the state GOP’s decision to rubber stamp Mastriano’s campaign – and his extreme views – rather than to endorse any of his primary race opponents, put the nail in the coffin for failed U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Oz and countless Republicans running for reelection to the Pennsylvania state House. Mastriano’s conscious decision to focus his campaign on contentious issues like restricting abortion and repealing LGBTQ rights backfired, not just for his campaign but for the GOP to retain power in the state House.

“Moving forward, the only way for the Pennsylvania GOP to succeed will be to market a less combative agenda and embrace a comprehensive mail-in voter strategy – the same strategy which ultimately pushed Josh Shapiro and John Fetterman over the top in their respective elections,” said Featherman.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Every day, 2.4 million people tune in to watch Dr. Phil give mental health advice. Described as the top mental health show on TV, it is widely trusted by many Americans because Dr. Phil examines some of our society’s difficult issues.

Abortion is among the most difficult issues, which might be why the show addressed it twice this fall. To Dr. Phil’s credit, he generated a legitimate, straightforward debate; unfortunately, he also did a disservice to millions of suffering women when he dismissed their after-abortion grief.

“There is absolutely no evidence for any post-abortion syndrome,” Dr. Phil told Live Action’s Lila Rose. “… The stress you’re talking about that increases suicidal ideation or attempts … you cannot isolate that to the fact that that person had an abortion …”

Dr. Phil is correct that women who experience abortions are facing pre-existing traumas. The Guttmacher Institute’s 2005 survey found that 78 percent of women go through an abortion because of fear of financial disaster, while 48 percent fear losing their partner or being a single mother. Bad relationships, financial insecurity and other issues are rarely one-time issues and are often related to earlier traumas that lead to poor choices.

But it is harmful to dismiss and disenfranchise the abortion-related suffering of women across the country. I know this because of the stories my organization hears every day, and even more so because of our recent study showing that one in three women suffer emotional trauma, which they directly attribute to medication abortion.

Here’s one story that represents thousands of others: A woman told our After-Abortion Line that she hid an abortion in college because she didn’t want to acknowledge her pain. She felt that there was nobody to talk to about her regrets and struggles. Dr. Phil’s generalization would dismiss her abortion-related pain and suffering instead of giving her a safe place to acknowledge her pain, embrace it, and heal from it.

Again, it’s true that trauma begets trauma. But in no other arena do we as a society dismiss how today’s traumas can, in addition to being part of a lifetime of unaddressed problems, also cause their own problems.

Perhaps Dr. Phil is confusing silence with a lack of suffering. The medication abortion study showed that, like the woman who called us, 63 percent of women either sought after-abortion emotional healing or could have used someone to talk to after their abortion. Yet only 18 percent of all women who experienced a medication abortion knew where to find after-abortion healing and care — and 70 percent of women wanted to share their experiences anonymously.

Women aren’t alone in their after-abortion grief. Forthcoming research from Support After Abortion will show that many men suffer, including those who didn’t want their partner to choose abortion. And as abortion supporter, Psychology Today contributor and Wright Institute professor Mary Lamia put it recently, men “often silently suffer after abortion” because society disenfranchises their grief.

But it is women on whom most of the abortion debate is focused. As a groundbreaking leader of the normalization of mental health and the holder of a doctorate in clinical psychology, Dr. Phil knows the power of helping people address their pain — and the power of dismissing it.

Support After Abortion exists to let millions of women and men know that their pain is real, their suffering can be healed, and their past pain can be transformed into future happiness.

We encourage Dr. Phil to join us.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

I generally hate year-in-review columns. They seem forced, like a list of things you must buy at the grocery store. Check this off, and then this, and we did this, and I need that, and we are out of this, and can we have extra of that, etc. Years blend into each other and it’s often hard to pick exceptional events, particularly since the same things seem to happen over and over again: Wars start and continue, and we think they end, and then they’re prolonged.

People die (surprise!) and we reflect on their lives, even when we might have forgotten they were still alive. Couples divorce and then find other partners they will eventually cast off in search of the perfect fit. Fads spring out of nowhere and insecure people with no particular talent film themselves on once-obscure social media apps in the hopes of boosting their self-esteem (after artificially boosting their lips and bosoms). Year after year, the same things tend to happen, and we try and frame them in a context where they seem historic.

