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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SenatorKrueger_LetterToPresidentObama

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

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

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

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

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

The Administration has voluntarily adopted these new abortion restrictions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We hope to see you there!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full article

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

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

So . . . why do I vote?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*reprinted from ProChoice Voting Guide, November 2004

Mary Alice Carr of the National Institute for Reproductive Health explains more about the Oklahoma legislation that protects doctors who withhold information from pregnant women about the health of the fetuses,

“As a reproductive rights advocate and a proud mother of two, my blood ran cold as I read about Oklahoma’s new abortion legislation (HB 2656). The state of Oklahoma just decided, and by an appallingly high margin I might add, that a doctor is protected from being sued if he or she chooses not to tell a woman that the baby she is carrying has a birth defect.

State legislators made this decision Tuesday, voting 36-12 in the Senate and 84-12 in the House to override Gov. Brad Henry’s veto of this law. (The Legislature also overrode the governor’s veto of a second egregious law, HB 2780, which forces women to view an ultrasound before having an abortion.)

Oklahoma, what have you done?

Under this new law, a doctor may withhold information, mislead or even blatantly lie to a pregnant woman and her partner about the health of their baby if the doctor so much as thinks that fetal test results would cause a woman to consider abortion.

As expected, the anti-abortion movement is claiming victory. But this bill isn’t “anti-abortion.” It is devastating because it is anti-motherhood and anti-medicine.

When I found out I was pregnant with each of my children, like every woman who has ever undergone fetal testing, I held my breath at each doctor’s appointment. I didn’t let it go until the doctor or the tech said, “Everything looks great.” I seized up when they took out the blood work results and I didn’t relax until I heard, “It all came back negative.”

But a woman in Oklahoma no longer gets to exhale. Because now, when a doctor says, “Everything looks fine,” she has to wonder; does it really? Oklahoma politicians have now said that she can no longer count on the sacred trust that always existed between her and her doctor. A doctor may now lie to her face and, in doing so, deny a woman what is quite possibly the most important piece of information she will ever receive in her life.

The very thought makes my breath catch even now. The information you get on those visits matters to every woman getting prenatal care, regardless of what she decides to do based upon the results. The legislators have decided that a woman, when she becomes pregnant, loses the right to full, honest information from her doctor.

It is her right to know this information. It is how she and her family determine what to do next, not only to decide if they want to continue a pregnancy, but also to consider how they will prepare to care for a special needs child.

What specialist will they turn to? What support will they require? Who will hold their hand in the delivery room if a child is born who will only live an hour, or a day? Does she want to call her own mom in from across the country or does she want to grieve silently with her partner? What will they tell the children they already have?

Doesn’t every family have the right to the information that may help them decide the course of their future or the future of their child? According to the Oklahoma State Legislature, they no longer do.

These politicians have decided they know best what women need. They are wrong.

I ask each politician in Oklahoma who voted yes on this bill: How dare you? How dare you deny a woman the peace of mind that her baby is healthy? How dare you not give her and her family time to prepare if, God forbid, her baby is not? How is this bill “pro-life”? How is this mockery of medical care and paternalistic devaluing of women, “pro-life”?

This bill is anti-mom, it’s anti-doctor and it is anti-family. And all women, regardless of how they feel about abortion, should be appalled. I hope the courts stand up for the women and families whom politicians have turned their backs on and find this law unconstitutional and flat-out wrong.”

One of the measures protects doctors from malpractice suits if they decide not to inform the parents of a unborn baby that the fetus has birth defects. The intent of the bill is to prevent parents from later suing doctors who withhold information to try to influence them against having an abortion.

Gov. Brad Henry said:

“It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform pregnant women in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on a patient”

The other measure requires that women undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before having an abortion. There is no exception for rape or incest victims.

Two other antiabortion bills are still working their way through the legislature. One would force women to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about their reasons for seeking an abortion and then post statistics online based on the answers. The other restricts insurance coverage for the procedure.

A pregnant 10-year-old, allegedly raped by her stepfather, has become the latest lightning rod in the country’s heated abortion debate.

The girl’s stepfather has been arrested. But advocates on both sides of the issue say their battle is just beginning.

Abortion is legal in Mexico’s capital city, but prohibited or significantly restricted in most of the country’s states. The girl’s home state of Quintana Roo, on the Yucatan peninsula, allows abortion in cases of rape during the first 90 days of the pregnancy. But the 10-year-old girl is at 17½ weeks, nearly a month past that limit.

While this is an extreme case, it illustrates why its necessary to protect 2nd trimester abortions. The very young, who may be scared or victimized, often need more time to seek help.

The church and anti-choice extremists advocate for the “protection” of fetuses and embryos. Who is advocating for young women who are sexually abused?

”The executive order Obama is scheduled to sign [today] directs federal administrators to establish guidelines within six months to help states comply with the new law. Under the new federal law, any insurance plans sold in state-based exchanges that offer abortion coverage and have customers who receive federal subsidies must collect two separate premium payments per month — one for the abortion coverage and one for the rest of the premium. The check for the abortion coverage must come from private funds and remain segregated from federal money.

”Insurance plans participating in the state’s exchange — called the Massachusetts Connector — are required to offer abortion coverage, and the state has a system in place to ensure that federal money does not pay for the coverage, as required by federal law. Terry Dougherty, Medicaid director with the state Executive Office of Health and Human Services, said an independent actuary determines the value of every benefit in an individual’s health plan, minus the value of abortion coverage and patient copayments. That amount is submitted to the federal government for partial reimbursement, and the reimbursement is placed in the state general fund. According to the Globe, an abortion procedure is typically valued at less than $1 per enrollee per month.

”A spokesperson for the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans said it is too early to know what effect the federal law could have on companies that sell federally subsidized plans in the Massachusetts exchange. Abortion-rights advocates say the new federal system “will not only be inconvenient for consumers … but could hinder access to abortions by causing insurers to pull out” of the exchanges, the Globe reports. NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts Executive Director Andrea Miller said, “It’s a chilling effect.” She added, “Any time you add additional steps that people have to take in order to obtain health services, you have a drop-off, and you have a burden, even for something like picking up a prescription” (Lazar, Boston Globe, 3/24).” The National Partnership for Women and Families Daily Report 3/24/2010