Tag: women

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.

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.

President Obama, Contraception & the First Amendment

“Under intense pressure from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, President Obama today said that the White House would not back down from its guarantee that insurance companies must cover contraception without co-pays.  Instead, the President announced that it would adjust the policy so that women who work for religiously-affiliated employers like Catholic hospitals can receive contraceptive coverage at no additional cost directly from their insurance companies, rather than from their employers.

Women asked the President to stand with us, and he did.  This policy protects women’s access to critical preventive health services without adding new charges.

While the policy already included an exemption for churches and houses of worship, Catholic hospitals and other religiously affiliated employers have lobbied for more.  The Bishops have made clear that they will oppose any policy that gives women insurance coverage for contraception, but Sister Carol Keehan, President of the Catholic Health Association, has been quoted in news reports saying that she supports the policy described today by the President.  Keehan is also a supporter of the overarching health reform law, the Affordable Care Act, and her support was critical to Congressional passage of the law in 2010, despite the bishops’ objections.” (Thank you,  Raising Women’s Voices)

The Right-Wing Opposition Has Already Launched an Attack
Already the anti-contraception fanatics are hard at work trying to overturn the entire contraceptive coverage policy. Anti-choice extremist Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) is tying all contraceptive coverage to a transportation bill, which the Senate could vote on at any time. Blunt’s approach is to say the very least, blunt…and extreme.

Blunt wants Congress to totally eliminate President Obama’s guarantee of access to affordable birth control. Instead, Blunt wants any employer or any health plan to be able to refuse coverage of birth control.
Call your Senators and tell them to oppose the Blunt Amendment!

An Interesting Piece of Information from The New York Times
Catholic Institutions Reluctantly Comply With N.Y. Law on Contraceptives Coverage
By Joseph Berger Published: February 10, 2012

Although Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York has been leading the national fight against requiring Roman Catholic hospitals, universities and charities to cover birth control in their health insurance plans for employees and students, some Catholic institutions in his own diocese and others throughout New York State have for 10 years been complying with state law mandating precisely that coverage.

The state began requiring contraception coverage in 2002, and Catholic institutions, after losing a court battle over the issue, have followed the law. Historically Catholic institutions like Fordham University, which is run by a lay board of trustees in the tradition of the Jesuit religious order, provide contraception coverage for employees and students.

Fordham, which has 15,000 undergraduate and graduate students, seeks to comply with Catholic teaching by barring its student health center from prescribing or dispensing birth control pills unless they are used for such conditions as severe acne or endometriosis, according to Bob Howe, Fordham’s director of communications. Students who seek birth control pills to prevent pregnancies must obtain prescriptions from a private doctor or a service like Planned Parenthood, and the college’s insurance carrier will then cover the pills under its standard reimbursement schedule.

“We currently follow New York State law,” Mr. Howe said. “For employees and students, we provide insurance coverage that includes contraception. That’s the law.”

New York is one of the 28 states that require insurance companies to cover contraception. According to the White House, Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemptions from that requirement, while California, New York and North Carolina have limited religious exemptions, identical to the limited exemptions the Obama Administration proposed to put in place nationally.

Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, referred questions about the archdiocese’s practices to Dennis Poust, a spokesman for the New York State Catholic Conference, who did not immediately return a call. But Mr. Poust was quoted in The Buffalo News as saying of the state’s requirement: “In many cases, there was no other choice but to comply under protest. None of it is voluntary. It is all under duress.”

There are no longer any Catholic hospitals in New York City; St. Vincent’s in Greenwich Village closed in 2010, and Mary Immaculate Hospital in Jamaica, Queens, closed in 2009. A spokesman for Catholic Health Services of Long Island, which administers six hospitals, including St. Francis in Roslyn and Good Samaritan in West Islip,  said, “It is the policy of Catholic Health Services not to comment on political issues.”

Representatives of several other Catholic institutions in the region seemed leery about discussing how their insurance plans operated.

“The college’s institutional policies and practices are consistent with Catholic teaching,” said  Lenore Carpinelli, director of college relations for the College of New Rochelle, which was founded in Westchester County in 1904 by the Ursuline Sisters as the first college in the state for Catholic women. “We will be reviewing and evaluating the new regulations respectful of our commitment to our Ursuline Catholic mission and identity.”

Choice Matters’ 2011 Chicken of the Year Award

Choice Matters’ 2011 Chicken of the Year Award Goes to
The Gang of Six
—Democratic County Legislator John Nonna and five of his fellow Democratic Legislators—for sitting down when they should have stood up!