But this year, something historic did happen, something that many people despaired of ever seeing, even though hope is the last thing to die. Since this is my column, this is my perspective. You won’t hear me talking about the tragic war in Ukraine, the January 6th Committee results, the disappointing red trickle at the mid-terms, the death of Sidney Poitier, or any of the other things that were indeed important (and about which I’ve written) but which did not stand out as the central, sea change event of 2022.

What defines for me the alpha and the omega of this year, the San Andreas Fault that splits two diametrically opposed tectonic plates, the BC and AD of our current historical timeline, is the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

That case, like Brown v. Board of Education, brought down a monolith of injustice: Legalized abortion by judicial fiat. The fiat was created by seven old men who ignored the voices of the American people and reached into some insubstantial and fictitious folds of constitutional jurisprudence to pluck out the right to kill a child.

Most would not be quite so blatant about it. They would replace “child” with “pregnancy” and “kill” with “terminate.” Those are the accepted terms in polite conversation, even though there is never anything polite about discussions around abortion. But the truth is clear and has been for almost 50 years.

January 22, 1973 would have marked one of the bloodiest half centuries known to modern society. That would have been the anniversary of the date Roe v. Wade, the decision to legalize abortion, was handed down and announced by that all-male court. I keep emphasizing the gender of the justices since we have been force-fed a diet of “if you can’t get pregnant, you have no right to have an opinion” by pro-choice advocates. I am going to be generous herein using the term that they prefer, pro “choice,” even though I would invite the reader to reflect on what “choice” we are discussing. There are only two: Life and death. Pro-choice advocates find both to be equally acceptable. Roe v. Wade supported that position and perpetuated a myth that there was virtue and legitimacy to the idea that women have dominion over their own bodies and the body growing within them.

But in 2022, after 50 years of lost potential and lives sacrificed to convenience and a skewed sense of autonomy, a court composed of men and women ruled that abortion was no longer a “right” and that, indeed, it never had been. And even though the reaction was brutal and there are continued attempts to codify abortion rights into law, and even though there are states where women will continue to be able to “choose” termination, there is now in this great country where immigrants find shelter and the oppressed find solace, an understanding that you cannot simply make up a right to do whatever you want, simply because you want to do it.

That principle transcends the issue of abortion. In 2022, women and men were told that no matter how much they want to engage in magical thinking and read the Constitution as a blueprint for living the lives they want, in the way they want, on the timeline they want, there are principles that are larger than their own narcissistic desires. One of them is the respect owed to other lives.

That is a lesson we should have figured out after the Civil War. It’s still a lesson we need to learn, and 2022 is bringing us closer to the point where we’re finally getting the message.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

I’ve been told abortion was the deciding factor in Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate race.  I myself have written about the importance of abortion in the grand scheme of things, the measure and metric by which we determine our collective humanity. And if abortion really was the thing that motivated women and the men who loved (or at least wanted to date) them, we have our answer about that collective humanity: It’s missing in action.

When I think that a majority of voters in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania chose to align themselves with someone who has such a radical view of abortion rights as John Fetterman, and to a slightly lesser extent Josh Shapiro, whose Twitter feed kept sending out inane messages about “a woman’s right to choose” as if it had Tourette Syndrome, then the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade revealed a very deep schism in modern society and in this state in particular.

You might think the word “eugenicist” is a bit much, given its overtones of the Holocaust and Mengele.  The doctor who performed horrific experiments in the concentration camps was attempting to design a society where only perfect Aryan creatures existed and reproduced with each other. But the pseudo “science” of eugenics has existed for generations and was embraced by exalted historical figures like Teddy Roosevelt, Oliver Wendell Homes, and Margaret Sanger. That brings me to the point of calling abortion supporters “amoral eugenicists.”

Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, championed abortion as a form of extreme birth control.  Despite an attempt at whitewashing by the PP crowd, Sanger never actually disavowed her enthusiastic support for sterilizing immigrants, people of color, poor people, and all those others who did not rise to the level of what she considered a valuable and contributing member of society. She did not use terms like “Aryan.” She simply wanted to improve society by weeding out the less desirables. Generations later, Hillary Clinton echoed that philosophy when she talked about the basket of “deplorables,” and it is clear that from a progressive standpoint, eugenics was at the very least a nuanced issue. To them, it had some value.

Abortion is an extension of eugenics. It permits people to make judgments about the value of other people, other human beings. The terminology is carefully curated so that we stop talking about “people” and shift towards a focus on “fetus.” Some have even used the term “opportunistic parasite.” Those of us who are pro-life and follow the actual science are content to settle for the universal term “human being.”  But that is something that encourages compassion and reflection on the exact nature of the act of aborting. And to those who support abortion, like John Fetterman, reflection is a dangerous and counterproductive thing.

