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 1^st 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.

• “ Sensus fidelium —the graced and experience-fed wisdom of the faithful that has always been one of the sources of truth in the Catholic tradition.”
• 98% of sexually active Catholic women have used a form of contraception banned by the Catholic Church.
• As recently as 1968, a majority of the Pope’s advisors agreed that there was no pastoral reason to ban Catholics from using contraception.
  http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/op-eds/2011/OnfamilyplanningdoestheCatholicChurchrepresentCatholics.asp.asp

  Read More, click here

CLD #1 Michael Kane
CLD #2 Peter Harckham
CLD #3 John Nonna
CLD #4 Mike Kaplowitz
CLD #5 Bill Ryan
CLD #6 Daniel Brakewood
CLD #7 Judy Myers
CLD #9 Catherine Borgia
CLD #10 John Fitzpatrick
CLD #17 Virginia Perez

These Good Guys are 100% pro-choice.

They protect our women, children, and families. They understand the importance of our clinics, childcare, and health centers.

ELECTION DAY TUESDAY NOV. 8TH!

WE MUST ELECT THE GOOD GUYS!!!

Download the voting guide

Stephanie Poggi provides a clear, historically accurate account of  the Obama Administration’s failure to advocate for women’s reproductive rights.

“If recent statements are any indication, the Obama Administration would very much like to rewrite what it means to be “pro-choice.” The Administration continues to claim that it supports the right of a woman to make her own decision about whether and when to have a child. But it turns out that the Administration only stands firm when that woman has economic resources.

It’s more than a contradiction in terms and much more than a “compromise” to deny access to abortion care to a low-income woman. The 120,000 women who called our abortion funding hotline for help last year can tell you what it really means. Not having enough food for the children you already have. Having the electricity shut off because you need that money to pay for an abortion. Selling your car, even though you need it to get to work. Not being able to return to college next semester.

Yes, we understand that many in Congress would like to end the legal status of abortion altogether. Because funding restrictions are a step toward that goal, capitulation will only embolden our opponents and get us even more onerous obstacles blocking a low-income woman’s path to an abortion.

The reproductive rights, health, and justice communities will fight – until we win – for the ability of every single woman to make the decision she feels is best for herself and her family. We will keep working until we have restored federal Medicaid coverage of abortion – and ensured it is once again available on the same terms as coverage for women continuing a pregnancy. Because nothing less will guarantee that a woman can make this fundamental decision for herself. Our commitment to the lives and futures of women and families prompted us to express our concern and disappointment when Secretary Sebelius recently went out of her way to disavow public funding. Joined by over 50 organizations in the reproductive rights and justice communities, the National Network of Abortion Funds and Catholics for Choice wrote to the Secretary after she was quoted in the press as saying that, “Federal funds have never supported abortion, do not support abortion, will not support abortion.”

The Executive Office of the President quickly followed Secretary Sebelius’s remarks with a “Statement of Administration Policy” promising that the Administration “will strongly oppose legislation that unnecessarily restricts women’s reproductive freedoms and consumers’ private insurance options,” but it simultaneously outlined all of the steps the Administration has taken to bolster “[l]ongstanding Federal policy [that] prohibits federal funds from being used for abortions” – in other words, all of the Administration’s actions to shore up the federal ban on Medicaid funding for abortion. These actions include accepting a ban on funding in the health reform law and reinforcing that ban by issuing an Executive Order. Apparently the Administration believes that only women with private insurance are entitled to full “reproductive freedom and access to health care” – otherwise, how can restrictions on funding for low-income women not “unnecessarily” restrict women’s rights?

This Statement of Administration Policy recalls President Obama’s claim during the health care debate that, “I’m pro-choice, but I think we also have the tradition in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care.” There are many traditions in the nation’s capital and the United States that our elected officials now rightly reject, including racial segregation and blatant sex discrimination.

Setting the Record Straight
Secretary Sebelius is wrong when she insists that federal funds “have never supported abortion.” After the U. S. Supreme Court decriminalized abortion in 1973, Medicaid included abortion in its health care services. After all, Medicaid exists to provide health care to low-income families and individuals and abortion is a legal medical procedure. At that time, Medicaid paid for about one-third of all abortions, clearly demonstrating the need for federal funding of abortion. Looking at the situation today, we know that lower-income women seek abortions at higher rates, a reflection of the greater barriers they face to affordable contraception and also the enormous challenge of raising children in a tight job market. This reality underscores the continuing need for federal funding of both contraception and abortion for women living in poverty.

It was only after Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) introduced the amendment that now bears his name that Congress rescinded payments for abortion under Medicaid, absent one of a few circumstances: rape, incest, or a life-threatening pregnancy. As the years went by, conservative lawmakers attached riders to virtually every appropriations bill containing a federally-funded health care program, restricting access to abortion for millions of women. Once Congress cut off funding, a majority of states eventually followed suit. Today, only a third of the states cover abortion care for women enrolled in Medicaid, for which they receive no federal reimbursement.

When health care experts make decisions about what types of health services to cover, abortion is usually included, as seen in the early years of federal Medicaid coverage as well as the 80 percent of private insurance plans that cover abortion care. When conservative politicians make those decisions, abortion is excluded.

Connecting Rights to Resources
The Obama Administration did take one step toward dismantling economic barriers to abortion, when it restored the right of home rule to the District of Columbia so that the District could use its own local tax revenues to pay for abortions under Medicaid. This funding was a lifeline for many of the District’s low-income and downright poor residents, faced with the worst recession in decades. But the Administration bargained away even this measure of progress in the recent negotiations over the FY 2011 spending bill. When Congress reinstated the ban on funding in D.C., clinics saw a rash of cancelled appointments by women who had just had the financial rug pulled out from under them.

