Tag: congress

Congress Set to Cut Your Abortion Rights This Thursday

This Thursday, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the US House of Representatives will vote to ban 20-week abortion nationally.

The symbolism of the day can’t be missed.

The 114th Congress’ anti-choice politicians are using the Roe v. Wade anniversary to send a clear message: They are gunning for women and our reproductive rights.

In the Senate, the new Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, made the passage of this ban a campaign promise when running for re-election last fall!

Just hours after being sworn in, the right-wing controlled Congress introduced this 20-week abortion ban.

If the 20-week abortion ban becomes law, it will effect women in every state in the country – jeopardize women’s health everywhere. The bill is unconstitutional and would institute criminal penalties, including up to five years in prison for health care providers for delivering safe medical care to women who need it. [1]

The bill, HR 36, deceptively named the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act”, is based on lies and junk science claims that:
*fetuses are viable and can feel pain at 20 weeks (both false),
*abortion at that stage is too risky for women (it is still safer than childbirth), and
*the public supports a ban (in truth, the overwhelming majority wants pre-viability abortions, including at and after 20 weeks, to remain safe and legal).[2]

With women’s rights supporters now in the minority in Congress, we need to fight harder than ever against attacks on our reproductive rights. We need to reach out to Congress and to President Obama. If the bill passes Congress, we will need President Obama to stand up for all women and veto this bill.

CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION
(This will take you to the National Partnership for Women and Families to facilitate contacting Congress.)

We Must Speak Out!

[1] National Partnership for Women and Families
[2] National Organization for Women, Terry O’Neill

Paul Ryan’s Close Ties with Westchester’s Hayworth & Carvin

— The National News Won’t Tell You About Ryan’s Foot Soldiers —
Some of them are right here in Westchester!
There is no question about it – Romney’s VP Pick Paul Ryan is an anti-choice extremist.
A Few Highlights:
â–º Ryan believes it should be illegal to end a pregnancy under any circumstance — even when it results from rape or incest, or endangers a woman’s health
â–ºRyan co-sponsored the Let Women Die bill that would permit hospitals to allow women to die if saving their lives meant performing an abortion.
â–ºRyan co-sponsored a federal bill defining fertilized eggs as human beings, which, if passed, would criminalize some forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization.
(And that’s just for starters. If your stomach and heart can take it, check out Paul Ryan’s radical right voting record and positions at the end of this email.)
In keeping with this anti-woman stance, Paul Ryan also voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which helps women fight for equal pay for equal work.

The National Right to Life Committee scored Ryan’s voting record 100% [anti-woman] every year since he entered the House in 1999.

It is perfectly clear that Paul Ryan is bad for women and a woman’s right to Choose. That’s the national news.

Now let’s bring it back home to Westchester and talk about Ryan’s foot soldiers…
… the local candidates in Westchester who support Paul Ryan and will do whatever he says. 

And what pro-choice voters will only find in their Bright Yellow Pro-Choice Voting Guide – if there is one this year – because we cover the local candidates.  (Remember, we need your help to distribute the bright yellow ProChoice Voting Guide this election year!  Please, make a contribution today.  This election may very well define our future.) [Click Here to Contribute.]

Let’s start with good ol’ Nan Hayworth who claimed to be pro-choice when she ran in 2010 and now just two years in office has become the poster child for Ryan’s anti-choice extremist organization The National Right to Life Committee.

In her term in office, Hayworth has co-sponsored 2 of the anti-choice extremists’ bills, and voted in support of just about all of them. (She only voted against one, and ‘present’ for another.)

The anti-choice zealots at the National Right to Life love her so much that they gave her an 80% approval rating. That means Haworth VOTED AGAINST YOU AND ME 80% of the time.

Nan Hayworth calls extremist Paul Ryan “a friend”, “a teacher and mentor” and “a leader with a vision.” 

Hayworth has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Paul Ryan on just about every anti-choice vote including:
► Supporting the ‘Let Women Die Act’;
â–º Cutting of all funding to Planned Parenthood and Title X;
â–º Banning of abortion coverage in state health-insurance exchanges;
► Imposing of a tax on any business or individual who purchases private  health plans that include abortion coverage; and
â–º Permanently denying low-income women, civil servants, and military women access to abortion services, even in emergency situations.

