Tag: contraception

The Practices of Anti-Choice Crisis Centers Aren’t Just Misleading, They’re Unconstitutional

The Practices of Anti-Choice Crisis Centers Aren’t Just Misleading, They’re Unconstitutional

The existence of anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers that disguise themselves as real clinics is already deeply unsettling. However, a recent Rewire article sheds light on something even more appalling: some of these centers in North Carolina are using federal money to buy programs that spread misinformation about abortion and promote Christianity.[1]

The program in question is the “Earn While You Learn” program, which is comprised of a series of videos that claims to educate women on reproductive health, but actually spreads false information about abortion, postpartum depression, and pregnancy as a whole.

As a reward for watching these videos and completing worksheets over them, women can earn essentials for childcare, such as diapers and car seats. Not only is this blatantly incentivizing women to avoid exercising their right to obtain an abortion, it is also disparaging of lower income women. Dinah Monahan, the founder of the program, described her motivation to start the program as being to counteract “entitlement culture.”[2] She blames lower income women for their struggles to obtain materials necessary for childcare and claims that they have grown up manipulating the system. Her program, in her mind, is an effort to correct this behavior— and also to “share Christ”. Women involved in the program have said that they are able to earn points to redeem on diapers and other essentials by attending Bible study and church services.[3] This goes well beyond using federal funding to promote religiously biased videos. This amounts to federal funding being used to promote Christianity to women in crisis. This type of activity tramples on the Constitution’s guarantee of a separation of church and state. Unfortunately, this is truly a snowball rolling down hill. Under Trump and the present Senate and House leadership, every day leads to ever-greater destruction of women’s civil rights. The more organizations like these crisis pregnancy centers are able to get away with, the greater the risk to unfettered access to reproductive health care.

[1] Littlefield, A. (2018, May 03). Anti-Choice Centers in North Carolina Use Federal Funds to Buy Programs Crafted to ‘Share Christ’. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://rewire.news/article/2018/04/26/anti-choice-centers-north-carolina-used-federal-funds-buy-programs-crafted-share-christ/

[2] Littlefield, A. (2018, May 03). Anti-Choice Centers in North Carolina Use Federal Funds to Buy Programs Crafted to ‘Share Christ’. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://rewire.news/article/2018/04/26/anti-choice-centers-north-carolina-used-federal-funds-buy-programs-crafted-share-christ/

[3]Littlefield, A. (2018, May 03). Anti-Choice Centers in North Carolina Use Federal Funds to Buy Programs Crafted to ‘Share Christ’. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://rewire.news/article/2018/04/26/anti-choice-centers-north-carolina-used-federal-funds-buy-programs-crafted-share-christ/

Choice vs Conscience [sic]: The Struggle for Contraception in Rural America

Choice vs Conscience [sic]: The Struggle for Contraception in Rural America

At a time when reproductive rights feel are constantly under attack, it is especially discouraging to find that access to reproductive health care— contraceptive care in particular— is being inhibited even in progressive states. A recent article from Rewire exposes the struggles that women in California face when attempting to obtain contraception.

Although California is often lauded as a progressive oasis, women in rural parts of the state often face the same sort of shaming that their counterparts in more conservative areas— such as the south or the midwest— tend to face.

Despite the fact that California has no laws that protect “provider conscience,” [sic] doctors in rural areas still shame their patients about their decision to use contraceptives. This shaming occurs regardless of marital status to  both married and unmarried women alike but for different reasons. In turn, but both groups face the barrier to care in that their options are severely limited. In many of these rural areas, there is only one or possibly two obstetricians and/or gynecologists in town— and everybody knows everybody.[1] If the two doctors that are in the area refuse to provide contraceptive care, these women have nowhere to turn without traveling hours to see a doctor in another town or to reach their nearest Planned Parenthood.

Even more tragic is the fact that this situation will likely get worse rather than better if the Trump administration has its way. As of January, the Administration proposed new legislation that would allow for further denial of care based on the “conscience” of the provider.[2] This is simply intolerable. The doctor’s office is the last place where women’s access to safe, legal, and affordable reproductive health care should be impeded by the “conscience” [sic] of others. The religious beliefs or political ideologies of a health care provider should never be a valid excuse to shame patients, misinform them, or deny them the care they need. Doctors are supposed to be in the profession of healing and are supposed to be committed to not doing harm to their patients. Misinforming women about reproductive health care does nothing but harm, and so is in direct conflict with the mission of health care providers. If doctors are allowed to deny their patients access to necessary reproductive care under the guise of religious and moral freedom, the integrity of the entire profession will be undermined.