When I think that a majority of voters in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania chose to align themselves with someone who has such a radical view of abortion rights, I realize the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade revealed a very deep schism in modern society, and in this state in particular. While Roe was still in place, the abortion supporters were marginally pacified. They were not on the defensive, the law was on their side, and they could complain about conservative pro-lifers, safe in the knowledge that a half-century of creative precedent was on their side.  Then came Dobbs, and the tectonic plates shifted to create a social earthquake. Pro “choice” women saw their choice reduced to a state-by-state determination, panicked, and looked for people to blame.

The target was easy: Conservatives in general, Republicans in particular.

The method was easier: Elect the man who said he’d protect their right to abort whenever and however they wanted.

The reckoning came on Tuesday night, and I have to congratulate the sisters for their determination, organization, and motivation in making sure that they were still able to advance Margaret Sanger’s mission of selecting human value by calling it “autonomy.”

The nihilism vote won.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs case, which returned abortion policy decisions to individual states, has sparked an important public policy discussion about what limits on abortion are appropriate. Most Americans are willing to have reasonable discussions about reasonable limits on abortion.

But some politicians have sought to take advantage of the heightened sensitivity of the issue, spreading false, misleading claims for personal political gain. My opponent is one of them and I want to set the record straight: I have never voted in support of an abortion ban. And if a ban were ever advanced in Pennsylvania, I would oppose it.

The Dobbs decision has fueled efforts by both supporters and opponents of abortion to vastly change state abortion laws. In West Virginia, some have pushed for aggressive bans on abortion with limited exceptions. Meanwhile, some pro-choice advocates are championing efforts to vastly expand abortion access into the third trimester. Pennsylvania House Democratic Policy Committee hearing this summer featured panelists who championed eliminating all abortion restrictions. As one panelist stated, “every abortion restriction is extreme.”

There are also efforts currently underway through the courts to overturn a 30-year-old Pennsylvania law that prohibits the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions. It provides exceptions for rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother. This case, Allegheny Reproductive Health Center vs. the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, is now before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The appellants are asking the state’s majority Democratic Supreme Court to establish a state constitutional right to taxpayer-funded abortions. In its ruling, the court could also establish a state constitutional right to abortion, removing all abortion restrictions and allowing abortions to be performed up until the moment of birth.

Following the Dobbs decision, I’ve had extensive conversations with many constituents about what constitutes reasonable abortion access and restrictions. It is clear to me that the vast majority of residents hold moderate, middle-of-the-ground views. Many who consider themselves “pro-choice” believe if a woman plans to have an abortion, she should do it before the child would be viable outside the womb. Conversely, many who consider themselves “pro-life” support allowing abortions up until 20 weeks.

What I’ve learned is that most local residents do not support an abortion ban, nor do they support proposals promoted by Planned Parenthood and others to eliminate all abortion limitations. Most fall in the middle: Supporting both protecting a woman’s right to choose in the early stages of pregnancy and the government’s ability to protect life once it would be viable outside the womb.

Abortion in Pennsylvania is governed by the Abortion Control Act of 1982, which allows abortions to be performed up until 24 weeks for any reason, except to select the sex of the baby. There are additional exceptions after 24 weeks, such as to protect the life of the mother.

The proposed Pennsylvania constitutional amendment approved by the legislature this summer, S.B. 106, clarifies that it is entirely within the purview of the legislature to regulate abortion. For the constitutional amendment to take effect, it needs to again pass the legislature next legislative session. Pennsylvania voters would then approve or disapprove of it in a statewide referendum.

My opponent’s claim that the proposed amendment bans abortion is an outright lie. The amendment makes no change to the Abortion Control Act, nor does it further restrict access to abortion. On the contrary, I supported the amendment to maintain the status quo and prevent a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that invalidates current law, removes all abortion restrictions, and creates a constitutional right to taxpayer-funded abortions.

That is why the amendment is worded the way it is. “This constitution does not grant the right to taxpayer-funded abortion or any other right relating to abortion.” It does not ban abortion in Pennsylvania. It preserves current law and the ability of the legislature to establish reasonable restrictions.

This is a deeply personal public policy discussion. As elected officials, we must work to achieve a public consensus on the topic through open, honest discourse. Politicians on both sides of the abortion issue who spread inflammatory rhetoric are doing a great disservice to voters.