In addition, Hayworth is on the record with Choice Matters as being totally in support of the horrific Stupack amendment which came up for a vote before she took office.

Nan Hayworth lied to New York’s residents to get elected in 2010 and she is doing it again.  Hayworth has made it perfectly clear that she will stand 100% with Paul Ryan—against women, against Choice, against seniors, against Medicare — and we must show her that we will NOT tolerate her lies and stand strong and 100% against Nan Hayworth come November!

Nan Hayworth is being challenged by a strong ally of all pro-choice groups and coalitions–our advocate Sean Patrick Maloney–in the 18 CD.

Another Anti-Woman/Anti-Choice Face in a local Congressional Race that has eluded the national radar is Joe Carvin who is running on the Republican and Conservative lines and challenging one of the greatest pro-choice advocates in the House of Representative – staunchly pro-choice Congresswoman Nita Lowey.

Carvin openly declared, “Paul is my hero. I’m running because Paul Ryan needs help. Paul Ryan is my hero.”

What’s that say about Carvin?
Joe Carvin tries to present a positive picture, but in reality he is an anti-choice conservative who will flip flop to gain extremist support.

Carvin is on the record — Carvin wants to place a lot of restrictions on a woman’s right to obtain a safe and legal abortion.  Yet, he claims to be ‘pro-choice’ because he knows that in Westchester we vote this issue.

But Carvin isn’t quite sure on where he stands on funding for Planned Parenthood (even though all funding goes to preventative care like contraception and cancer screening) given his hero, Paul Ryan, voted to cut all federal funding to Planned Parenthood and the Title X family planning program.  And Carvin refused to stand up for women seeking safe access to reproductive health care right here in Westchester!

Carvin said that social issues [like abortion and contraception] are distraction from fundamental ones. (Again, it boils down to the idea that women and our “social issues” are just a distraction to the right wing!)

If elected, there is no doubt that Carvin will do exactly what Paul Ryan asks him to, just like Nan Hayworth has already done.

Remember: There will be no bright yellow ProChoice voting guide in your mailbox this election year unless we can raise $33,000 by September 30th.

________________________________________________________________
Paul Ryan is staunchly anti-choice. Ryan on Ryan: “I’m as pro-life as a person gets.”
â–ºRyan voted 59 times against abortion and other reproductive rights issues which was as often as he could while in the House.
â–ºRyan opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest.
â–ºRyan co-sponsored the Sanctity of Human Life Act and the Right to Life Act, both of which claim that life begins at the moment of fertilization.
►Ryan co-sponsored the Federal Abortion Ban, which would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and make performing an abortion a criminal offense for physicians, punishable by two years in prison.
►Ryan co-sponsored the so-called ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,’ a bill that would ban abortion coverage in state health-insurance exchanges, impose a tax on any business or individual who purchases private health plans that include abortion coverage, and permanently deny low-income women, civil servants, and military women access to abortion services, even in emergency situations.
►Ryan co-sponsored and voted for the ‘Let Women Die Act’ that would allow hospitals to let women to die even in emergency circumstances if saving her life meant allowing her to have an abortion. This bill would have also used supposed “conscience” clauses to deny women access to other preventative health care services such as contraception.
►Ryan co-sponsored several fetal “personhood” bills, that if passed would not only outlaw all abortions, but ban use of various methods of contraception as well as in-vitro fertilization and stem cell research.
â–ºRyan voted to defund Planned Parenthood and eliminate the Title X family planning program; this funding cannot be used for abortion but for preventative reproductive health services and screenings which saving taxpayer dollars, prevent unintended pregnancies, and abortions.
►Ryan voted for the infamous Stupak amendment, the proposal to deny abortion coverage to women in state health-insurance exchanges, even if women purchased insurance with exclusively their own money.
►Ryan co-sponsored a bill requiring women to submit to a forced ultrasound before receiving an abortion, even if it is against both her will and her physician’s professional recommendation.
►Ryan repeatedly voted to make it a criminal offense for anyone other than a parent – including a grandparent, adult sibling or even religious counselor – to accompany a young woman across state lines for abortion care, when home state parental notification mandates could not be met.
â–ºRyan repeatedly voted to deny women in the military the ability to use their own funds to pay for an abortion at a military hospital, whether at home or while fighting abroad– where abortion is less likely to be safe or accessible.
â–ºRyan repeatedly voted against international family planning programs.
â–ºRyan repeatedly voted to deny federal employees the right to choose health insurance that includes abortion coverage.
►Ryan voted against contraceptive equity for federal employees – a law that would require birth control to be treated like every other prescription medication.**
And the list goes on
(**Special thanks to Republican Majority for Choice for help compiling this list.)