[1] Jercich, K. (2018, April 04). Even in ‘Progressive’ States, Doctors Can Still Shame Women Out of Accessing Birth Control. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://rewire.news/article/2018/04/04/even-progressive-states-doctors-can-still-shame-women-accessing-birth-control/

[2] Jercich, K. (2018, April 04). Even in ‘Progressive’ States, Doctors Can Still Shame Women Out of Accessing Birth Control. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://rewire.news/article/2018/04/04/even-progressive-states-doctors-can-still-shame-women-accessing-birth-control/

Do They Really Think They Can Fool Women?

Candidates’ OTC Birth Control Plans are a Raw Deal

This election season, many candidates, particularly Republicans, from Virginia to Colorado, are trying to run from their war on women voting records by coming out in support of over-the-counter (OTC) birth control. Make no mistake, they are targeting middle and low income women – people who would not vote for them anyway!

Their proposal might seem like they suddenly understand the need for increasing contraceptive access, but don’t be fooled!

These candidates just want women to pay for the full cost of their birth control, with no help from insurance coverage.These candidates are helping insurance companies, not women. (Note, they are not suggesting doing away with insurance coverage for Viagra.)

These candidates aren’t supporting women’s reproductive health — they’re attacking it.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), out-of-pocket costs prevent many women from consistently accessing birth control, and the most effective – and most expensive – methods, such as the intrauterine device (IUD), always require a visit to a health care provider. (So what about a doctor’s visit is OTC?)

Just to make this point even clearer, not one birth control manufacturer has sought FDA approval for OTC birth control — so these so-called improvements would result in middle and low income earning women being without contraceptive access because they can’t afford it!

This OTC proposal comes from the same candidates who have pushed to restrict access to comprehensive reproductive health care. These same politicians have placed repealing the Affordable Care Act which would cover contraception as preventative care and cutting back on public clinic funding at the top of their agendas. These candidates want: NO preventative care coverage for annual exams, Pap smears, or contraception. 

OTC contraception has a place in efforts to expand reproductive choice. People need access to services like emergency contraception on demand. But putting birth control in front of the counter is only the first step to ensuring comprehensive access. Women need policy makers who support a full spectrum of reproductive health decisions. Instead of doing away with insurance coverage for contraceptives, we need to expand it to cover Plan B, a very expensive OTC emergency contraceptive.

Women, don’t be fooled. Don’t let these candidates stick women with the bill!

by Olivia Cappello

 

Breaking: Choice Matters & AG Schneiderman First to Respond

New York is the first state in the nation to take action in response to the U. S. Supreme Court’s divisive Hobby Lobby decision.

Today, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that he together with State Senate Democratic Conference Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Assemblywoman Shelley Mayer would propose legislation in Albany that would help to shield New York women from the effect of the Court’s decision.

The legislation to be proposed is the brainchild of WCLA – Choice Matters.  We are incredibly proud that our idea is now the Reproductive Rights Disclosure Act.

Immediately following the June 30th Hobby Lobby decision, Choice Matters approached Attorney General Schneiderman’s office with a simple straight-forward idea: Create legislation that requires employers to disclose whether or not they provide contraceptive coverage, and if they change the coverage, require that the company disclose the change.

We cannot change the Hobby Lobby decision right now, but we can make sure New York women know what they are getting into when seeking employment, or if their employer changes its policy.

Click here and read more about the Reproductive Rights Disclosure Act.

IMG_8884

GOP’s top candidates fail women

The Republicans’ top two candidates, for governor and attorney general, are anti-choice candidates who have shown true disdain for the well-being of New York women. No longer is the standard bearer for the Republican Party pro-choice governor Nelson Rockefeller, who signed New York’s abortion-rights bill into law. Instead, today’s New York Republican Party has sought out extreme anti-choice politicians to run.