After months of discussion, review, and dissection, the Clinic Access Bill—that would ensure women safe access to reproductive health centers—was voted out of Committee and sent to the Westchester County Board of Legislators for a vote.

All that was expected of the legislators was a vote.  A simple up or down vote.  Vote “YES” and we know that you stand with the women of Westchester; vote “N0” and we know you are against us. Really, that simple.

The Gang of Six had the opportunity to join with other Democratic and Republican legislators to vote to protect the safety of women entering and exiting reproductive health centers.  But, they chickened out.

What did this Democratic Gang of Six do instead? After three long hours of a Public Hearing, primarily by people who believe the fetus is more important than the woman and who have clearly never heard of the separation of Church and State, John Nonna – with his gang’s support —recommitted the Bill. To recommit is basically a procedural move used to avoid a vote.  The Bill is sent back to Committee where it can easily be allowed to “die”, perhaps never seeing the light of day again.  It is “again” because the last time that happened was more than a decade ago!!!

Make no mistake about it—this move by The Gang of Six to avoid a public vote was as much an anti-choice vote as any taken in Congress. The Gang of Six denied Westchester’s women safe passage to accessing our constitutionally recognized rights to reproductive health care.

And the women of Westchester know The Gang of Six voted against women and are anti-choice. Since our last email we have received innumerable calls demanding to know when these Democrats became anti-choice–And by the way, that’s the way we see it too.

This Gang of Democrats has made a very poor calculation and unwise decision. This Gang thinks we will not broadcast their actions because they are Democrats.

WRONG!
Choice Matters is a non-partisan organization and very proud of that fact. We hold all candidates and elected officials accountable, regardless of party affiliation and will continue to do so.

When the Republican-led House of Representatives passed legislation to let women die on a hospital floor rather than perform an abortion procedure that would save her life, we told you how many Republicans and Democrats voted in support of this anti-woman legislation.

Choice Matters will not protect legislators who turn their back on a woman’s right to choose.

What you should know about The Gang of Six: 1). Each of these six legislators had previously committed to supporting clinic access legislation; 2). Each of these legislators is male and a Democrat; and 3). Three of these legislators were not re-elected.

We Challenge You,
Westchester County Board of Legislators!
There is a majority of County Legislators who claim to be pro-choice. If they are truly pro-choice, they must bring this legislation to the floor for a vote immediately.

We will then see who stands with us, and who stands against us.

If they do not bring it to the floor, or they voted against it, we will find candidates to challenge these legislators. We have no use for empty suits!

More than a decade ago, Senator Andrea Stewart Cousins and Assemblyman Tom Abinanti, then County Legislators, fought to ensure that women had safe access to women’s reproductive health centers. Unfortunately, they were not successful.

It took us more than ten years to get to this point, and our “leaders” ignored us, turning back the clock.  No one can blame the Right-to-Life County Executive.  It didn’t even get to his desk!

For the record, 1. The Bill was carefully reviewed to make sure that it was 100% in compliance with First Amendment rights – for all parties involved; and, 2. There is no other law–not state or federal–that presently protects Westchester’s women’s safety as they enter health centers.

We are putting you on notice,
County Legislators:
Stand up for the women of Westchester, or get replaced!!

Join Us – Rally For Women’s Health! – Feb 26th – Foley Square

RALLY
For
WOMEN’S HEALTH & RIGHTS!

JOIN WITH WOMEN
FROM ACROSS THE STATE

AND MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD!

Saturday, February 26th Foley Square

(Across from the Court House in Lower Manhattan,
between Lafayette St. & Centre St.
New York, NY 10007)

1-3pm

Directions: Take the #4, 5 or 6 SUBWAY downtown to BROOKLYN BRIDGE/CITY HALL STATION. Exit at the rear of the platform, towards the last car of the subway train. When you come up above ground you will be standing in Foley Square.

REMEMBER

Current Anti-Choice Bills
1. H.R. 3, misleadingly called the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”, introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ);

2. H.R. 358,  the so-called “Protect Life Act” sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa); and

3. H.R. 217, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, sponsored by
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN). (PASSED IN THE HOUSE 2/18/2011.)

We Must Stop this anti-choice run-away-train Congress! There are lives at stake – those of the living, breathing women of this nation!

Last Friday, the House passed the Pence Amendment (H.R. 217.)
This amendment—if it passes the Senate–will mean the end of federal support for an organization, Planned Parenthood, that each year provides more than 800,000 women with breast exams, more than 4 million Americans with testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, lifesaving cancer screenings, HIV testing, and 2.5 million people with contraception.

But that is not enough! They now want to zero out all funding for Title X in the Federal budget. That means all the health centers we know and have come to rely on will get NO funds for Title X. Women will die!