Nicholas D. Kristoff, you got it right! “Beyond Pelvic Politics”

Beyond Pelvic Politics

By Nicholas D. Kristof, The New York Times, 2/11/2012

I MAY not be as theologically sophisticated as American bishops, but I had thought that Jesus talked more about helping the poor than about banning contraceptives.

The debates about pelvic politics over the last week sometimes had a patronizing tone, as if birth control amounted to a chivalrous handout to women of dubious morals. On the contrary, few areas have more impact on more people than birth control — and few are more central to efforts to chip away at poverty.

My well-heeled readers will be furrowing their brows at this point. Birth control is cheap, you’re thinking, and far less expensive than a baby (or an abortion). But for many Americans living on the edge, it’s a borderline luxury.

A 2009 study looked at sexually active American women of modest means, ages 18 to 34, whose economic circumstances had deteriorated. Three-quarters said that they could not afford a baby then. Yet 30 percent had put off a gynecological or family-planning visit to save money. More horrifying, of those using the pill, one-quarter said that they economized by not taking it every day. (My data is from the Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan research organization on issues of sexual health.)

One-third of women in another survey said they would switch birth control methods if not for the cost. Nearly half of those women were relying on condoms, and others on nothing more than withdrawal.

The cost of birth control is one reason poor women are more than three times as likely to end up pregnant unintentionally as middle-class women.

In short, birth control is not a frill that can be lightly dropped to avoid offending bishops. Coverage for contraception should be a pillar of our public health policy — and, it seems to me, of any faith-based effort to be our brother’s keeper, or our sister’s.

To understand the centrality of birth control, consider that every dollar that the United States government spends on family planning reduces Medicaid expenditures by $3.74, according to Guttmacher. Likewise, the National Business Group on Health estimated that it costs employers at least an extra 15 percent if they don’t cover contraception in their health plans.

And of course birth control isn’t just a women’s issue: men can use contraceptives too, and unwanted pregnancies affect not only mothers but also fathers.

This is the backdrop for the uproar over President Obama’s requirement that Catholic universities and hospitals include birth control in their health insurance plans. On Friday, the White House backed off a bit — forging a compromise so that unwilling religious employers would not pay for contraception, while women would still get the coverage — but many administration critics weren’t mollified.

Look, there’s a genuine conflict here. Many religious believers were sincerely offended that Catholic institutions would have to provide coverage for health interventions that the church hierarchy opposed. That counts in my book: it’s best to avoid forcing people to do things that breach their ethical standards.

Then again, it’s not clear how many people actually are offended. A national survey found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use birth control at some point in their lives. Moreover, a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute reported that even among Catholics, 52 percent back the Obama policy: they believe that religiously affiliated universities and hospitals should be obliged to include birth control coverage in insurance plans.

So, does America’s national health policy really need to make a far-reaching exception for Catholic institutions when a majority of Catholics oppose that exception?

I wondered what other religiously affiliated organizations do in this situation. Christian Science traditionally opposed medical care. Does The Christian Science Monitor deny health insurance to employees?

“We offer a standard health insurance package,” John Yemma, the editor, told me.

That makes sense. After all, do we really want to make accommodations across the range of faith? What if organizations affiliated with Jehovah’s Witnesses insisted on health insurance that did not cover blood transfusions? What if ultraconservative Muslim or Jewish organizations objected to health care except at sex-segregated clinics?

The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can. But we ban polygamy, for example, even for the pious. Your freedom to believe does not always give you a freedom to act.

In this case, we should make a good-faith effort to avoid offending Catholic bishops who passionately oppose birth control. I’m glad that Obama sought a compromise. But let’s remember that there are also other interests at stake. If we have to choose between bishops’ sensibilities and women’s health, our national priority must be the female half of our population.

Background on Abortion for Trust Women Week

 

There will always be women who need access to abortions.
Abortion is basic health care for women.