As a member of the House of Representatives, my job is to represent the views of the residents of my district. As such, I will not support any legislation that would either expand or ban access to abortion. This is not a public policy we should rush into until such time as a public consensus is achieved.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

On a campaign visit to Bucks County on Sunday, Democrat Senate candidate Lt. Gov. John Fetterman kept up his mocking attacks on his Republican rival Dr. Mehmet Oz, delighting supporters with quips about “crudite” and Oz’s connections to New Jersey.

The Bristol Borough crowd, which numbered in the hundreds, laughed and applauded,

Democrats, however, are not laughing about the latest trend in the polls which shows Oz steadily gaining on Fetterman. Several political polling organizations, including the Cook Political Report, now rate the race a toss-up.

Fetterman did his part to close the deal with Democrats and independents in the crowd, promising to be the majority-maker in the U.S. Senate for several progressive issues.

“Send me to D.C., and I’ll be the 51st vote,” said Fetterman. “Send me there to eliminate the filibuster, raise the minimum wage; $7.25 an hour is that okay? Isn’t it ironic that a guy with 10 gigantic mansions thinks $7.25 is still okay?

Congressional candidate Ashley Ehasz

“I am going to make sure we vote and pass the Pro Act. Our campaign (is) running on the union way of life and how sacred that is. It built America. It built the middle class, and we need to make more stuff in America, more stuff here in Pennsylvania.”

“I am going there to fight to expand healthcare,” he said. “I’m going to fight for veterans,” said Fetterman, who accused retiring Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) of using veterans as “bargaining chips.”

“Another thing: Marriage equality,” said Fetterman. “Back in 2013, as mayor (of Braddock) I was the only official willing to solemnize a gay marriage when it was illegal. (Gov.) Tom Corbett threatened to have me arrested for that. And I said, ‘You know what? You know where I live.’”

“I’m going to fight to codify Roe v. Wade,” he said. “Abortion is on the ballot.”

Republicans believe the power of the abortion issue is waning and voters will turn to the GOP on more ever-present issues like the cost of living and concerns about crime.

“Dr. Oz has closed the polling gap on Fetterman for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is (Fetterman’s) awful record on crime,” said Republican consultant Charlie O’Neill. “Fetterman has never met a criminal he didn’t think was a victim, which is backward thinking to most Pennsylvanians. In addition to his terrible crime record, voters know Fetterman won’t stop inflation. He won’t secure the border. They are also meeting the real Fetterman, the trust fund kid who lived off his parents for decades and didn’t pay his taxes – it’s all tarnishing the ‘every man’ facade he tried to create.”

However, many of the rally attendees DVJournal spoke to said abortion was a top issue for them.

“I’m for John Fetterman because I believe in a woman’s right to choose,” said Phyllis Arnold of Buckingham, a retired teacher. She also said she favored “sensible gun control” and “being the stewards of the planet.” And she was concerned about access to healthcare, especially for the disabled.

Her friend, Penny Parkin, who also lives in Buckingham, agreed with all those points and added,” I am a Democrat. I vote Democrat. I always vote Democrat.”

“My number one concern is protecting the vote, protecting democracy,” said Parkin.

Bristol resident Sybil Henderson also mentioned “protecting women’s rights” and affordable healthcare.

Maggie Finn, also of Bristol, said she worries about the fentanyl crisis and lost her brother to an overdose. Substance abuse “needs to be treated as a health problem, not a criminal justice problem,” she said. “I think people should not be in jail for nonviolent possession.”

Ann and Tom Argenieri

Yardley residents Ann and Tom Argenieri came with their dog, Lyla.

Ann Argenieri’s main issues are social justice, healthcare, and “personal freedoms.”

“It’s a slippery slope to a fascist, authoritarian theocracy,” she said.

Tom Argenieri said, “We’ve already sent one con man to Washington. We can’t send another.”

In a somewhat unusual move compared to other campaigns, the Fetterman event began with a warm-up act to get the crowd pumped up and ready for the candidate. He exhorted the crowd to chant and wave the Fetterman signs they had been given when they walked in the gate, similar to a comedian talking to a television studio audience before taping a show.

No similar warm-up person was present at recent Bucks County rallies for Oz, GOP gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano, or a rally in Wilkes-Barre that former President Donald Trump held for Oz and Mastriano.

Several local Democrats took to the stage to praise Fetterman and talk about their races, including congressional candidate Ashely Ehasz, who is running against Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Bucks/Montgomery).

