“Tom Roach is committed to keeping the right to choose solely in the hands of a woman and her doctor, with no government interference. Tom understands that being pro-choice means trusting women to make the right decisions. He will fight against every attempt to limit women’s reproductive freedom.

Roach is a progressive leader who knows the importance of women’s reproductive health. As a member and now President of the White Plains Common Council, Tom has proven he stands by his word.

Unlike his opponent, Tom has pledged not to balance the budget at the expense of women’s reproductive healthcare. Roach will not allow women’s health to become a bargaining chip in budget negotiations. Unlike others in Washington and in Albany, Tom knows you cannot horse trade when it comes to women’s reproductive health.

New York guaranteed women the right to choose in 1970–three years before Roe v. Wade and Albany must continue to do so in 2010!” Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, President, Choice Matters, 9/3/2010
——-
Remember:
90 years ago the 19th Amendment was ratified. No one gave us the right to vote. We took it because it was rightly ours, and many of us use that right — but not enough of us.

2010 must become known as the Year of the Woman Voter.

There is an unyielding attack being waged against us and our reproductive rights. We must use the ballot box and the streets to fight back, like our foremothers did 100 years ago.

Let’s make them proud!
Vote Tuesday, September 14th!

On the 90th Anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote, WCLA – Choice Matters endorses Assemblyman Richard Brodsky for New York State Attorney General.

90 years ago today the 19th Amendment was ratified, and since 1980 more women have voted in presidential elections than men. No one gave us the right to vote. We took it because it was rightly ours, and many of us use that right — but not enough of us.

2010 must become known as the Year of the Woman Voter. There is an unyielding attack being waged against us and our reproductive rights. We must use the ballot box and the streets to fight back, like our foremothers did 100 years ago.

On this very important day, Choice Matters is proud to endorse Richard Brodsky for Attorney General of New York State.

Choice Matters President Catherine Lederer-Plaskett declared, “We are proud to give Richard Brodsky our unqualified support. Richard has been a voice for comprehensive reproductive health and progressive causes throughout his long career in public service. His demonstrated commitment to a woman’s right to choose and his proven skills as a litigator make him our choice to be the next ‘people’s lawyer.’ Choice Matters is proud to endorse Richard in recognition of his advocacy for the rights of the women of New York State.

Richard Brodsky is 100% pro-choice and an outspoken advocate for women’s reproductive rights. Over the course of his tenure in County and State government, Richard has proven himself to be an untiring ally to women. He has never shied away from the challenges. Richard has supported important pieces of legislation, including the Reproductive Health Act, the Women’s Health and Wellness Act and the Clinic Access Bill, that advance the health and rights of all of New York’s women.

As our next Attorney General, Richard Brodsky will continue to be an unwavering advocate and ally of New York’s women.”

If you need a reason to vote, please visit You Asked Why I Vote?.

US Rep Carolyn B. Maloney Joins Engel and Krueger In PUBLICALLY Standing Up for Us, the Women of New York and of the U.S.A.

Maloney’s Letter Condemning Abortion Restrictions for High Risk Pools

Dear President Obama:
I am deeply concerned by your recent decision to exclude abortion coverage from high-risk pools. Historically, there has been a consensus that women who need abortions to save their lives and preserve their health should be able to get them. This Health and Human Services ruling undercuts that consensus and undermines women’s health.

In particular your decision will hurt women with pre-existing conditions who are most vulnerable for high-risk pregnancies, the very women who may need to terminate their pregnancies because of the risk it poses to their own health. In addition, I believe this rule goes beyond current law and further erodes women’s right to purchase abortion coverage with their own private funds.

High-risk pools were designed to be a transitional program as the federal government works to create the health insurance exchanges which will take effect in 2014 – not a forum to further roll back a woman’s right to choose. I am concerned that this rule treats abortion care differently than any other medical procedure in the new high-risk pools. Though I recognize that once the Exchange is operational, women will have the option to choose a plan that includes abortion coverage, albeit with the Executive Order in effect and the “Nelson” language applied, I feel strongly that this new rule sets a troublesome precedent for future action and urge you to repeal it.

Sincerely,
CAROLYN B. MALONEY
Member of Congress

Background
The landmark health care reform legislation established Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans (PCIPs or high risk pools), which will temporarily insure individuals who currently cannot purchase health insurance because they have serious medical conditions. The PCIPs will be eliminated once the health care exchanges are established in 2014. To enroll, an individual must have a pre-existing condition and be uninsured for 6 months. The health care reform bill included restrictions on abortions for the exchanges that will be established in 2014, but did not expressly extend those restrictions to these temporary high risk pools.