A woman enrolled in Medicaid in D.C. represents exactly the groups of women hit hardest by funding bans – low-income, disproportionately of color, and often young. While every woman deserves access to the full range of reproductive health care no matter the source of her insurance, it is low-income women who suffer the most when health insurance excludes abortion. It is these women who really need the President and his Administration to stand up for their rights. Federal funding is a key ingredient to ensure that every woman, rich or poor, can make the decision that is right for her and her family, given the life circumstances she knows best.

The Democratic Party acknowledges as much, stating that “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

Governments in other countries increasingly recognize the need to ensure that women can exercise their reproductive rights by allocating funding to pay for the implementation of those rights. For example, when the legislative assembly in Mexico City adopted a new policy to legalize abortion, it made sure that women in need would be able to access care regardless of their financial situation.

And as one woman who described her decision to join the Network’s national fundraising campaign put it, “The right to choose without federal funding for abortion is like the right to an education without a public school system” – in other words, a privilege of those with economic resources, not a right at all.

It is well past time for the federal government to restore funding of abortion. Access for low-income women demands government action; women without economic resources are the ones who most need public policies to guarantee their rights. Along with our allies in the reproductive health, rights, and justice movements, we will press forward to expand access to abortion for lower-income women, and to persuade the Obama Administration to do its part.”

Anti-Choice Extremists, led by Republican House Rep. Pitts, want to pass H.R. 3–the Stupak Amendment on Steroids–so the IRS can audit abortions.

They don’t care about jobs. They Only Want to Continue On-going Attacks Against Women!

These zealots want to subject rape and incest victims to audits if they choose abortion.

If Pitts‘ bill H.R.3, becomes law it could prohibit using tax benefits such as credits or deductions to pay for an abortion or health insurance that includes abortion coverage.

In enforcing H.R. 3, the IRS could make a woman relive the horrid experience by requiring that she describe her sexual assault that she already told the police again to an agent from the IRS.

Read more from Mother Jones, click here: “Were you raped? Was it incest? And other questions the government’s tax cops would have to ask women who’ve terminated pregnancies.”

On February 25, 2011,  Senator Lederer-Plaskett  and Speaker of the Senate Chevrier sponsored a resolution in opposition to the Pence Amendment. 

They used the attached PowerPoint presentation to help make their argument. Click to view: PPHPWPT 

An overwhelming majority of the Student Government Senate then voted in support of the resolution.

Knowing the power of the vote, the University of Vermont Student Government Association will send the resolution to Vermont’s U.S. Senators, Patrick Leahy and Bernard Sanders, urging them to vote ‘nay’ on the Pence Amendment, in an effort to protect the health and well being of all Vermont Residents, including students at the University of Vermont.

Pass this on to the students you know. They can join forces with students at the University of Vermont and around the country.

Below is the text of the resolution:

Resolution in Opposition to the Pence Amendment

Whereas, the Pence Amendment and Proposed Budget Cuts passed the U.S. House of Representatives on February 17, 2011,

Whereas, the Pence Amendment and Proposed Budget Cuts will end all Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood and 102 affiliated organizations

Whereas, the current federal funding makes up approximately 37% of Planned Parenthood’s annual budget[1],

Whereas, Planned Parenthood provides life-saving cancer screenings and pap smears, STI and HIV Testing, and distributes Contraception and information about Family Planning free of charge[2],

Whereas, Planned Parenthood provides free health care services to those who cannot afford them,

Whereas, Planned Parenthood maintains that if the Pence Amendment passed in the Senate, 48% of their patients would be unable to utilize Planned Parenthood’s services and therefore would have no way of accessing their chosen form of health care[3],

Whereas, the Hyde Amendment prohibits any federal funding for abortion, excluding abortions due to rape or incest, or a threat to the life of the woman, eliminating the possibility of federal funding for Planned Parenthood from being used to fund abortion procedures[4],

Whereas, without Federal Funding Planned Parenthood would be unable to provide much needed services and would be forced to close as many as eight hundred clinics[5],

Whereas, Planned Parenthood serves 3 million Americans, and 21,000 Vermonters annually[6],

Whereas, the University of Vermont Student Government Association believes that the budget cuts to Planned Parenthood would have an extremely detrimental effect on the health and wellbeing of the UVM Student Body and the United States as a whole,

Be It Resolved that the University of Vermont Student Government Association demands the continued federal funding of Planned Parenthood and other Women’s Health Organizations,

Be it Further Resolved that the University of Vermont Student Government Association urges its U.S. Senators, Patrick Leahy and Bernard Sanders, to vote ‘nay’ on the Pence Amendment, in an effort to protect the health and wellbeing of all Vermont Residents, including students at the University of Vermont.

Presenters:

Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, (AD 88) will detail the role of legislation in advancing public policy and women’s reproductive health.

Kathryn Miller, Vice President for Clinical and Community Health Programs at Public Health Solutions, will explain the role all levels of funding play in health care, and the potential risks of certain aspects of so-called fiscal belt tightening.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, President of WCLA – Choice Matters, will examine the impact that elections at all levels of government have on reproductive health, the make-up of the State Senate and aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the national health care legislation).

There is no cost to attend.

RSVP Here!!!!

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.

FYI:
1. Hayworth has defended the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act in letters to constituents.
2. Hayworth has failed to take a stand on redefining rape; and
3. Hayworth justifies tax penalties for abortion.
4. Nan Hayworth is Anti-Choice!

Ask Nan Hayworth Where She Stands!
Let’s remind Nan we’re watching.
Click Here
or Contact her at
In D.C.:
1440 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5441
Fax: (202) 225-3289
In Goshen:
255 Main St., Suite 3232G
Goshen, NY 10924
Phone: (845) 291-4100
Fax: (845) 291-4164