Right now, our pro-choice congressional representatives and advocates are fighting back but they need us. They need to hear from us!

Sponsoring Organizations: (List in formation) Choice Matters, Community Health Care Networks Family Planning Advocates of New York State, Feminist Majority Foundation, Inwood House, NARAL Pro-Choice NY, National Advocates for Pregnant Women, National Council of Jewish Women New York Section, New York Civil Liberties Union, NOW-New York City, NOW-New York State, Planned Parenthood Affiliates New Jersey, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic, Planned Parenthood Mid-Hudson Valley, Planned Parenthood of Nassau County, Planned Parenthood of New York City, PRCH, Public Health Association of New York City, Public Health Solutions, Raising Women’s Voices, Religious Institute, Reproductive Health Access Project, SisterSong NY, Trust Black Women, Trust Women, United Neighborhood Houses, Violence Intervention Program Inc., Women’s Media Center, YWCA of Brooklyn

Today’s Newly Elected Congress: No Jobs! Only Attacks on Women’s Health & Rights!

We Must Stop this anti-choice run-away-train Congress! There are lives at stake – those of the living, breathing women of this nation!

On Friday, the House passed the Pence Amendment (H.R. 217.)
This amendment—if it passes the Senate–will mean the end of federal support for an organization that each year provides more than 800,000 women with breast exams, more than 4 million Americans with testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, and 2.5 million people with contraception. Women will die.

What did newly elected Rep. Nan Hayworth (R – 19th C.D.) do when the pressure was on???

Hayworth Voted with Pence and AGAINST the Women of this Nation, and her District!

This new Congress has launched an unprecedented attack on women’s reproductive rights, and they have a powerful strategy.

Instead of going directly at overturning Roe v. Wade, they have launched a multi-bill assault. Right now, our pro-choice congressional representatives and advocates are fighting off three bills plus budget cuts all at once, and the anti-choice zealots promise that this is just the beginning.

H.R. 3 “is radically broad and is clearly intended to prevent all women from obtaining health insurance coverage for abortion services – even insurance paid for with private dollars or provided by employers in the private marketplace.  The bill would raise taxes on millions of American families and impose intrusive new government rules on private, personal medical decisions.” (*Italics added) Center for Reproductive Rights

Under H.R. 3, “women would no longer be able to use their tax-saver accounts to pay for abortions because, in Smith’s view, this would constitute a federal subsidy; nor could families with high health insurance expenses deduct those expenses from their taxes if the insurance they buy with their own money includes coverage for abortion — even if they never use the coverage to pay for one. Small businesses, though not large corporations, could no longer deduct the cost of their employee insurance plans if they cover abortion, as 87% of health plans now do.” (*Italics added)  Los Angeles Times

H.R. 358 “would allow hospitals that object to abortion (as some Catholic ones do, for instance) to make the appalling decision to withhold the procedure even in dire emergencies when it is necessary to save a woman’s life — a car accident, say, or a shooting. It also includes an objectionable provision — one that failed to become part of the healthcare reform  law passed last year — that would prohibit federal funds from being used toward the purchase of any health insurance that includes abortion coverage. Current law prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion but allows insurance companies to segregate federal money from private funds used for abortion.” Los Angeles Times

Pitts and his buddies are quite literally willing to let women, who are in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives, die. This bill would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortion care when necessary to save a woman’s life. “…they have written into the bill a new amendment that would override the requirement that emergency room doctors save every patient, regardless of status or ability to pay.  The law would carve out an exception for pregnant women; doctors and hospitals will be allowed to let pregnant women die if interventions to save them will kill the fetus.”

Pitts’ new bill would free hospitals from any abortion requirement under EMTALA, meaning that medical providers who aren’t willing to terminate pregnancies wouldn’t have to — nor would they have to facilitate a transfer.”

“The Pitts bill effectively turns all hospitals into arms of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  In other words, your health care is now fully subject to fundamentalist religious ideology.” RH Reality Check

To read more, go to RH Realty Check
And the Center for Reproductive Right

H.R. 217 – Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act
PASSED IN THE HOUSE – 2/18/2011
The sole purpose of this act is to attack Planned Parenthood. It seeks to deny any federal funding to Planned Parenthood.

Friday afternoon, 2/18/2011, the House passed this horrific amendment revoking all  funding from Planned Parenthood.  The bill is  falsely advertised as saving tax-payer dollars and ensuring that no federal funds are used for abortion. False Advertising! It is already law that NO federal funds can be used for abortion, other than in cases of rape, incest and to save a woman’s life. Passage of this fiscally irresponsible amendment will ultimately cost lives, and tax payers more dollars in long term health related cost for the poor and most vulnerable. Any funds that a clinic uses for such services must be raised separately and outside of federal taxpayer dollars. More than ninety percent of Planned Parenthood services are non-abortion related.  Their work is focused on preventive care including  birth control and cancer screenings. The final vote was 239-185.