Their gubernatorial candidate, Rob Astorino, has made his anti-choice position a cornerstone of his campaign. He promises to do to the state what he has done to Westchester County. That means vetoing legislation guaranteeing women safe access to reproductive health care, eliminating funding for health centers, gutting funding for sex education and more. If elected governor, he would be able to do unimaginable budgetary and legal damage to women.

Astorino and John Cahill, the Republican candidate for New York attorney general, have taken aim at the Women’s Equality Act. This act is a 10-point plan that ensures women are treated fairly in the workplace, helps protect survivors of domestic violence and preserves access to reproductive health care. Calling the reproductive health component of the act “ghastly” and “hideous,” Astorino has declared he will “guarantee” never to sign it into law. Cahill, the candidate whose legal mind the public is supposed to trust, dismisses it as unnecessary.

The truth is that New York’s current laws do not give women the full constitutionally recognized protection of Roe v. Wade and do not incorporate the medical advances that have been made in reproductive health over the past 44 years. New York women deserve reproductive legislation that does both, and the vast majority of New Yorkers want the reproductive component of the Women’s Equality Act enacted into law. But Astorino and Cahill don’t, and so they work to mislead the public about the Women’s Equality Act and the status of New York’s abortion rights.

In recent years, anti-abortion forces have chipped away at that constitutionally protected right state by state, driving women’s clinics out of operation and making it impossible for many women to obtain reproductive health services of all types – including contraception and abortion. In New York, 53 percent of our counties have no abortion clinics, and every year anti-choice bills, like the defunding of Planned Parenthood, must be beaten back in Albany.

It’s easy to say the denial of women’s health services couldn’t happen in New York. But unless the rights guaranteed by Roe are codified in state law, New York women will remain vulnerable to attacks from anti-abortion extremists – and Cahill has a history of undermining the right to choose.

Despite not holding public office, Cahill has an anti-choice record. He was Gov. George Pataki’s chief of staff and stood with his administration as it promoted policies that denied New York women access to reproductive health services and empowered abortion opponents. His administration also vetoed expansion of access to emergency contraception and denied reproductive health care to thousands of women by contracting with health maintenance organizations that refused to provide these essential services. This practice was not disclosed to women before they enrolled – imposing an undue burden by forcing them to find out-of-network providers after the fact.

Astorino and Cahill pose a sharp contrast to Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Cuomo has always stood strong as an advocate of women’s reproductive rights in theory and in reality, as seen in all 10 points of the Women’s Equality Act. Schneiderman’s record of advocating for women is legendary, both as a state senator and now as attorney general. As a senator, he led the effort to pass the Clinic Anti-Violence Act to protect abortion clinic workers, doctors and patients from violence and harassment – a bill that Astorino would have vetoed. It was signed into law in 1999, and was the first piece of pro-choice legislation enacted in New York in more than a decade.

Voters need to know that these four candidates are diametrically opposed when it comes to women’s rights. The fact that Astorino and Cahill do not care about what is in the best interest of 51 percent of the state population means they do not deserve to hold office in New York.

The writer is president of Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion – Choice Matters.

You Can’t Have It Both Ways!

Sorry, Mitt, Corporations are NOT People!

Last week, the Supreme Court heard Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

This case pits corporations against women’s health care.
â–ªThe Affordable Care Act requires health insurance plans to cover contraceptives without additional cost-sharing; and
▪Hobby Lobby, Inc. (HL) does not want to comply. It is claiming that the requirement to cover contraceptives violates its “personal” religious beliefs.

But HL is a corporation, an “it”, a thing, not a person. And the founder of HL, David Green, made the decision to make HL an “it” years ago. Corporations do not have a gender, or personal identity, or religion.

That is what makes this lawsuit so completely outrageous.
A corporation is an independent legal entity owned by shareholders. This means that the corporation itself, not its shareholders, is held legally liable for the actions and debts the business incurs. When an individual or group of individuals chooses to incorporate a business, it is because that individual or group wishes to be shielded from personal liability and to realize significant tax benefits. HL and David Green have been reaping the benefits of HL being a corporation for over 41 years.

When David Green decided to incorporate HL in 1972, making it a corporation, he accepted the trade off.  Becoming a corporation limited Green’s personal liability, but it also technically made him no longer the owner. The corporation and the individual were no longer synonymous.

