Framingham Democrat: More Abortion Will Lower Special Education Costs

At a city council meeting last month, the now-former Chair of the Framingham Democratic Committee Michael Hugo argued for the death of disabled fetuses who are bound to be a financial burden if born.

There was only one problem. Massachusetts Senate President Karen Spilka has a special-needs sister. Hugo’s heinous comment struck a nerve.

Framingham SOURCE reported Democrat Spilka’s response to Hugo:

As the sister and long-time legal guardian of a sister with Down Syndrome, I have dedicated my career to advocating for the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities, and my life to raising awareness of the challenges they face and the opportunities they deserve. Michael Hugo’s comments were egregious and totally unacceptable, and not reflective of our values. It is in the best interest of the community that he steps aside.

In addition to a scathing response from the state Senate President, Hugo experienced international blowback. Even so, several of his fellow Democrats rallied behind him. Should this come as a shock?

The committee’s original conversation was part of the ongoing battle against what Leftists refer to as “crisis pregnancy centers,” facilities that offer any reproductive care service aiming to maintain, stimulate, and promote the growth and development of the baby in the womb. Note, this is my definition. According to the pro-abortion regime, CPCs shouldn’t qualify as health centers because they don’t offer pregnancy termination.

As the post-Roe fight against abortion evolves into local scuffles, the war on life-affirming centers roars. From what I’ve seen, the strategy by the Left is to paint employees at places like Birthright in Framingham, MA, as “uneducated” or “unqualified.” Some go as far to claim these workers push their pro-birth, sinister motive by offering free diapers, pregnancy tests, and ultrasounds to expectant mothers. Funny, you’d think the party of welfare would be all over that.

So what exactly did Michael Hugo tell the Framingham City Council?

Our fear is that if an unqualified sonographer misdiagnoses a heart defect, an organ defect, spina bifida, or an encephalopathic defect, that becomes a very local issue because our school budget will have to absorb the cost of a child in special education, supplying lots and lots of special services to children who were born with the defect.

In other words, Michael Hugo wants to make sure all disabled babies are snuffed out before they enter the Framingham school system.

This wasn’t a one-off comment. This is the pro-abortion, pro-eugenics stance. It reminds me of a demonstration outside the Statehouse last October, where a local mother of two explained why, in her eyes, abortion is necessary.

“Children that won’t progress…children that are severely disabled…What kind of life is that? There’s no quality of life just to have it born, just to have it sit and do nothing.”

“It’s not a quality of life,” the woman repeated, “and when you have a disabled child, that’s your life. Those other children? Sorry, guys, your little brother or sister takes all of my time.”

The pro-choice position authorizes a parent to decide which children are worth raising. A quadriplegic child, an autistic child, a child with auditory processing disorder? Why, those children are not of “quality.”

It’s not as fringe an idea as it sounds. In Denmark in 2015, 98% of fetuses diagnosed in utero with Down Syndrome were aborted; in France the same year, 77%. The United States has estimated its Downs baby termination rate of 67% between 1995 and 2011. And in Iceland, the condition has “virtually disappeared.”

The Left seeks political convenience at the expense of philosophical inconsistency. Fighting for the disabled is electorally and reputationally convenient. Fighting for abortion at any point in development and for any reason brings in the cash. The disabled life matters only when it can mail in a ballot. When it’s in the womb, it’s disposable.

For Spilka, Michael Hugo’s big botch was being philosophically consistent.

Hugo knew enough to understand he couldn’t cross Spilka, the third most powerful politician in state government. He resigned from the committee.

“I have decided that my resignation is necessary to eliminate any distraction from the important work of the local Democratic Committee, as well as the State Party.” He’s right—all this publicity is a distraction from the somewhat subtle mission to permanently close life-affirming centers.

Before making his decision, Hugo offered a tepid apology on the Framingham Democrat Facebook page.

“Nothing in my comments was meant to be derogatory or hurtful and although the Framingham Democratic Committee authorized me to express support for the proclamation, the committee did not see or review my full remarks that were sent out at 12:46 A.M. the night before the City Council vote.”

In other words, Hugo blames his fellow committee members for promoting violent ableism against the utterly helpless to control the budget. If only they had proofread his comments, maybe he wouldn’t have pushed the notion that special-needs children are fiscal detriments for the city.

But here’s the kicker. Hugo makes sure to underscore his decision to leave on his “own volition.” He claims the rest of the committee successfully defeated a motion to “even discuss” Hugo’s removal. When the committee did end up voting, 16 of the 28 members voted to keep him on. Says a lot about our Democrat politicians at the local level.

If calling for the extinction of disabled children to save a couple bucks on an extra desk in the special education classroom isn’t a big deal to most activist Framingham Democrats, what is?