REP. ENGEL – ATTACKS ON WOMEN’S HEALTH THE WRONG MESSAGE

Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY-17) twice offered an amendment to the so called “Protect Life Act,” (H.R. 358) in an attempt to thwart attacks on women’s health resulting from the Republican bill.   Rep. Engel is a senior member on the House Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Health.  (To view the entire debate and vote on the amendment in the Health Subcommittee – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF8CpmEP57w)

Rep. Engel’s amendment, defeated Tuesday by the full Energy and Commerce Committee by a vote of 31-19, would maintain current laws which protect both doctors who do not practice abortion and those who do.  The so-called “Protect Life Act,” does away with basic protections except for those health care providers who oppose abortion.  The measure would criminalize anyone who would do the procedure or even educate a woman on her choices.  The House also voted on Friday to pass an amendment to strip funding for Planned Parenthood, a measure Rep. Engel voted against.

“If this irresponsible bill becomes law it would put the lives of women at risk.  It is ironic that a bill titled ‘protect life’ could result in the inevitable loss of life.  These bills are the Republican Majority’s opening salvo in their determined quest to dismantle the existing law protecting a woman’s right to seek medical assistance for her own body.  Make no mistake, this bill may pass the House and then go nowhere, but this is not going to stop the Republican’s attempts to pass more extreme legislation to advance their social agenda,” said Rep. Engel.

“I am sure that there are doctors and nurses who believe that they are morally required to provide a requested abortion to a victim of rape, or in an emergency situation,” said Rep. Engel. “However, the Republican leadership only wants to protect one group’s conscience, and no others.  This is wrong and it’s not fair.”

Unfortunately, pro-choice health providers are not protected by Roe v. Wade, as some claim.  “If a hospital fires a doctor because he performs abortions elsewhere, that’s not protected by Roe v. Wade.  Nor is it protected if a nurse is not given a job because she has provided counseling on abortion.  There are also cases where a hospital chooses to provide training on safe abortion methods and is denied a grant as a result.  This bill does not protect these care providers from discrimination for simply following the law.  I find it to be very disappointing that the Majority refused to protect these doctors and chose instead to advance a political agenda.”

Rep. Engel added, “This bill is not equal conscience-protection, instead it is a government advancement of a particular viewpoint—and we don’t do that in this country.  This is more of the Republican Right ill-advised plan to refight the culture wars of the past.”

“We should not protect one group’s conscience and criminalize another’s; it’s not fair and it’s not right.  We need the two-way protections that exist in current law and my amendment would have provided that.”

Rep. Engel is a longtime supporter of women’s reproductive rights and has a 100% voting record from Planned Parenthood, WCLA (Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion) – Choice Matters  and NARAL Pro-Choice America.  “For a party that rails against government intrusion in people’s lives, the Republicans want the federal government involved in one of the most personal decisions made by a woman and her family.  For me that is the height of hypocrisy,” added Rep. Engel.

Lowey Calls on GOP to Focus on Jobs, Not Restricting Women’s Health Choices

02/14/11

(WHITE PLAINS) – Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-Westchester/Rockland) was joined today by Westchester County community organizations in calling on Republican Congressional leadership to focus on the issues most important to American people – creating jobs and getting our economy on track – rather than restricting women’s health choices.

“As I visit all the communities of my district, I am asked about high unemployment, how government can help promote job growth, and how we can get the economy working again for families trying to make ends meet,” said Lowey.  “Not once have I heard that it is important for the government to get to work on restricting women’s health choices and denying basic care.  It is shocking to me that at a time of high unemployment and enormous economic challenges ahead of us, Congressional leaders are focusing on extreme and divisive social issues.  It must stop now.”

H.R. 3, the so-called “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” would eliminate tax breaks for private employers who provide health coverage if their plans offer the full range of women’s health services, and would forbid women who use a flexible spending plan to use pre-tax dollars on certain legal health procedures.  Federal law already prohibits use of taxpayer funds for abortion services.  H.R. 3 would also undercut an important exemption on this ban by re-defining rape in a way that could limit health choices for victims of statutory rape and other crimes.

Another bill, the so-called “Protect Life Act” would prohibit Americans who receive insurance through state exchanges from purchasing health plans that cover the full range of health services, even though they would already pay for that coverage with their own money.  It would also permit hospitals to refuse to perform abortions even if necessary to save the life of the mother.