In addition to the PCIP established by the federal government, individual states can establish PCIPs. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is directly administering the program in 21 states, while 29 states and the District of Columbia will administer the PCIPs through their own programs. Several state plans initially included coverage for abortion procedures. Certain anti-choice advocates objected and on July 14, 2010, HHS issued a “clarification” that abortions are excluded from coverage under a PCIP, whether the PCIP is run by the federal government or by individual states.

REP. ENGEL – HIGH RISK POOL ABORTION EXCLUSION IS UNACCEPTABLE

Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY-17) strongly disagreed with the decision to exclude abortion coverage from the new high-risk insurance pools. In effect, the policy decision will adversely affect middle class women, especially those with serious medical conditions.

“I strongly believe that the United States government should not be in the business of restricting rights and preventing people from medical treatment. The government should not be using the lives of low-income and middle-income women as a political football any longer.

“Fighting constantly to allow women to maintain their right to choose is difficult enough when we are battling the Republicans in Congress or the conservative tilt of the Supreme Court, we don’t need to have it come from our allies. Women who will be in the high risk pools – temporary coverage through 2014 for those who cannot afford insurance due to serious health problems – are oftentimes going to be women whose lives and health will be at extreme risk from an unwanted pregnancy.

“This order prevents women from spending their own money on coverage. This Executive Order essentially makes the Stupak Amendment the law of the land. States will be stripped of the option to cover these situations. Planned Parenthood has called this rule “harmful to women” and they are absolutely correct. This is simply unacceptable.

“No one anticipates having an abortion and so it’s both insulting, and an invasion of privacy to single out this one procedure. I will continue, as my 21-year 100% pro-choice record shows, to fight for a woman’s right to choose.”

The Stupak-Pitts amendment to the House-passed Affordable Health Care for America Act states that anyone who receives limited tax credit assistance to purchase mandated health insurance, may not access a plan that covers abortion, and should instead purchase stand-alone abortion coverage. The final law did not contain this amendment, instead including a lesser Senate-passed version. The health insurance reform law had already prohibited federal funds from being used for abortion before any amendments were added.

Click Below to read NYS Senator Liz Krueger’s letter to President Obama.

SenatorKrueger_LetterToPresidentObama

Thursday the Obama Administration shocked women’s health organizations everywhere when it announced it would exclude abortion coverage from the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (the temporary high-risk insurance pools created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to transition us into the new health care plan).

What that means is that thousands of women with serious medical conditions will not be able to access abortion care, even if their health is at further risk. (For example, what about women with cancer and the impact the change in hormone levels resulting from pregnancy has on their tumors!)

The White House has imposed a Stupak-like Ban on the most vulnerable of women, those with serious pre-existing medical conditions.

Just like Stupak, this decision bars women with pre-existing conditions from using their own money to buy abortion coverage through the high-risk pools.

Don’t Be Fooled! The Obama Administration did NOT have to do this!
The restrictions on use of federal dollars for abortion coverage do NOT apply. Even though federal dollars are being used to subsidize these new high-risk pool insurance plans, there is no requirement that abortion coverage be restricted. Neither the Hyde nor the Nelson Amendments apply here.

The Hyde Amendment restrictions on use of Labor-HHS appropriations for abortion coverage do not apply to this new appropriation, and the Nelson Amendment abortion restrictions do not apply to the high-risk pool plan section of the law.

The Administration has voluntarily adopted these new abortion restrictions.

Contact the White House and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius NOW.
Tell them this decision is unacceptable!
Tell the administration that women with pre-existing medical conditions need abortion coverage!

To reach the White House:
Call: (202) 456-1111
Email:
public@who.eop.gov

To reach the Department of Health and Human Services:
Call: (877) 696-6775
Email: http://www.hhs.gov/feedback.html

On Sunday, July 18th, at 4:30, Donna Barkman is performing Hand-Me-Downs: Scenes from a Life.

Barkman, a natural-born rebel, reviews her life, integrating the anger of Antigone and the nonsense of Mother Goose, as she dramatizes constrictive gender roles and prescriptive motherhood.

Tickets are $10.00, with all proceeds donated to Choice Matters.

This fascinating play will be performed at The Bean Runner Café which is a trendy new eatery located on the corner of South Division and Esther Streets, and is a celebration of food, entertainment and art. The menu is eclectic and funky, ranging from humus or Caribbean chicken sandwiches to fruit smoothies and soup, as well as imported beer and wines.