Officially and technically, Green became a shareholder. That means that if something bad happens – for example a child suffers lead poisoning as a result of an HL-sold craft – HL would be sued, not David Green. Green’s personal property would not be at risk.

Furthermore, all corporations enjoy great tax benefits, including the shareholders of closely-held ones, like HL. (A closely-held corporation is one in which there is only a limited number of shareholders.)

Shareholder Green and HL should be told they can’t have it both ways. And if Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to provide contraceptive coverage, the corporation should pay the fine!

The truly frightening thing is that HL could win because we have pro-corporation justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts has already tried to distinguish between the rights of corporations and closely-held corporations. Huge corporations such as Dell and Heinz are also closely-held corporations. HL grossed more than $3 billion last year and has 14,000 full time employees working in more than 600 stores. If it walks like duck, and quacks like a duck…

Eden Foods Doesn’t Want to Pay for Employees’ BC

Special Thanks to Nita, Shaunna, Kat, Malinda, and Karin, the UltraViolet team!
Sign the Petition at the Bottom!
The Boycott is having an affect.

“Soy milk. Organic beans. Gluten-free pasta. A radical agenda to ban birth control coverage for their employees.

Eden Foods is one of the country’s major organic foods companies, and their products can be purchased at Whole Foods, local markets, and coops across the country. They claim they stand for “purity in food,” and now, they also stand for a right-wing crusade against birth control. The company is suing the Obama Administration over the rule that insurance companies must cover birth control under the new healthcare law. Why? Because as CEO Michael Potter put it, they believe that “these procedures [birth control] almost always involve immoral and unnatural practices.”1

That’s right. Because Eden Foods’s CEO is ideologically opposed to birth control, the company thinks they have the right to dictate to all their employees what health care they will have access to. That doesn’t just affect their employees. It’s a dangerous precedent that they are asking the court to set for all workers going forward. But progressive-minded people make up a huge portion of Eden’s customers–people who are likely to think that a boss shouldn’t be dictating their employees’ private health care decisions. And the CEO has already said “we’re getting a lot of feedback” and that the push back against them on social media “is a big deal.”2

Employers have no right to interfere with the reproductive health care of their female employees. If we all speak out now to add to the outrage, we can show Eden Foods and other businesses that are watching the controversy that their lawsuit is bad for publicity and bad for their bottom line.

Sign the petition to Eden Foods’s CEO, Michael Potter.

Making sure employees’ health insurance covers birth control matters:

  • 1 in 3 women has had trouble affording birth control.3
  • Women who had better access to the pill earned 8% more than those who didn’t by the time they were 50.4
  • Young women who can obtain the pill are 12% more likely to enroll in college.5
  • 99% of women who’ve had sex have used birth control.6

Michael Potter and Eden Foods are spreading lies, like claiming that certain companies are already exempted from the birth control mandate and that some religions are exempted and others aren’t.7 Neither of these is true. The truth is, only houses of worship are exempt, and religiously affiliated organizations like hospitals and schools can push the cost of birth control coverage onto the insurer.8

And Potter’s reason for suing? “Because I’m a man, number one and it’s really none of my business what women do.”9 But by entering this lawsuit, Potter is making it not just his business but every other employer in America’s business what kind of health care their female employees get.

Employers can’t flout laws just because they don’t like them. Allowing employers to dictate whether or not their employees have access to birth control is wrong and un-American.

We need to let Eden Foods and their CEO, Michael Potter, know that trying to deny their employees basic health care like birth control is bad for business. Sign the petition to Potter right away.”

Add your name.

Thanks for speaking out,

Nita, Shaunna, Kat, Malinda, and Karin, the UltraViolet team

Sources:
1. Eden Foods doubles down in birth control flap, Salon, April 15, 2013

2. Ibid.

3. Survey: Nearly Three in Four Voters in America Support Fully Covering Prescription Birth Control, Planned Parenthood, October 12, 2010

4. Women Who Took the Pill Had an 8 Percent Higher Income by Age 50, Yahoo! News, March 6, 2012

5. The Social and Economic Benefits of Women’s Ability to Determine Whether and When to Have Children, Guttmacher Institute, March 2013

6. Women Who Use Birth Control Are the 99 Percent, Mother Jones, February 10, 2012

7.Statement from the President of Eden Foods, Eden Foods, April 17, 2013

8. Contraception Mandate Clarified To Accommodate Religious Groups, Obama Administration Announces, Huffington Post, February 25, 2013

9. Eden Foods doubles down in birth control flap, Salon, April 15, 2013

2. Ibid.

Westchester County Board Passes Paul Ryan’s Budget

Westchester County Board Passes Paul Ryan’s Budget
–Line items may be different but the effect is the same—

Protect the top 2% while trampling on the middle class and working poor, with a bull’s eye being placed squarely on the foreheads of working women.