Finally, Congressional leadership has proposed eliminating federal funding for Title X of the Public Health Service Act.  This would deny federal funding for health care providers that provide cancer screenings, Pap Smears, contraception, immunizations, blood-pressure testing, and much more if they also provide the full range of women’s health services.  Title X funding has played a critical role in reducing unintended pregnancies, decreasing infant mortality, and detecting cancer at early stages.

“The Pence and Smith bills are the most devastating legislative assaults on women’s health care in American history,” said Reina Schiffrin, CEO of Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic.  “These ideological attacks overlook the fact that Planned Parenthood doesmore to prevent unintended pregnancies than any other organization.”

“The YWCAs in New York are proud to be joining Congresswoman Lowey and our sister organizations in calling for the leadership of the House of Representatives to focus on the real work that they were elected to do,” said Maria Imperial, CEO of the YWCA White Plains and Central Westchester.  “The Gender Wage Gap continues. Women and their families are living in poverty. We need to address these issues rather than attacking healthcare options for women.  Women make up nearly 50% of this nation’s workforce. They need to be trained for our new economy; we don’t need to work on restricting their rights. The conversation has to change now. We simply cannot afford it any more. “

May Krukiel, Director of the Westchester Women’s Agenda, said, “Reproductive freedom is the law of the land.  Efforts to restrict access to reproductive health care should be seen as illegal and cannot be tolerated.”

“The newly-elected reactionary Congress is determined to destroy women’s health. Instead of creating jobs, these extremists are savaging women’s health care. They want to prevent millions of  women from obtaining health insurance coverage for abortion services – even insurance paid for with private dollars or provided by employers in the private marketplace.  These zealots are amending a law decades old to make it legal for doctors and hospitals to stand by and allow pregnant women to die if intervention to save them would kill the fetus. Congresswoman Lowey and our other pro-choice representatives are fighting off three devastating bills plus budget cuts as we speak. We stand with Congresswoman Lowey and our allies to defend the rights of America’s women,” stated Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, President, WCLA – Choice Matters.

More than one million women in the United States are unemployed.  The number of abortions in the United States decreased from 2000 to 2008, the most recent year for which data is available.

Tell Dan Donovan: Stop Blaming Religion

Candidate for Attorney General Dan Donovan claims being Catholic made him anti-choice.

Fact: Many of the most ardent advocates for reproductive rights are Catholics.

Hasn’t he heard of Catholics for Choice? Or Frances Kissling and Jon O’Brien? (From the mouth of a pro-choice Catholic, click here.)

Fact: Donovan wrote on Choice Matters’ candidate questionnaire, “I believe life begins at conception.”

Fact: According to the New York Times, Donovan is “against abortion except in cases of rape or incest.”

Fact: Donovan claims he’ll represent New Yorkers and follow the law, but he kept his alliance with “crisis pregnancy centers” (CPCs) a secret. CPCs are anti-choice facilities that pretend to provide comprehensive reproductive-health clinics but in reality deceive women and spread misinformation about abortion and birth control.

The CPC of New York on Staten Island liked him so much they gave him an award in 2003. Why? Because Donovan got the CPC grants while he was working in the office of the Staten Island borough president, including when he was the deputy borough president. Imagine what he might do for them as Attorney General.

Women cannot trust Donovan!
Fact: A good attorney general can advance our reproductive rights. A bad one can take them away.

Across the nation, anti-choice attorneys general have abused their position targeting women’s reproductive rights: in Kansas harassing the late Dr. Tiller; in Virginia, working to close 20 safe clinics; and in Michigan trying to outlaw abortion.

Take a moment and watch: Dan Donovan: It Could Happen Here

Choice Matters is proud to endorse Eric Schneiderman for Attorney General. From the frontlines at clinics to the courtrooms to the State Senate, Eric has proven his commitment to a woman’s right to choose.

*********************************************
“… I am a prochoice Catholic because my Catholic faith tells me I can be. The Catechism reads, “[Conscience] is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” Even St. Thomas Aquinas said it would be better to be excommunicated than to neglect your individual conscience. So really, I am just following his lead. After years of research, discernment and prayer, my conscience has been well informed. Being a prochoice Catholic does not contradict my faith; rather, in following my well-informed conscience, I am adhering to the central tenet of Catholic teaching — the primacy of conscience.”

Excerpt from I am a Prochoice Catholic by Kate Childs Graham, writes for ReligionDispatches.org and YoungAdultCatholics-Blog.com. She also serves on the Women’s Ordination Conference board of directors and the Call to Action Next Generation Leadership Team.