201 South Division Street
Peekskill NY
914-737-1701
beanrunnercafe.com

We hope to see you there!

You called and you signed our petition,
and they listened!

Please thank our local Assembly representatives who stood up for women today:
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky
Assemblywoman Sandra Galef
Assemblywoman Amy Paulin
Assemblyman Gary Pretlow

Now we must turn our attention to the NYS Senate!
WITH YOUR HELP, we have a chance to pass the most important bill for New York’s women since 1970, the Reproductive Health Act.

Call Your Senator Today!!!
Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousin (Bill Sponsor)
Senator Suzie Oppenheimer
Senator Jeff Klein

The following senators need particular encouragement:
Senator Vincent Leibell
Senator James Alesi
Senator John Bonacic
Senator William Larkin
Senator James Seward
Senator Joseph Robach
Ask Them to Support the Reproductive Health Act!

In the New York Times Today:

About 370 state bills regulating abortion were introduced in 2010, compared with about 350 in each of the previous five years, and 250 a year in the early 1990s, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. At least 24 of this year’s bills have passed, and the final total may reach the high of 2005, when states passed 34 laws, said Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate at the institute.

More significant than the number of bills introduced are the number and nature of those that passed, partisans on both sides agree.

“What’s different is that bills of serious consequence have actually passed,” said Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, who characterized the volume of legislation as “an avalanche.” Already the center has brought suits to challenge six laws, more than in any other year since the 1990s.

Tennessee, which had not passed restrictions on abortion since 2003, passed two laws, one banning coverage of abortion in health insurance exchanges. The other requires clinics to post signs stating it is illegal to coerce a woman to have an abortion; 11 other states introduced similar legislation.

“This is a good year as far as victories,” said Mary Spaulding Balch, director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee, who named several states, including Arizona, Missouri and Tennessee, that are now more open to restrictive laws. “I do get the impression that the climate is friendlier.”

Full article

All MEN are created equal. I never quite felt that that noun was inclusive. If it were, I would no longer have to fight, in the year 2004, to have birth control pills covered by health insurance plans while Viagra is a given, and its advertisements for free samples too prevalent.

So, am I cynical? Yes! Am I disappointed with politicians on both sides of the aisle who stand up for choice and then turn around and support anti-choice candidates? YES!

But, too many Americans, regardless of class, race, ethnicity, gender and age have forgotten that a powerful struggle took place in this country granting so many of us the right to vote, and far too many take this precious right for granted. Voting is a means of term limits. Voting can be a vehicle for change.

So . . . why do I vote?

I vote to honor my grandparents who fled Europe and came to America so that their future children would be born free from persecution. I vote for my relatives and the people who were robbed of their future.

I vote for my foremothers, the suffragettes, who had the audacity to fight a male regime in order to secure “for us” the right to vote.

I vote to prevent the appointment of court justices who believe that women are inferior, subservient, second class citizens, at best, whose views are reminiscent of another male Texan whose vile remark, “if you’re gonna be raped, just lay back and enjoy it” jokes about the most violent attack against a woman.

I vote for the person who I believe will best represent me and my interests, not necessarily the person who I think will win an election. I vote because I cannot sit idly by while my country is destroyed by the radical right.

I vote for rape victims who were violated again in the courtroom prior to the rape shield laws. I vote for the countless women who died from back alley abortions because they had no choice. I vote for the young woman who has no one to turn to when she finds herself pregnant. I vote for women and children who are victims of domestic violence. I vote for all women who have been silenced.

I vote because it is a right and a privilege of my citizenship. I vote because I want a better future. I vote because I am patriotic. I vote because I want to see democracy reign, not a dictatorship.

I vote because how free one is should not be based on the size of one’s pocketbook.

I vote because George W. Bush uses the terms liberty, freedom of choice and freedom from oppression for the Iraqis, but at every turn he attempts to prohibit such freedom for women in his own country! Remember, if a woman cannot control her reproductive system, she is not free to control her destiny. I vote because I am terrified that should I decide to have a child, that s/he will never have the freedoms that I have enjoyed.

I vote because I believe in the First Amendment. I vote because I have a voice and I am not afraid to use it. I vote for those who stand up for women’s rights and reproductive freedom to ensure liberty and justice for all of us. I vote because I am proud to be an American, even in these trying and frightening times.

I vote to commemorate 2,976 innocent people who went to work one sunny September 11th and never came home . . .

I vote, because in the end . . . there is simply no other choice.

*reprinted from ProChoice Voting Guide, November 2004