One week ago, anti-choice County Executive Astorino with the support of nine minions passed a 2013 County budget.

This budget illustrates yet again the true meaning of the right-to-life agenda: care about the fetus when it’s in the womb, and the minute it’s born, it’s on its own. The cuts to Westchester’s public health care and childcare systems are of historic proportion, targeting the most vulnerable and least able to fight back among us.

Four of Choice Matters’ previously endorsed legislators voted with Astorino in support of his anti-woman anti-family budget. By supporting this horrific budget, these four legislators – Virginia Perez (17 CLD), Mike Kaplowitz (4 CLD), Jim Maisano (11 CLD), and Bernice Spreckman (14 CLD) – have publically declared their support for the County Executive’s priorities and his War on Women and our Families.

This is not hyperbole. Their votes to pass the budget rather than to fight for their constituents will have devastating affects on working women and their families.

– Astorino’s Priorities, and those of his minions who voted in support of the budget –

►Astorino clearly thinks protecting your friends and fans’ employment is more important than the good of the County.
Astorino has preserved 56 patronage jobs, at a cost of $5.4 million dollars to tax payers; and he is holding 44 positions vacant should he wish to fill them within the coming year,

while at the same time:
â–ºHe has cut 100 important jobs that serve the residents of Westchester.
Over half of these jobs are in social services, such as social workers and eligibility examiners who help those applying for assistance. The result is that the time between applying, receiving approval, and then actually getting the services, such as food stamps, aid to dependent children, public assistance, etc., will grow exponentially. And, as we all know after the past 5 years, the number of people needing help just simply to feed their families has grown at an unimaginable rate.

The other half of the jobs cut include probation personnel, paralegals, and over 80% of the engineering and architectural staff who are essential to overseeing infrastructure improvements—that means bridges, roadways, waterways, parks, anything and everything.

►Astorino, with the support of Perez, Kaplowitz, Maisano and Speckman, cut $3 million dollars in County funding to three neighborhood health centers. Let’s remember who uses the health centers. It is not Astorino and his cronies. It is the ever-growing number of working poor who cannot, just because funding is cut, go somewhere else. Many women rely on these clinics for contraceptives, pap smears, and cancer screenings, among other things. Their children go for check-ups, immunizations, and so much more.

This cut to neighborhood health centers is clearly a politically motivated action by a man who has done nothing to prepare the County for the implementation of the Affordable Care Act which starts to take effect here in Westchester in 2013.

Astorino’s attack on our health care is driven by ideology. Astorino opposes abortion even in cases of rape, incest or to save a woman’s life, and vetoed a law which would have provided women the most basic of rights – safe access to reproductive health facilities.

He opposes the Affordable Care Act and is against recognizing contraceptives as part of preventative care.

By supporting this Paul Ryan-like budget, Virginia Perez and Mike Kaplowitz, as well as Jim Maisano and Bernice Spreckman, have aligned themselves with Astorino’s ideological war on women and our families.

â–ºAstorino, with their support, cut funding for childcare programs that would have enabled women to work. The budget raised the family share for subsidized childcare to unaffordable levels.

The Astorino budget caps the number of Westchester kids ever to be allowed to be served by the Title XX program at a level reached last spring. Title XX is program that helps people earning less than the poverty level to have access to childcare funding. (As I said, Astorino is anti-abortion and anti-child, especially if they are the children of the working poor!)

This nightmarish budget also cut all funding to a program that has provided technical assistance to childcare providers and visits to legally exempt providers so there would be some reliable quality of services. Basically, this program has made facilities safer, and because of this administration, it can’t anymore!

â–ºAstorino, with the support of Perez, Kaplowitz, Maisano and Spreckman, cut all the funding to the Food Patch ($72,000) and to the Food Pantry ($72,000).

Women now won’t be able to work because of having no childcare; we won’t be able to access health care in real time; and we won’t be able to feed our families with the help from the pantries which we will now need more than ever because we can’t work without childcare.

This is the ideological agenda that Virginia Perez, Mike Kaplowitz, Jim Maisano and Bernice Spreckman support.

It is time to hold our legislators accountable. All of the County legislators and the County Executive are up for election in 2013. Let’s remind Perez, Kaplowitz, Maisano, and Spreckman that we do not vote for traitors!

Choice Matters 2012 Endorsements Are….

2012 Endorsements
(As of September 14, 2012, WCLA – Choice Matters has announced the following endorsements for the 2012 election cycle.)

Endorsed Candidates Appear in BOLD .

U.S. PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT
►BARACK OBAMA/JOE BIDEN 
Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan (anti-choice)
Gary Johnson/James P. Gray (anti-choice)
Virgil Goode/Jim Clymer (anti-choice)

U.S. SENATOR
►KIRSTEN E GILLIBRAND  
Wendy Long (anti-choice)

(Please note that the following are the new districts which are the result of redistricting.)
U.S. House of Representatives
â–ºDistrict 16 – Westchester County: Eastchester, parts of Greenburgh, Mamaroneck, Mt. Vernon, New Rochelle, Pelham, City of Rye, Scarsdale; plus parts of the Bronx.
â–ºELIOT ENGEL
Joseph Mclaughlin (anti-choice)
JOSEPH DIAFERIA  (pro-choice)

â–ºDistrict 17 – Westchester County: Cortlandt, parts of Greenburgh, Harrison, City of Mount Kisco, Mt. Pleasant, New Castle, No. Castle, Ossining, Peekskill, Rye Town, parts of Yorktown; plus Rockland County.
â–ºNITA LOWEY
Joe Carvin (anti-choice)

â–ºDistrict 18 – Westchester County: Bedford, Lewisboro, parts of New Castle, parts of North Castle, North Salem, Pound Ridge, parts of Yorktown; plus Beacon, East Fishkill, Fishkill, Poughkeepsie (city & town),  Wappinger in Dutchess County; plus Putnam and Orange Counties.
â–ºSEAN PATRICK MALONEY
Nan Hayworth (anti-choice)

NEW YORK STATE SENATE
â–ºDistrict 34 – Westchester County: Pelham; plus parts of the Bronx.
â–ºJEFF KLEIN
Elizabeth Perri (anti-choice)
CARL LUNDGREN (pro-choice)

â–ºDistrict 35 – Westchester County: Greenburgh, Scarsdale, parts of New Rochelle, of White Plains and  of Yonkers.
â–ºANDREA STEWART-COUSINS

â–ºDistrict 36- Westchester County: Mt. Vernon; plus parts of the Bronx.
â–ºRUTH HASSELL-THOMPSON
Robert l. Diamond (anti-choice)

â–ºDistrict 37- Westchester County: Bedford, Eastchester, Harrison, Mamaroneck, No. Castle, Rye (city & town), parts of White Plains and Yonkers.
â–ºGEORGE LATIMER
Bob Cohen (anti-choice)

â–ºDistrict 38- Westchester County: Ossining; plus Clarkstown, Orangetown, Ramapo in Rockland County.
â–ºDAVID CARLUCCI
Janis A. Castaldi (anti-choice)

â–ºDistrict 40- Westchester County: Cortlandt, Lewisboro, Mt. Pleasant, New Castle, No. Salem, Pound Ridge, Yorktown; plus Beekman, Carmel, Patterson, Pawling,Southeast in Putnam County.
â–ºJUSTIN WAGNER
Greg Ball (anti-choice)

NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY
►District 88- Westchester County: Eastchester, parts of New Rochelle, Pelham, Scarsdale, parts of  White Plains.
â–ºAMY PAULIN

â–ºDistrict 89- Westchester County: Mt. Vernon, parts of Yonkers.
â–ºJ. GARY PRETLOW

►District 90- Westchester County: parts of  Yonkers.
â–ºSHELLEY MAYER

â–ºDistrict 91- Westchester County: Mamaroneck, parts of New Rochelle, Rye (city & Town.)
â–ºSTEVE OTIS
William Villanova (anti-choice)

â–ºDistrict 92- Westchester County: Greenburgh, Mt Pleasant, parts of Yonkers.
â–ºTOM ABINANTI

â–ºDistrict 93- Westchester County: Bedford, Harrison, Lewisboro, Mt. Kisco, New Castle, No. Castle, No. Salem, parts of White Plains.
â–ºDAVID BUCHWALD
Bob Castelli (anti-choice)

â–ºDistrict 94- Westchester County: Somers, Yorkstown; plus Putnam Valley, Carmel, Southeast, Patterson in Putnam County.
â–ºANDREW FALK
Stephen Katz (anti-choice)

â–ºDistrict 95- Westchester County:Cortlandt, Ossining, Peekskill; plus Phillipstown, Kent in Putnam County.
â–ºSANDRA GALEF
Kim Izzarelli (anti-choice)

WESTCHESTER COUNTY COURT JUDGE
â–ºDAVID S. ZUCKERMAN
Matthew J. Troy lll  (anti-choice)

NYS SUPREME COURT JUDGES
endorsements to be announced week of 9/24/2012

Clinic Access Bill Passes, But For How Long?

The Good News:
The Clinic Access Bill Passed

The Bad News:
Two Legislators Betrayed Us!

Let me start by saying thank you to those who came out. Because you were there, you gave force and conviction to our words.
The great news is that we won. The vote by our legislators on the Reproductive Health Care Access Bill, which came one week after the Public Hearing, was 10-7 our way.

Ten legislators voted to pass our bill which guarantees safe access for women to enter and exit reproductive health clinics while protecting First Amendment Rights to free speech.  This was a great victory. It has taken us more than 14 years to get this far.

Unfortunately, the bad news is that  our success will be short lived because the County Executive who is an anti-choice extremist will veto this bill.

-And because last November two pro-choice elected officials were replaced by anti-choice right-to-life zealots, we lost two important override votes.

-And, most importantly, because we have two turncoats in our midst, we will not be able to override the anti-woman County Executive’s veto.

Most disturbing to me in this is that these two turncoat opportunists –Jim Maisano and Bernice Spreckman — who would have given us our super-majority override against the County Executive’s veto, voted against protecting the women of Westchester.

Instead, turncoats Maisano and Spreckman decided to launch their own personal war on women in order to further their own political and personal agendas.

Maisano stated to pro-choice advocates that he had to choose between the women of Westchester and the Conservative Party endorsement.

Maisano chose the Conservative Party.

(Conservative Party Chairman Fox, who also works for County Excutive Rob Astorino on tax payer dollars, sat right in front of Maisano to cement the deal.)

To Maisano, the Conservative party is more important than the health care of, according to the census, 51.6% of Westchester’s population.

More precisely, Maisano does not care about the health care of young women and those who cannot afford a private doctor.

Maisano only cares about his own political career, and has concocted a list of fabricated arguments to explain why he did not vote for the bill. All of his arguments have been refuted by great legal minds who do not have a political agenda.

Bernice Spreckman’s reason for betraying the trust of Westchester’s women is different.
Spreckman’s son apparently now works for County Excutive Rob Astorino. This is Spreckman’s own form of job security. She knows that Astorino is an anti-choice extremist, so she decided to look out for her son and turn her back on the women of Westchester.
Some think that it is wrong that I tell you that – somehow family facts are to be kept private. I do not agree. When the facts affect an elected official’s abiltiy to make sound decisions that impact the of 51.6% of the population then I believe the public deserves to know.

Fact: Jim Maisano and Bernice Spreckman sought our endorsement for more than a dozen years, and received it.

Fact: They used our endorsement to get elected.

Fact: After all those endorsements, this was the first time that we sought their vote and their voice – as their two votes are critical.

Fact: NOW when their vote counts, they voted NO!

Fact: For political expediency, they  turned their backs on all of us who voted for them, slamming the clinic door in our faces.

At this juncture we must tell Jim Maisano and Bernice Spreckman we will not tolerate their empty words and empty promises.

Our endorsement and our votes do matter and we will not be used again.