  • 1 in 3 American women will have had an abortion by age 45.
  • About 50% of pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended.
  • 4 in 10 unintended pregnancies are terminated by abortion.
  • In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed in US.
  • Teen pregnancy accounts for only 2 in 10 of all abortions
    performed in the US.
  • Women in their twenties account for more than half of all
    abortions performed in the US.
  • 88% of abortions occur in the 1st 12 weeks. Only
    1.5% occur later in the term.
  • 6 in 10 women having abortions already have one or more
    children.
  • These women often cite the need to care for their children as a primary reason for choosing to have  an abortion.

Catholics support birth control and have abortions.

  Read More, click here

Westchester Magazine Perpetuates Rep Hayworth Deception

In response to Westchester Magazine’s June article  claiming Hayworth is pro-choice (click here to read)

Nan Hayworth is not pro-choice. Prior to her election, she expressed support for restricting Choice, and support for the Stupak Amendment. After her election she has voted against reproductive rights multiple times:

– She voted for the Pence bill to cut all funding to Planned Parenthood and all of their cancer screenings, STI testing, birth control and more even though she knows that no federal funds go to abortion now because of the Hyde Amendment;
– She voted to cut all Title X funding and thus the family planning services provided to approximately five million women and men;
– She voted to overturn the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The fact that she calls herself pro-choice would be baffling if we did not know she simply does it because the voters in her district (19 CD) would never have elected her if they had known she was anti-choice.

And another point, the Westchester Magazine article portrays Nan and her husband as this cute couple in a relationship where she goes to Washington and he stays home with the kids. The truth is that he is also a Washington player. He is Chair of the Board of Directors of the American Medical Group Association — a group that lobbies Congress, and thus his wife. I find the idea of a representative from our area being married to a lobbyist, voting on healthcare issues to be troubling.

Posted byJaney Lee, Board Member, WCLA-Choice Matters
(In Westchester County, WCLA-Choice Matters is the organization that actually does the homework to see if a candidate’s claim to be pro-choice is true or not. )

Republicans Vote Unanimously (along with 16 Dems) – Pass “Stupak on Steriods”

This week, ALL House Republicans, with the help of 16 Democrats, voted successfully to pass the greatest assault on women’s health to date—H.R. 3, the “Stupak on Steriods” bill .  It is a horrific expansion of government insertion in women’s health though mandates and tax penalties for families and small businesses which use private funds to buy insurance plans that include abortion coverage. House Republicans were unanimous in their assault on women.

Note: Nan Hayworth (R-19 CD) voted in support of this direct attack
on women. (Voters must remember that next Election Day!) (You can see a record of who voted how here.)
To Hear From Leaders who Believe in Women:
Click here to hear Congressman Engel’s (D-17 C.D.) and Congresswoman Lowey (D-18 C.D.) speak out in support of women and against H.R. 3.

H.R. 3 is actually an extreme attempt to eliminate access to and coverage of abortion services by: 1. Prohibiting federal and military employees from buying coverage (even with their own money); 2. Initiating rape audits if insurance is used to cover the procedure; 3. Limiting coverage of rape victims to only those who can prove forcible rape; 4. Allowing hospitals to watch women die if saving them means performing an abortion; and 5. Implementing financial barriers to cripple small businesses that offer employees health plans that include abortion coverage.

Only we–you and I–stand between Stupak on Steroids and the Senate. Click here to Support our Fight! We Must Fight Back with Everything We’ve Got!

In the Senate, extremist Republicans are already working to ensure H.R. 3 comes to the Senate floor.We, their constituents, must make our opposition to H.R.3 heard. CLICK HERE to contact your Senators. Tell them to oppose H.R. 3

New Yorkers:   To contact Senator Schumer:
Call 202-224-6542
To send him a message, click here.
To contact Senator Gillibrand:
Call (202) 224-4451
To send her a message, click here.

Congress Trades Away DC Women’s Reproductive Rights (sounds like a slavery-like deal to me)

To avoid a government shutdown, our Congressional representatives agreed to deprive Washington DC women of city monies to fund abortion. Had it not been for the DC mayor and certain city council reps, this atrocity would never have come to light.

When all reproductive rights’ eyes were on the funding of Title X and Planned Parenthood, Congress pulled a fast one.  They included in the budget agreement a prohibition of the use of City funds–not Federal funds–but DC’s own money to pay for abortion.

DC residents did not have a problem with this allocation of funds.  The clear majority of the population support their mayor and his budget that respects the needs of the poor.

Because DC has special standing as a non-state, Congress could do this. DC women were the proverbial sacrificial lamb.

Only because the Mayor Vincent Gray of DC and six City Council people including the Chair demonstrated and were arrested did this horrific agreement ever get the attention of the media.

As Gray said so well, “If this isn’t taxation without representation, I don’t know what is!”

Top 3 Reasons To Demand Rep Nan Hayworth Recuse Herself!

Rep Nan Hayworth’s Conflict of Interest

If you believe earmarks are bad because they use tax payer dollars to indirectly feed a Congressional representative’s campaign coffers and to generate votes, then you must believe congressional votes cast to directly fuel a congresswoman’s own personal bank account are horrifically bad…maybe even criminal.

That’s exactly what it seems newly elected Republican Rep Nan Hayworth (NY– 19 CD) is doing.

Hayworth is apparently voting in such a way, on specific issues, that directly benefits her own personal financial bottom line, and her husband’s career as the head of a major health care lobbying organization.

Let me explain: Every time Rep Nan Hayworth votes on any aspect of health care that is exactly what she is doing!

Why? Because:
Reason #1:      Nan Hayworth is a founding partner of the huge, thriving Mount Kisco Medical Group which is a 235-physician multispecialty medical group;

Reason #2:      Hayworth’s husband, Scott, is also a founding partner and President and Chief Executive Officer of the Mount Kisco Medical Group;

Reason #3:   Husband Scott is also the Chair of the Board of Directors of the American Medical Group Association, “AMGA’  (perhaps so named as to be easily confused with the AMA, the American Medical Association…) In other words, he is the head guy at a major lobbying organization that-surprise-lobbies on health care.

The American Medical Group Association provides “a comprehensive package of benefits, including political advocacy [code for lobbying],…”AMGA “promote[s] policymakers’ and lawmakers’ awareness…”

“Through our efforts, members are assured that their interests are represented before many audiences, including Congress and federal agencies, in addition to other healthcare organizations and interest groups.” These are direct quotations from the AMGA website, with italics added.

Translation: Nan Hayworth’s husband is the head lobbyist who has personal access to a congresswoman—his wife—on issues that directly benefit their/her pocketbook.

He’s not just making money for them as a lobbyist.
She—Rep Nan Hayworth—is making money for them personally each time…

***She votes for the Pence bill to cut all funding to Planned Parenthood and all of their cancer screenings, STI testing, birth control and more;

***She votes to cut all Title X funding and thus the family planning services provided to approximately five million women and men;

***She votes to overturn the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Those patients have to go somewhere…maybe to one of the more than 113,000 physicians who practice in AMGA member organizations or…to the Hayworth’s very own Mount Kisco Medical Group.

Hayworth keeps proving her husband’s power as a lobbyist and her ability as a founding partner to keep bringing money home, literally.

This must be illegal….no?

Myth Busters #2 Tell Joe DioGuardi Women DON’T Fake Rape and Incest

FACT: When in Congress, DioGuardi cast his vote against abortion rights every time he had a chance—including voting against abortions for women pregnant from rape or incest.

He explained, to a group of pro-choice lobbyists while in office, the number of real rapes and cases of incest were minimal.

DioGuardi opined, women cry rape and incest long after the fact.*
(hmmmm—he really doesn’t understand sexual trauma—wonder what he says about victims reporting sexual assault by religious leaders that occurred years ago.)

Joe DioGuardi was a two-term anti-choice incumbent when he lost to women’s reproductive rights advocate Congresswoman Nita Lowey in 1988. When he challenged Lowey again in 1992, DioGuardi took the Right to Life line.

Today DioGuardi is again endorsed by the Right to Life Committee.
He has become more conservative over time, not less.

Now he is running against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand—and there is no stronger advocate in the Senate for women than Kirsten.

Tell DioGuardi New York women have no use for recycled Right to Life extremists!

*WCLA – Choice Matters has wonderful archives, and we have substantial files on Joseph (Joe) DioGuardi, past and present.