Ehasz mentioned she was a combat veteran raised by a single mother. She joined the Army at 17 and went to West Point.

Ehasz said, “I value leaders who will fight for and protect veterans…When I needed her most when I was a young kid just trying to hope for a better future, my country saved me, and as I stand here before you all as your Democratic nominee for U.S. Congress, I am running to save her when she needs us most.”

While Oz and supporting PACs are running ads detailing Fetterman’s record on crime as the chair of the Board of Pardons and using Fetterman’s own words in favor of freeing one-third of the state’s inmates, Fetterman said that he is the candidate who would be tough on crime.

“They’ve spent $30 million on negative ads against me, and we’re still standing,” said Fetterman. “More than standing. We’re winning.”

“Send him back over the river to New Jersey and send me to D.C.,” he said.

During the rally, Republican protesters could be heard chanting “U.S.A.” from nearby and a boat sporting an Oz flag motored along the Delaware River honking.

After his remarks, Fetterman briefly mingled with the crowd and then left the area without taking questions from the press.

Bucks County Republican chair Pat Poprik said, “Well, I’m glad to see that he finally decided to campaign and come out of his basement and let people talk to him.”

“I think the people deserve more than that from someone who is running for such an important office,” said Poprik.

Brittany Yanick, a spokeswoman for the Oz campaign, said, “Dr. Oz is running against the most pro-murderer candidate in the nation, and he is going to win in November because he is showing up and listening to voters – Republicans, Democrats, and independents – who want to see a change from the failed policies of the past.

“Pennsylvania can’t afford a Bernie Sanders socialist who wants to release one-third of Pennsylvania inmates, decriminalize all drugs, eliminate life sentences for murderers, and raise taxes on hardworking Pennsylvanians while failing to pay his own taxes 67 times.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

EDITOR’S NOTE: For another view, see “McGarrigle: Why Voters Should Vote for Republicans.”

On Tuesday, November 8, Americans will once again head to the polls to exercise one of our most important rights – the right to vote. This year, however, the stakes are higher than they have ever been before as the differences between candidates go beyond policy.

Rather, we are choosing between those who believe in truth, democracy, and freedom and those who embrace dangerous election lies, hateful rhetoric, and political violence. The best way to protect our democracy, keep the government out of our bedrooms and doctors’ offices, and stop the spread of MAGA extremism is to vote for Democrats up and down the ballot.

It should come as no surprise that in normal election cycles, I also strongly believe that voting for Democrats is the best decision. Ordinarily, that is for policy reasons. But there is nothing ordinary about this year. We have one party – the Republican Party – that has been taken over by far-right extremists, including some calling for violence against our elected officials and institutions.

The Republicans are not even pretending to appeal to moderates anymore. Their platform calls for, among other things, a national ban on abortion; support for total and absolute gun rights; rejection of sound climate science and backward-looking energy policies that prop up the fossil fuel industry; drastic cuts and changes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid relied on by millions of citizens; elimination of the Affordable Care Act which would lead to loss of insurance and coverage for pre-existing conditions for millions of Americans; and, of course, more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, forcing the tax burden down onto middle-class Americans and shockingly, even the poorest among us.

Moreover, we have the continued assault on our electoral system based on the “big lie” created by former President Donald Trump and his allies. We are learning every day just how deep and terrifying this assault really is. Across the country, Republicans are trying to take over election boards, county commissions, city councils, and school boards to force their dangerous view of the world on the rest of us.

We are seeing these forces at work right here in Pennsylvania where the Republican candidate for governor, Doug Mastriano, has made controlling elections, through his power to appoint the secretary of state and certify voting machines, a central tenet of his campaign. He supports a complete ban on abortion, with no exceptions for rape, incest, or even the health of the mother, and even supports charging a woman who had an abortion with murder.

His historically extreme education policy would cut public education funding by half and he has vowed to turn Pennsylvania into the Florida of the North. No, thank you. Beyond Harrisburg, our U.S. Senate and House races are also vital for protecting our democracy. If Republicans take control of the U.S. House and Senate all progress stops in terms of fighting inflation, global warming, women’s rights, common-sense gun control, civil rights, and protecting our elections.

That’s why we here in Chester County need to throw our support behind Democratic candidates at all levels, from our state legislature, to governor, to the House of Representatives, to the U.S. Senate. Our very democracy is on the ballot in November and there is only one party intent on preserving it, for everyone.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal