Pro Life Legal Defense Fund, Inc.

In addition to this website, PLLDF has established an email address, published a new edition of its Newsletter, and created a Facebook page. We hope that these make us more accessible to the community and our supporters.

These outreach efforts are a small part of PLLDF's goal to build a more broad and unified community of pro-life attorneys in Massachusetts. 

It can sometimes appear that there is little interest in the pro-life cause within the Massachusetts legal community. PLLDF believes, however, that there is more concern for pro-life issues among attorneys than many might believe. We are eager to develop that concern by creating a greater network of pro-life attorneys who can feel comfortable expressing pro-life beliefs.

We welcome your comments or suggestions.
Professor Dwight Duncan has provided a second entry to Professors' Corner clarifying how SCOTUS has limited the rights of fathers with respect to abortion. The entry is titled Fathers Have No Say in Abortions of Their Children, Not Even to Know about Them.

Read more here
Associate Professor Emeritus Frank McLaughlin has presented a succinct and compelling scientific and philosophical argument against the use of embryonic stem cells for medical treatment. 

Read more here


McCullen attorney: Backdoor buffer zone bill chills free speech

July 29, 2014. Boston, Massachusetts. Michael DePrimo, an attorney for Eleanor McCullen, the lead plaintiff in the 9-0 decision in McCullen v. Coakley, issued a statement regarding the passage of the new buffer zone law

Read more here.


Hobby Lobby: Is There a “Scientific” Basis for Opposition to Abortifacient Contraception?


"The United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. held that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), closely-held family-run businesses whose owners have sincere religious objection to participating in abortion (by providing abortifacient contraceptives through the company health plan) are not bound by the abortifacient mandatory contraceptive provisions of RFRA. The Court found that to require compliance by these businesses to the abortifacient contraceptive mandate would substantially burden the exercise of religion by forcing them to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs or pay substantial fines."

Read more here.


What the Supreme Court did (and didn't do) to religious freedom

"In Hobby Lobby, the Court ruled that a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), applied to the case, and that it covered "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." The only question that government could consider was not the truth or reasonableness or centrality of the religious belief, but only whether the belief were sincere, which was not doubted in the case of these companies. Interestingly, RFRA had passed in 1993 by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress. This is because religious freedom, like free speech, is a vital part of our legal heritage and until recently, viewed as axiomatic."

Read more here.


Hobby Lobby and Widespread Misunderstanding about When Pregnancy Begins

"Is there a huge hole in the news coverage about mandatory contraceptive health insurance? The answer is yes. The question is why."


Read more here.



Dwight G. Duncan, Professor of Law and author of a pro-life amicus brief in the Hobby Lobby case, comments on the recent pro-life victory at the United States Supreme Court.

Read more here.



"On 3/29/14, MCFL held its annual pro-life convention at Assumption College in Worcester. Attendees were treated an impressive array of speakers who presented pro-life developments from the medical, educational, legal and religious perspectives. It was a most informative day for all participants!"

Read more here.


McCullen v. Coakley: Big Win For Pro-Life at United States Supreme Court (6/26/14)

"The Supreme Court of the United States announced a unanimous decision today declaring the Massachusetts buffer zone law unconstitutional. This is an enormous victory for pro-life free speech, and a tribute to the endurance of the McCullen petitioners, their counsel, and all of their supporters!..."

Read more here

"Like" Us On: