Search Results

Open Blog: Postings are the opinion of the essayist. FCLNY is extremely grateful for the opinions offered and invite others to submit essays to: info@fclny.org. FCLNY recognizes that within the community of subscribers to the consistent life ethic there is a diversity of views as to how this ethic might be implemented in culture, philosophy and law. Not all views necessarily hinge on FCLNY’s opposition to publicly-sanctioned lethal violence. Some may expand that view. Others may narrow that view. Our open blog allows FCLNY supporters and guest essayists to explore these differences in order to achieve greater understanding between peers and within our communities. __________________________________________________________________ Jesus is Nonviolence incarnate. — Fr. Bernard Haring, C.Ss.R. Hypocrite! Take the plank out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly enough to take the splinter out of your brother’s eye. -Matthew 7: 5 Let us remember that Jesus lived his whole life in a land that was occupied by a brutal Roman army. In the first reading in our Lectionary (Isaiah 2, 1-5) the prophet says the Messiah’s mission will be to give instruction in his ways and when we “walk in his paths” the result will be an end to war and militarism. Therefore, we should not be surprised that the real, only and pragmatic answer to our questions about war and how to end it can be found in the Gospel. In the Gospel, Jesus three times commands His disciples to “love your enemies.” (Matt. 6: 44 , Luke 6: 27, 35) Matthew, Mark and Luke record that Jesus answered a question, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” by saying “You must not kill.” (Matt. 19: 18, Mark 10: 19, Luke 18: 20) If actions speak louder than words, the clearest indication of what Jesus would do (remember WWJD?) if he walked the earth in Ukraine today can be found in the account of Gethsemane. Here, Jesus was never armed. He refused Peter’s violent defense of his most innocent person. He healed the wound of his enemy Malchus, the servant of the High Priest who had come with an armed mob and a Roman cohort to arrest him. Jesus surrendered to his enemies without violence, the perfect illustration of “agape your enemies”. There was no time to suggest that Peter negotiate for “multilateral, verifiable disarmament” with the mob and the Roman military. Jesus commanded unilateral disarmament in the face of his impending death. Nonviolent love of enemies does not depend on any reciprocity on the part of the enemy. Agape is willing to suffer without the desire for retaliation. It does not ensure one’s safety. It did not ensure Jesus’ safety, though it did succeed in preventing further bloodshed on that occasion. Jesus refused to kill and he did not allow his disciples to kill. Western Christianity, with few exceptions, has justified war after war for 1700 years out of an idolatry of imperial, royal or state authority. Orthodox Christianity has done likewise since its beginning. The operative reality of all “Christian” just war theories has been to cede prerogative to the governing authority and “support the troops” who are doing the killing, while ignoring the teaching, the Way and the New Commandment of Jesus to love one another as he has loved us. (John 13: 34) The use of violence to solve problems posed by an unwanted pregnancy or an unwanted invader of your country may be legal or not. Unlike human laws, the Gospel Law of Love prescribes no punishment to enforce observance. Love cannot be coerced and the way Jesus loved us sinners included mercy and forgiveness, even for his murderers. Those who choose to observe Jesus’ New Commandment must begin with a steadfast refusal to kill the guilty or the innocent. Jesus did not advocate for laws or treaties to outlaw war. We have such international laws today but they have not worked. Jesus addressed individual conscience. When the Churches teach clearly and with authority what Jesus taught in relation to violence and killing, more people may come to believe and we may yet realize Isaiah’s vision of a disarmed, demilitarized, life affirming world. US Catholics might begin by removing the plank out of our own eye first before pointing out the splinter in the eye of Vladimir Putin and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch, an unholy alliance matched by most US Catholic bishops’ support for Joseph Biden’s militarism and war making. Before this war, it seemed the Church was about to do away with "Christian" just war theory. (CJWT) Rather than bringing back CJWT from the edge of oblivion, this war should end its subversion of the Gospel forever. Let the nonviolent love of Jesus disarm us all! Essayist: Mark Scibilia-Carver Photo by Stacey Franco on Unsplash

Open Blog: Postings are the opinion of the essayist. FCLNY is extremely grateful for the opinions offered and invite others to submit essays to: info@fclny.org. FCLNY recognizes that within the community of subscribers to the consistent life ethic there is a diversity of views as to how this ethic might be implemented in culture, philosophy and law. Not all views necessarily hinge on FCLNY’s opposition to publicly-sanctioned lethal violence. Some may expand that view. Others may narrow that view. Our open blog allows FCLNY supporters and guest essayists to explore these differences in order to achieve greater understanding between peers and within our communities. __________________________________________________________________ Proposed South Carolina Equal Protection Act of 2023 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/14/south-carolina-bill-abortion-death-penalty/11471997002/ Response by Margaret Smerbeck, Feminists Choosing Life of New York, Supporter I am still shaking my head in disbelief regarding a proposed South Carolina bill advocating the death penalty for women who’ve had abortions. Anyone who believes in a consistent life ethic should be outraged at this hypocrisy. SC Rep. Rob Harris, the bill’s author, stated, “If we define it as life…it needs to be protected like any other life.” Harris should apply that same definition of life to those he claims the state condemn to death. Protecting human life from womb to tomb includes death row inmates. While we’re at it, examine the shamefully disproportionate percentage of people of color on death row. Lack of adequate representation, racial profiling and overall resources lead to this discrepancy. Can we possibly take a break from the endless debate of laws and rights and find more ways to support life choices of those already marginalized? We can’t even come close to calling our country “great” if even just one state has the death penalty. Credit: Pix4Free.org

For Immediate Release: February 20, 2023 Media Contact: Emily Cappello, 716 261-6786, info@fclny.org In what appears to be a flagrant disregard for NY’s Open Meetings Law, representatives of Western New Yorkers hosted a ‘public’ town hall zoom meeting concerning local allocations relevant to NY’s 2024 budget, set for approval on April 1, 2023. “Of the four NY legislators that hosted the event, only two bothered to provide the general public with any notification, and the two that did, gave constituents just over twenty-four hours notice on their social media" claims Cecelia Lester, constituent of NY Senator Jeremy Cooney, one of the host legislators of the town hall. "Three of the host legislators claimed to have emailed those subscribed to their email notification lists, but that excludes the general public and those constituents not subscribed," states Lester. “NY’s Open Meetings Law was enacted for good reason,” says Michele Sterlace, Executive Director of Feminists Choosing Life of New York (FCLNY). “Proper notice of public meetings discussing public policy is “essential to the maintenance of a democratic society,” according to the laws own words,” she adds. “When members of the public are prevented from engaging, our policies reflect special interests. NY’s proposed 2024 budget contains allocations many New Yorkers oppose, including 25 million dollars for abortion access as well as potential allocations for assisted suicide, for example. Pro-life feminists and others have questions and concerns and our voices are being silenced.” According to Lester, vice president of FCLNY: “When I called Senator Cooney’s office in early February I was told I would receive notice of the next budgetary town hall meeting by email. After not receiving any email from Cooney or seeing any public notice posted on his website or social media I called his office and was told the meeting had already occurred. I re-scoured Cooney’s social media and found one tweet, and one Facebook post published on Sunday evening, February 12th, less than two hours before registration ended for the subject open meeting and less than 48 hours before the start of the public meeting on February 13th at 6 PM.” "Lester, along with others similarly situated, listened to the zoom recording of the public meeting after it occurred," says Sterlace. Lester explains: “Not a single criticism of the proposed budget was voiced. No unpolished, plain speaking private citizens were present, people interested in voicing concerns on behalf of their struggling families. No organizations that opposed the policies of the legislators were present either. Yet the meeting opened with all four representatives extolling the necessity of hearing the concerns of constituents in order to fulfill the highest potential of the community and its citizens. One host legislator called the budget a moral document, while another expressed a belief in the primacy of transparency.” “A dangerous disconnect is occurring between our elected representatives and the people,” says Sterlace. According to Lester, “The result is radical bills in NY are proposed and passed, such as NY’s Reproductive Health Act and possibly now, the pending Medical Aid in Dying Act. When legislators control the messaging they hear from constituents— an echo chamber of hyper partisanship reigns. This is why citizens are fleeing at record numbers,” Lester believes. “So many New Yorkers’ needs are unmet. Perhaps this is intentional, to reinforce the echo chamber and radicalize NY even further. What is certain,” Lester adds, “it will be increasingly difficult to craft a budget in NY with fewer and fewer taxpayers.”

“I dream of a world where we can commit our social resources to the development of human life and not to its destruction.” Benazir Bhutto (1953-2007), born into an elite political family in Pakistan, was the first female prime minister of Pakistan and the first elected head of an Islamic State. She studied politics, philosophy and economics at Harvard and Oxford Universities and while in the United States, actively protested the war in Vietnam. In 1977, Bhutto’s father, founder of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) was re-elected as Prime Minister, but was soon accused of conspiracy and thrown into jail. At this time, Bhutto was placed under house arrest. Her father was eventually executed, and Benazir, exiled to Great Britain. In 1986, she returned to Pakistan where, at the urging of the PPP, soon began to campaign for political office herself. Benazir’s political agenda included ending hunger, providing reproductive health education for women, reversing gender discrimination and other policies designed to improve the lives of women. She served as Pakistan’s Prime Minister from 1988-1990 and again from 1993-1996. Each time, she was removed from office by the sitting president for unsubstantiated charges of corruption and incompetence. Once again, she was exiled. In 1994, Benazir delivered the keynote address to the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development calling for a global partnership to improve human conditions and increase aid to help stabilize unchecked population growth in Pakistan. “I dream of a Pakistan, of an Asia, of a world where every pregnancy is planned, and every child conceived is nurtured, loved, educated and supported.” She rejected abortion as a method of population control and laid out a plan that instead included efforts to reduce infant mortality, greater education and economic independence for women and increased access to services saying, “empowerment of women is part of the battle.” In 2007, upon returning to Pakistan amid death threats and a deadly suicide bombing, Benazir was assassinated in Rawalpindi on October 18. Following her death, widespread violence erupted. Her suspected assassin was killed in 2009 during a US led drone attack. (Image by Oliver Mark)

Nat Hentoff “Once the sperm and egg meet…you now have a human being…it’s not a kangaroo, it’s not a giraffe, it‘s a human being…therefore if you kill it…you are killing a developing human being.” Nat Hentoff (1925-2017) was a prolific writer and civil libertarian who is best known as an outspoken defender of free speech as well as a preeminent American Jazz Critic. Born and raised in Boston and a graduate of Northeastern and Harvard Universities, Hentoff wrote many books and was a contributor to Downbeat Magazine, the New Yorker, the Washington Post, and the Jazz Times. He also wrote regular columns for the Village Voice and The Washington Times. He came to his pro-life position when covering the Baby Doe case where the courts essentially ruled that some lives are not worth living. He wrote about the abusive experiences of prolife feminists at the 1992 Democratic National Convention and directly criticized Ken Burns for his exclusion of the anti-abortion position of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton in his documentary, Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Hentoff was active in the Civil Rights Movement and protested the Vietnam War. In 1972, he called out the New York Times for referring to the North Vietnamese as “the enemy” saying, “It is much easier for Americans to distance themselves psychologically from the daily atrocities done in their name if they keep seeing their victims — including children — … as the enemy.” As a Jewish atheist, Hentoff wrote articles about the Catholic Church and Islam and after the so called Peace Agreement in Darfur, challenged President Bush to form an international coalition to stop the on-going genocide of black Muslims in Darfur. Despite his influence shaping the modern conversation about such important topics as free speech, Hentoff’s greatest joy was jazz music. He interviewed such jazz greats as Duke Ellington and Miles Davis and worked with Billie Holiday and Lester Young in The Sound of Jazz, a televised jazz program that turned out to be the last performance between Holiday and Young. Nat Hentoff was the first non-musician to be named Jazz Master by the National Endowment for the Arts. Hentoff granted an Honorary Doctorate of Law from Northeastern University and was involved with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. He was also the subject of the 2013 documentary, Pleasures of Being Out of Step.

Dear NYS Legislator: Feminists Choosing Life of NY (FCLNY) is a statewide human rights organization that educates on the root causes and impacts of publicly sanctioned lethal violence. We have compiled a ten (10) bill package containing expansive measures regarding maternal and child wellbeing. Please find below pending laws we ask you to carefully consider; eight (8) we urge you to enact, and two (2) we ask you to oppose, on behalf of not only your constituents, but women and children across our great state. Sincerely, FCLNY www.fclny.org VOTE YES! 1. Universal Child Care Act, S7595 and A8623. The cost of day-care in New York is among the least affordable in the country. This act would make childcare fully affordable for all New York families, and increase compensation for child care workers. In 2021, New York’s Child Care Availability Task Force determined that the child care system in NY is in a state of crisis, and in need of a dramatically new approach to addressing unmet needs of working parents or student parents. Under the current Child Care Subsidy Program, families are eligible for financial assistance on an extremely limited basis. In some regions, a family of four with two parents working forty hours per week making minimum wage do not qualify for subsidies, and childcare costs 55.4% of their income. The Child Care Availability Taskforce (CCAT) reports that many child care workers in NY are dramatically underpaid. According to the CCAT, 15% of NY’s child care workforce live below the poverty line and 65% receive public benefits as a result of their low income. This leads to issues of high turnover rates and understaffing within the child care system. This act also proposes a new cost estimation model to accurately pay child care workers and providers for their services, as well as a fund to finance startups in regions where childcare services are unavailable. By increasing child care affordability, NY will be making an investment in the future, since it is estimated that for every $1 spent on child care and education in New York, “$1.86 is generated in additional spending within the state.” 2. Unborn Victims Of Violence Act, S2669 and A5729. Homicide is a leading cause of death for pregnant women, making pregnant women and their unborn children especially vulnerable to violence. Pregnancy increases women’s risk of violence perpetrated by intimate partners, including lethal and non-lethal assaults. These bills would redefine the penal law to include unborn children among those who can be victims of assault or homicide. It would also amend the definition of person, when referring to a victim of assault or homicide, to include "an unborn child at any stage of gestation." There are exceptions in the bill for women who choose to have an abortion and for persons performing legal abortions on consenting women. Bills present question whether mothers could be held criminally liable for assaulting their unborn children, by taking drugs or otherwise self-harming, or by performing self-abortions. For the purpose of these bills, FCLNY believes pregnant women should be exempt from criminal prosecution for any behavior relating to their unborn children, and these bills should be amended accordingly. 3. Assistance Purchasing Diapers For Families In Need, A3451A and S63A. “Not having enough clean diapers exposes a baby to many potential health risks.” Approximately, sixteen percent of all kids nationwide currently live in poverty in the US. That’s 11.6 mil­lion children and the number is growing. “Notably absent from [most] anti-poverty efforts targeting families is an essential staple for the health of children, diapers.” This proposed law creates an allowance for the poorest of parents (TANF eligible) to receive assistance in purchasing diapers for their children. The quarterly allowance will provide parents with up to eighty dollars every three months for every eligible child (infants up to 2 years old). 4. Medicaid Coverage Of Longer Hospital Stays For Maternity Patients And Newborns, S916 and A3386. For decades, 48 hour hospital stays in NY for women and children after birth have been covered by private insurance. This has largely excluded economically disadvantaged women who are covered by Medicaid from receiving the same minimum coverage after delivery. Short hospital stays can be detrimental to the health of the mother and newborn, especially since conditions which affect newborns, including jaundice, are not apparent within the first 24 hours of life. In addition, studies show benefits to both mother and child as a result of longer hospital stays after birth, including, “more stable blood sugar” for infants and less “postpartum depression” for mothers. These pending bills would extend Medicaid coverage of hospital stays for a minimum of 48 hours following childbirth by natural delivery and 96 hours for childbirth by cesarean section. 5. Born Alive Abortion Survivors' Protection Act, S2569 and A4429. The Reproductive Health Act, enacted in 2019, "eradicated all legal protections in law for infants born alive as the result of an abortion procedure," according to NYS legislative memoranda . The CDC reports that infants subject to abortion are sometimes born alive. This lack of protection leaves these born children vulnerable. Under this new proposed law, any health care practitioners present during abortions or attempted abortions are required to "exercise the same degree of care to preserve the life and health of the child" (born alive during abortions or attempted abortions) he or she would render to "any other child born alive at the same gestational age" as well as "ensure the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to the hospital." A violation of this provision would be a class A misdemeanor. Additionally, an individual who intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive during a botched abortion would be guilty of intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. 6. Relates To-Maternal And Infant Mortality And Morbidity, A307-A and S1411-A. In January 2021, the New York State Expert Panel on Postpartum Care, which was created at the recommendation of the Taskforce on Maternal Mortality and Disparate Racial Outcomes, released a report with recommendations. One recommendation includes extending Medicaid complete pregnancy care coverage for a year after giving birth. These bills extend complete pregnancy care coverage provided by Medicaid from 60 days after delivery to a full year. Not only would the bills extend pregnancy care coverage for a woman’s physical health for a full year after delivery, but access to mental health and substance abuse disorder treatments, to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity. The CDC reports that from 2011 to 2015, about 33% of pregnancy-related deaths occurred within one week to one year after delivery, demonstrating that postpartum women are still vulnerable to serious health complications up to one year after giving birth. 7. Parental Notification Of Abortion On A Minor, A3780. A double standard exists in NY relevant to minors or children, their engagement in potentially dangerous activities, and standards utilized for their protection. Parental notification is required in NY when minors get body piercings, their teeth drilled or bone x-rays, but not when they undergo abortion procedures, even invasive surgical abortions. When parental notification laws for abortion were introduced in Minnesota, for example, teens, 15-17 years, became more sexually responsible, abortion rates for these minors markely decreased and birth rates continued to fall for this population. The proposed legislation requires that at least one parent or legal guardian of an un-emancipated minor receive a written notification 48 hours prior to the performance of an abortion. The parental notification requirement within the bill contains the US constitutionally required judicial bypass mechanism. 8. Services For Human Trafficking Victims/ Airports, A9169 and S8262. It is estimated that worldwide, there are 24.9 million victims of human trafficking at any given time. The NYS Interagency Taskforce on Human Trafficking’s most recent report found that in 2019, 1,541 people were confirmed victims of human trafficking in NY alone. Reports from the International Organization for Migration estimate that “almost 80 percent of journeys undertaken by victims trafficked internationally cross through official border points, such as airports and land border control points.” These bills mandate that Port Authority Airports place informational cards and/or signs in a prominent location in their public restrooms. The cards and signs would contain information about services for human trafficking victims and the national human trafficking hotline number. VOTE NO! 9. Pregnancy Resource Center Study, S470 and A5499 . These bills call for a study of only pregnancy resource centers (organizations which provide help to pregnant women-excluding abortion services or abortion related referrals) in order to examine the unmet health and resource needs of pregnant women in NY. The bills further aim to examine the impact of only these centers on pregnant women, including whether these centers provide accurate, non-coercive health care information. Unlike the majority of states, NY does not have informed consent laws which require, among other things, that women receive information regarding life-affirming resources for themselves and their unborn children. Georgia, for example, requires abortionists to have materials available that “list agencies that provide alternatives to abortion,” in addition to information concerning fetal development. Health care providers in NY that include abortion services, offer little to no resources to pregnant women regarding abortion alternatives, including information and referrals to material supports to help poor women bring pregnancies to term. If the Legislature truly wishes to understand the unmet needs of pregnant women in NY, as it should, the study proposed by these bills should also examine the impact of a broader range of providers of pregnancy related women's services, in NY, including those that provide abortion services and referrals, such as Planned Parenthood. FCLNY urges these bills be amended accordingly. 10. Requires SUNY To Offer Medication Abortion, A3322. This bill would require “SUNY to offer abortion by medication techniques at all on-campus student health centers at colleges or universities within the SUNY system and creates a fund to help finance the implementation of offering such services at SUNY on-campus student health centers.” According to the Mayo Clinic, medication abortions pose potential health risks to women, and require certain minimum safety standards, protocols the SUNY bill fails to require. Additionally, The Federal Drug Administration documents Mifepristone hospitalizing women and causing numerous deaths from infection, ruptured ectopic pregnancies, and hemorrhaging.

*Version published in The Buffalo News, Feb. 2, 2022 On the highway heading south through downtown Buffalo, a billboard is displayed which describes New York’s current abortion policy, and calls for a repeal of the Reproductive Health Act (RHA). The billboard elicits much needed attention to the inconsistencies between New York’s abortion laws, current scientific understanding of fetal viability, and the public’s lack of support for later-term abortion (20+ weeks gestation). Viability is the ability of an unborn baby to survive outside of a mother’s womb, with or without medical intervention. In 1970, New York first legalized on-demand abortion pre-viability, which at the time rested within 24 weeks gestation. Decades later, in 2019, despite medical science and public consensus opposing later-term abortions in New York, the RHA was passed, which continued to legalize abortion for any or no reason within 24 weeks of pregnancy. By 2019, however, it was crystal clear that unborn children can be viable before this gestational age. In the past 50 years, neonatal medical treatments have improved significantly and the age of fetal viability has decreased. Developments in science, technology, and treatment practices have enabled premature babies as young as 22 weeks, and even younger , to survive outside of their mothers' wombs. This change was not unforeseen. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor predicted that Roe v. Wade (1973), which legalized pre-viability abortion nationally, would be “on a collision course with itself” as medical advances moved the viability line increasingly closer to fertilization. According to the most recent data from Johnston’s Archive, every year, between 9,100 and 15,400 abortions occur after 20 weeks gestation in the U.S. NY contributes disproportionately to these numbers, with an average of 1,660 reported abortions after 20 weeks each year. As the billboard illustrates, unborn children within 24 weeks can be aborted on-demand in NY, despite their viability. Neither fetal anomalies nor risks to women’s health are necessary to abort these children. Further, fetal anomalies or risks to mothers' lives or physical health are NOT the primary reasons why the majority of later-term abortions occur, including third trimester abortions. Like first trimester abortions, studies show that most second and third trimester abortions are "elective, done on healthy women and healthy fetuses." In a progressive state that claims to recognize the fundamental rights of the most vulnerable, it is a contradiction to arbitrarily ignore science and to allow for the wanton destruction of human beings – viable babies in utero who no longer need the bodies of their mothers to live. When scientific evidence regarding human viability has advanced, so should the law, for the sake of humanity. Nothing less dehumanizes and undermines democracy. The New York State Legislature elevated political ideology above science and human rights by enacting the RHA. Photo Credit: Graham's Foundation

“In childhood all my love went to my mother; my love for my mother was a thing apart. It was rooted in my blood and my bones.” Did you know that writer Pearl S. Buck, the first woman to win both the Pulitzer Prize and the Noble Prize in Literature was against abortion? As the mother of a daughter with severe mental retardation due to Phenylketonuria, she expressed gratitude for the lesson learned from loving a child with disabilities and said, “My child’s life has not been meaningless.” Buck believed that every child deserved to live and be a part of a family. In her forward to The Terrible Choice by Robert Cooke at al, Buck wrote: At what point should we allow this choice? For me the answer is – at no point, once life has begun. At no point, I repeat, either as life begins or as life ends, for we who as human beings cannot, for our own safety, be allowed to choose death, life being all we know”. Having spent the first half of her life in China and being the mother of seven adopted children from Asia, Europe and the United States, Buck began The East and West Association in 1941 to raise awareness of racial intolerance against Asian-Americans. In 1949, she opened the Welcome House, an adoption agency that placed parentless Asian American children with loving families regardless of parental race, a practice not accepted at the time. In 1964, she created the Pearl S. Buck Foundation to address childhood poverty and discrimination and with her estate, provided for Pearl S. Buck International, a child-sponsorship organization still in operation today. Buck’s humanitarian work also included opposition to nuclear weapons and war through the International League of Peace and Freedom and support for the original Equal Rights Amendment.

All Black Lives Matter. In every circumstance. No matter what. SUMMARY OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW - PG. 2 IMPORTANT TERMS - PG. 2 THE U.S. CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM - PG. 3 WEALTH GENERATION - PG. 23 EUGENICS, BIRTH CONTROL, STERILIZATION & ABORTION - PG. 31 THE U.S. HEALTHCARE SYSTEM - PG. 43 THE U.S. EDUCATION SYSTEM - PG. 48 CONCLUSION - PG. 59 WORKS CITED - PG. 61 OVERVIEW Protests. Outrage. Demands for change. This upset comes in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, accumulating from Black Lives Matter protests and initiatives over the past several years since the murder of Trayvon Martin in 2012. Yet, while awareness of police brutality and racism have resurfaced in the public arena due to video footage and media coverage, the dehumanization of black lives is far from a new phenomenon. Systemic racism is embedded into the very fabric of American society; no institution is left unscathed. In fact, our treatment of black lives exemplifies the adage, “the more things change, the more they remain the same.” Our country was built on the labor of African slaves, and the abolition of slavery merely changed the terminology of the systems oppressing of black lives. Systemic racism remains entrenched in our criminal justice system, communities, healthcare system, and schools, producing severe racial disparities across each sector. Some people contend that poverty, not racism, is the driving force of inequality across racial groups. While racism and poverty certainly overlap and are interconnected, poverty alone does not account for the racial discrimination and disproportionately negative outcomes that people of color experience in America. Even when socioeconomic status and other confounding variables are controlled for, racial disparities remain. This paper provides a historical account of systemic racism, contextualizing contemporary racial disparities by diving into America’s dark past and illuminating the systems of oppression that are preventing black Americans from realizing the rights and quality of life they are afforded as human members of our society. By learning our history and developing deeper understandings of systemic racism, we will be better equipped to identify and address racism in our daily lives,serving as anti-racist allies in this nationwide quest for racial justice. Important Terms: Disproportionate indicates that a racial group is overrepresented or underrepresented in a given measurement compared to its percentage of the total population. Disparity is a large difference between two things. In the case of this report, “disparity/disparities” and “disparate outcomes” refer to inequitable outcomes on the basis of race. Implicit Bias refers to how people have racial prejudices that are not conscious or overt, but are still acted upon unintentionally (Brownstein, 2019). Individual Racism involves individuals’ personal presumptions on race that result from conscious and unconscious prejudice. Systemic Racism is used to describe the organized rollout of policies and practices that are embedded in societal structures and institutions, which facilitate the promotion of some racial groups to the exclusion of others (Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre, 2019). White Privilege refers to the inherent advantages, or privileges, that white people possess simply by being white in a society that is racially unequal and unjust (Oxford Dictionary). Note that it does not undermine the life struggles white people can, and do, experience. Regardless of race, people can face many trials and tribulations throughout their lives. However, some struggles people face are specifically due to their race, and regardless of the obstacles white people endure, those due to race will not be among them... that is white privilege. The U.S. Criminal Justice System Summary: People of color have historically, and are currently, disproportionately targeted by the criminal justice system. Throughout history, the criminal justice system has taken on many forms, but all have served as a means of social control for people of color. Each time blacks were afforded rights, backlash from opponents sought new ways to restrict those rights. At its inception, the police were used to capture and return runaway slaves and control the masses of factory workers clamoring for labor rights. Following the abolition of slavery, jails and prisons served as the primary form of social control for black Americans and backlash to racial progress. Jails for the first time became overpopulated with blacks, and convicts were leased to white business owners in need of cheap labor. Blacks performed free, grueling labor in horrendous working conditions that rivaled slavery. Backlash to the passage of the 13th and 14th amendments led to the Jim Crow Era, which ushered in public spectacle lynchings and segregation that terrorized African Americans and stripped them of their newfound rights. Rather than protect and defend the black population, the police often participated, and even facilitated, the lynchings. When lynchings became disfavored in the media, governments turned to legalized lynchings in the form of capital punishment. Overwhelmingly, black defendants were, and still are, overrepresented among those that receive the death penalty, with the race of both the victim and the defendant contributing to whether the death penalty is pursued. White mobs were often successful in demanding government officials perform public executions, which amassed thousands of people, long after such executions were prohibited by law. Despite its lynching roots and blatant racial disparities, capital punishment remains legal in the United States and continues to target people of color, many of whom are still convicted and sentenced with all-white, or nearly all-white juries on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Backlash to the Civil Rights Movement brought a new tactic of socially controlling and disenfranchising blacks. This time, the backlash to racial justice manifested under the guise of the War on Crime and the War on Drugs. Latent with racially discriminatory rhetoric that was once only prevalent in segregationist circles, calls for law and order soon infiltrated and dominated mainstream political rhetoric among Republicans and Democrats alike. The consequences of these politically-driven initiatives led to the entrapment of millions of people in the U.S. criminal justice system, more than any other country in the world. Overwhelmingly and disproportionately, those incarcerated were people of color. The rates of incarceration of people of color were incongruent to their rates of offenses and proportions of the nation’s population. Communities of color were deliberately targeted and people of color faced harsher punishments than white offenders who committed identical offenses. Even upon release, formerly incarcerated individuals face social restrictions and disenfranchisement, preventing them from freely and fully participating in society. The U.S. is still grappling with the ramifications of these policies today. These historical and political contexts lay the framework for the police brutality and desperate outcries from communities of color seen today, with blacks 3 times as likely to be killed by police than whites, and 1.3 times as likely to be unarmed when killed. Police brutality is not a new phenomenon, nor is it the sole contributor to the institutional racism infecting the criminal justice system. To effectively address these racial injustices, a massive overhaul and reformatting of the criminal justice system is needed, in which individuals, police, government officials, and policymakers alike work together toward establishing a society that upholds the value of all its citizens’ lives - not only in theory, but also in practice. _________________________________________________________________ “By affording criminal suspects substantial constitutional rights in theory, the Supreme Court validates the results of the criminal justice system as fair. That formal fairness obscures the systemic concerns that ought to be raised by the fact that the prison population is overwhelmingly poor and disproportionately black” (Cole, 1999). Slavery has had a lasting, damaging impact on the African-American experience in the U.S. Modern law enforcement in the south originated from Slave Patrols, which primarily functioned to capture and return runaway slaves and instill terror to deter slave rebellions (Potter, n.d.). After slavery was abolished, new systems meant to control and exploit black bodies were immediately ushered in. Following the Civil War, the south was decimated, with fields being destroyed from fires, floods, and neglect during the war. Whites, who had established homes, businesses, and customs prior to the Civil War, were teetering on the brink of poverty. Newly freed blacks, who had no assets or foundation as citizens, were freed into very perilous economic conditions. In desperation, many newly freed blacks began stealing food from whites to get by. Historically, southern whites had already associated blacks with criminal behavior. Slaves routinely stole from their masters, deeming it recompensation for their exploitation or merely a “recycling” of the master’s property. Racist views of blacks’ biological inferiority caused many to accept such actions as “natural to the Negro” (Oshinsky, 1996). The difference now was that rather than an offense being perceived as committed against the slave owner, who would then privately punish the slave and move on, such crimes were now seen as offenses against the state. As such, it increasingly became law enforcement’s job to regulate the behaviors of former slaves (Oshinsky, 1996). Additionally, numerous laws were passed that specifically targeted black, leading to tens of thousands of African Americans being “arbitrarily arrested” and “hit with outrageous fines,” leading to further arrests when they were unable to pay such extreme fines (Blackmon, 2012). Convictions against blacks rose, and the demographic composition of Southern jails and prisons changed rapidly. It what seemed to be overnight, “the jailhouse had become ‘a negro preserve’” (Oshinsky, 1996). Thus marked the beginning of racially targeted arrests and the disproportionate incarceration of people of color that persist today (Blain, 2020). The southern prison infrastructure was not designed to accommodate this influx of people. One state official observed “Emancipation will require a system of prisons,” citing that prisons were nearly at capacity prior to the end of slavery and blacks’ involvement in the criminal justice system (Oshinsky, 1996). The solution for these overwhelmed jails and prisons was convict leasing. Edmund Richardson, a southern businessman who had lost much of his fortune during the Civil War, struck a deal with Mississippi's federal officials. He convinced them to ease the burden of the jails and prisons by leasing some of the convicts, who were overwhelmingly former slaves, to him, as he needed cheap labor to work his land. Richardson assured authorities he would feed, clothe, protect, and treat them well. Not only did officials agree, they even paid him $18,000 annually for the maintenance and transportation of the inmates. In addition to this stipend, Richardson pocketed all of the profits earned off the grueling, free labor of the convicts. Richardson’s bargain marked the beginning of an era of convict leasing, during which “a generation of prisoners would suffer and die under conditions far worse than anything they had ever experienced as slaves” (Oshinsky, 1996). As convict leasing expanded after reconstruction officials left the south, southern government officials began leasing out falsely incarcerated blacks to local businessmen, farmers, and numerous corporations, including U.S. Steel, who were looking for a cheap and plentiful labor supply. Freed from slavery, black Americans found themselves entangled in a neoslavery system, where they were repeatedly bought, sold, and tortured with beatings and grueling physical labor, doing “the bidding of white masters for decades after the official abolition of American slavery” (Blackmon, 2012). Individuals who were convict leased were racially segregated, with black convicts doing the “nigger work,” dangerous, labor-intensive work in coal mines, sawmills, cotton fields, swamplands, and railroad camps. Reports of the farming conditions blatantly lied and casually mentioned the deaths of dozens from gunshot wounds and disease. Meanwhile, southern government treasuries generated millions of dollars, once again orienting the southern economy around free black labor (Blackmon, 2012). Ultimately, convict leasing “was a system that pitted rich people against poor people, whites against blacks, and ex-masters against former slaves. Its profits would be widely resented and narrowly shared” (Oshinsky, 1996). As the prisons and convict leasing systems filled with black bodies who had typically committed minor, often arbitrary crimes, white Democrats rallied around white supremacism, fear, and outright violence to suffocate the newfound rights of blacks and regain political control. They “launched an ‘indiscriminate assault on blacks,’” killing dozens “in broad daylight, without the slightest hesitation of disguise,” since “white opinion strongly supported these crimes” (Oshinsky, 1996). In the north, the genesis of the modern police force emerged in the 1830s in response to disorder as a means of social control, particularly those with economic power. “Disorder” is not to be confused with “crime.” There is little evidence to suggest crime was spiking during this time. Rather, it was economic interests that drove the creation of a contemporary, public police force. Urbanization and inequality were on the rise, with factory workers heavily exploited and exposed to inhumane working conditions and compensation. Unrest within the working populace catalyzed the creation of “an organized, centralized body of men...legally authorized to use force and maintain order, it also provided the illusion that this order was being maintained under the rule of law, not at the whim of those with economic power” (Potter, n.d.). These departments were “notoriously corrupt and flagrantly brutal,” pawns of local politicians and routinely participated in ballot-box-stuffing, vote-buying, and strike-breaking. Some historians have gone so far as to refer to these early police departments as “delegated vigilantes” that used “overwhelming force against dangerous classes’ as a means of deterring criminality” (Potter, n.d.). Even after the 14th amendment was passed and afforded blacks equal protection and citizenship privileges, Jim Crow laws swept the nation, restricting these rights. They were passed on the untrue premise of facilities being “separate but equal.” Noncompliance to Jim Crow laws was responded to with police brutality and vicious violence by white vigilante groups that police turned a blind eye to. More disturbing is that racial terror lynching, often facilitated by police, was used as a vehicle to enforce and ensure racial segregation and Jim Crow laws. In May 1866, white Memphis police officers began firing into a crowd of black men, women, and children. The events culminated in white mobs ransacking black neighborhoods, seeking to kill and drive out all black people from the city. After three days of violence, 46 blacks were killed, 91 houses, four churches, and twelve schools were burned down. Additionally, at least five women were raped and many blacks permanently fled (Equal Justice Initiative, 2017). Then, less than three months later in New Orleans, black men attempted to attend a state constitutional convention to discuss furthering voting rights and the eliminating Black Codes. There was a confrontation between black supporters and white opponents in the streets, and the white mob started indiscriminately shooting blacks, convention supporters and bystanders alike. White police officers did not defend the black victims, but instead participated in the attacks, using various weapons to arrest and kill several blacks. Ultimately, there were 48 black casualties and 200 wounded. Lynchings, often organized, claimed the lives of thousands of African-Americans. Often, they were public spectacles, in which thousands of white spectators came to watch victims be tortured, dismembered, whipped, and burned before ultimately being killed (Equal Justice Initiative, 2017). A 1919 newspaper announcing a planned, public spectacle lynching (National Archives via the Equal Justice Initiative, 2017). Spectators smile and pose for the camera after witnessing a lynching (James Allen et al., via the Equal Justice Initiative, 2017). READ FULL REPORT BELOW:

One of the best-kept secrets in NYS and nation-wide is the existence of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), facilities that often provide more comprehensive healthcare for women, including pregnancy testing and birth control, than Planned Parenthoods (PPs). With the recent Covid-19 crisis, 11 PPs were physically closed in NYS, and 22 more have severely cut back. The need for alternatives is urgent. Most FQHCs throughout NYS are open and continuing to provide vital healthcare to women. Services may include STD testing and treatment, family planning and similar medical services. Below is a list of such centers near closed or limited PPs. We expect to update the listing as we find changes or when people notify us of updates. Be sure to check the websites or call each center for exact hours and services. It is important to note that FQHCs accept Medicaid and Medicare. FQHCs also offer language translation services. If you know of additional alternatives, or have feedback to offer about the ones listed, please send it to info@fclny.org. FQHCs are in all capital letters; clinics which were found through web searches, with a view to being good for low-income people, are in lower-case. Information last revised April 23, 2020. Amsterdam Planned Parenthood (PP) Limited Alternative- HOMETOWN HEALTH CENTER, 67 Division Street, Amsterdam, NY 12010-4099 Tel: 518-370-1441. Bronx PP Closed: The PP center is physically closed, at least for the duration. Alternatives: The BRONX COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK has many locations in the Bronx. MORRIS HEIGHTS HEALTH CENTER has many locations in the Bronx. Clifton Park PP Limited Alternatives: Clifton Park Family Practice, 1 Tallow Wood Drive, Clifton Park, NY 12065. Tel: 518-373-4500. Ellis Medicine – Medical Center of Clifton Park, 103 Sitterly Road, Clifton Park, NY 12065. Tel: 518-579-2800. Clifton Park Family Medicine, 1783 US 9, Suite 202, Clifton Park, NY 12065. Tel: 518-383-2366. CareNet Medical Group – Gynecology Office in Clifton Park, 2 Chelsea Place Clifton Park, NY 12065. Tel: 518-381-1121. Mondragon McGrinder Stier OB-GYN Associates, 3 Halfmoon Executive Park Drive Clifton Park, NY 12065. Tel: 518-371-4614. Cobleskill PP Limited Alternative- Bassett Healthcare Network, 136 Parkway Drive, Cobleskill, NY 12043. Tel: 518-234-2555. Corning PP Limited Alternatives: Guthrie Corning Centerway, 130 Center Way, Corning, NY 14830. Tel: 607-973-8000. AOMC Family Medicine, 8 Pulteney Street, Corning, NY 14830. Tel: 607-936-8459. Elmira PP Limited Alternatives: Twin Tier Women’s Health, 1005 Walnut Street, Elmira, NY 14901. Tel: 607-734-3968. AOMC Health Care for Women, 600 Fitch Street, Elmira, NY 14905. Tel: 607-737-8141. AOMC Eastside Family Medicine, 200 Madison Avenue, #2B, Elmira, NY 14901 Tel: 607-732-1310. Glen Cove PP Closed: The PP center is physically closed, at least for the duration. Alternative- Z Medical Care, 128 Glen Street, Glen Cove, NY 11542. Tel: 516-802-5562. Goshen PP Closed: The PP center is physically closed, at least for the duration. Alternatives: MIDDLETOWN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, 21 Orchard St. Middletown, NY 10940. Tel: 845-343-7614. HUDSON RIVER HEALTHCARE WILLIAM J. THAYER ALAMO, 888 Pulaski Highway, Goshen, NY 10924-6034. Tel: 845-651-2298. Hempstead PP Limited Alternatives: HEMPSTEAD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER, 135 Main St. Hempstead, NY 11550-2414. Tel: 516-572-1300. ROOSEVELT FAMILY HEALTH CENTER, 380 Nassau Road, Roosevelt, NY 11575-1343. Tel: 516-571-8600. Hornell PP Closed: The PP center is physically closed, at least for the duration. Alternative- OAK ORCHARD HEALTH, 20 Elm Street, Hornell, NY 14843-1933. Tel: 607-590-2424. Huntington PP Limited Alternative- HRHCARE - HUNTINGTON, 55 Horizon Drive, Huntington, NY, 11743-4436. Tel: 631-760-7746. Ithaca PP Limited Alternative- None has yet been found. Anyone with good information on one can contact. Johnstown PP Limited Alternative- HOMETOWN HEALTH CENTER, 67 Division Street, Amsterdam, NY 12010-4099. Tel: 518-370-1441. Kingston PP Closed: The PP center is physically closed, at least for the duration. Alternatives: OB/GYN AND SPECIALTY CARE CENTER OF KINGSTON, 1 Foxhall Avenue, Kingston, NY 12401-5107. Tel: 845-338-8444. KINGSTON FAMILY HEALTH CENTER, 1 Family Practice Drive, Kingston, NY 12401-6449. Tel: 845-338-6400. Massapequa PP Closed: The PP center is physically closed, at least for the duration. Alternative- HUDSON RIVER HEALTHCARE - 1080 Sunrise Highway, Amityville, NY 11701-2526. Tel: 631-716-9026 Monticello PP Closed: The PP center is physically closed, at least for the duration. Alternative- HUDSON RIVER HEALTHCARE MONTICELLO, 23 Lakewood Ave., Monticello, NY 12701-2021. Tel: 845-794-2010. Newburgh PP Limited Alternatives: CORNERSTONE FAMILY HEALTHCARE: THE KAPLAN FAMILY PAVILION, 147 Lake Street, Newburgh, NY 12550-5263. Tel: 845-563-8000. CORNERSTONE FAMILY HEALTHCARE: CENTER FOR WOMENS HEALTH, 91 Blooming Grove Tpke. New Windsor, NY 12553-7757. Tel: 845-220-2074. HRHCARE COMMUNITY HEALTH – THE BEACON HEALTH CENTER, 6 Henry Street, Beacon, NY 12508-3058. Tel: 845-831-0400. New Rochelle PP Limited Alternatives: MOUNT VERNON NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH CENTER,107 W. 4th St. Mount Vernon, NY 10550-4002. Tel: 914-699-7200. OPEN DOOR MAMARONECK, 689 Mamaroneck Avenue, Mamaroneck, NY 10543-5910. Tel: 914-632-2737. MORRIS HEIGHTS HEALTH CENTER AT 233RD STREET, 825 E. 233rd Street, Bronx, NY 10466-3203. Tel: 718-716-4400. Oneida PP Closed: The PP center is physically closed, at least for the duration. Alternatives: Oneida Healthcare, 321 Genesee Street. Oneida, NY 13421. Tel: 315-363-6000. Bassett Health Care Oneida, 2031 Dream Catcher Plaza, Oneida, NY 13421. Tel: 315-231-5400. Mary Rose Center, 1081 Northside Shopping Center, Oneida, NY 13421. Tel: 315-280-0855. Patchogue PP Limited Alternative- HUDSON RIVER HEALTHCARE PATCHOGUE, 365 E. Main St. Patchogue, NY 11772-3145. Tel: 631-866-2030. Poughkeepsie PP Limited Alternatives: HUDSON RIVER HEALTHCARE PARTNERSHIP, 29 N. Hamilton Street, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601-2541. Tel: 845-454-8204. HUDSON RIVER HEALTHCARE - POUGHKEEPSIE, 75 Washington Street, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601-2303. Tel: 914-734-8600. Queens PP Limited Alternatives: ODA QUALITY HEALTH CENTER, 432 Bedford Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11249-6588. Tel: 718-260-4600. BETANCES HEALTH CENTER ON HENRY STREET, 280 Henry St. New York, NY 10002-4816. Tel: 212-227-8408. ODA PRIMARY HEALTH CARE CENTER ON RUTLEDGE STREET, 54 Rutledge St. Brooklyn, NY 11249-7814. Tel: 718-260-4600. ODA PRIMARY HEALTH CARE NETWORK ON HEYWARD STREET, 14 Heyward St. Brooklyn, NY 11249-7823. Tel: 718-260-4600. Queensbury PP Limited Alternative- HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK is the network of Community Health Centers for this area. Riverhead PP Limited Alternative- HEALTH CENTER AT RIVERHEARD, 300 Center Drive, Riverhead, NY 11901-3393. Tel: 914-734-8600. Rome PP Closed: The PP center is physically closed, at least for the duration. Alternatives: UPSTATE FAMILY HEALTH CENTER, 205 W Dominick Street, Suite A. Rome, NY, 13440-5811. Tel: 315-624-9470. Mohawk Valley Women’s Health Associates, 107 E. Chestnut Street, Rome, NY 13440. Tel: 315-797-8661. Women’s Health Associates, 8080 Turin Road, Rome, NY 13440 Tel: 315-336-4721. Saratoga Springs PP Limited Alternative-Saratoga Community Health Center, 24 Hamilton Street, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866. Tel: 518-886-5600. Schenectady PP Limited Alternative- HOMETOWN FAMILY HEALTH CENTER - SCHENECTADY, 1044 State Street, Schenectady, NY 12307-1508. Tel: 518-370-1441. Smithtown PP Limited Alternative- CHARLES EVANS CENTER - SUFFOLK COUNTY, 305 Oser Avenue, Hauppauge, NY 11788-3607. Tel: 631-524-5290. Spring Valley PP Limited Alternatives: HRH CARE AT SPRING VALLEY, 2 Perlman Drive, Spring Valley, NY 10977-5245. Tel: 845-573-9860. REFUAH HEALTH ON TWIN AVENUE, 5 Twin Avenue, Spring Valley, NY 10977-3950. Tel: 845-354-9300. REFUAH HEALTH CENTER ON N. MAIN STREET, 728 N. Main Street, Spring Valley, NY 10977-8916. Tel: 845-354-9300. Staten Island PP Closed: The PP center is physically closed, at least for the duration. Alternatives: BAY STREET HEALTH CENTER, 57 Bay St. Staten Island, NY 10301-2510. Tel: 718-681-8700. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER OF RICHMOND ON CANAL STREET, 135 Canal St. Staten Island, NY 10304-2059. Tel: 718-924-2254. EZRA MEDICAL WOMEN’S AND FAMILY HEALTH CENTER, 1260-78 60th St. Brooklyn, NY 11219-4976. Tel: 718-686-7600. JOSEPH P. ADDABBO FAMILY HEALTH CENTER AT RICHARDS STREET, 120 Richards St. Brooklyn, NY 11231-1635. Tel: 718-945-7150. Utica PP Limited Alternative- MOSAIC HEALTH, 1651 Oneida St., Utica, NY 13501. Tel: 315-793-7600. Watkins Glen PP Closed: The PP center is physically closed, at least for the duration. Alternative- Arnot Medical Services, 104 Porter St., Watkins Glen, NY 14891 Tel:607-535-7873. West Islip PP Limited Alternative- HRH CARE MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. HEALTH CENTER, 1556 Straight Path, Wyandanch, NY 11798-3213. Tel: 516-214-8020. White Plains PP Limited Alternatives: GREENBURGH HEALTH CENTER, 295 Knollwood Road, White Plains, NY 10607-1822. Tel: 914-699-7200. OPEN DOOR FAMILY MEDICAL SLEEPY HOLLOW, 80 Beekman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591-2503. Tel: 914-631-4141. Yonkers PP Limited Alternatives: YONKERS COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, 30 S. Broadway, Yonkers, NY 10701-3712. Tel: 914-968-4898. HRH CARE PARK CARE HEATLH CENTER, 2 Park Avenue, Yonkers, NY 10703-3402. Tel: 914-964-7862. HRH CARE VALENTINE LANE HEALTH CENTER,503 S. Broadway, Yonkers, NY 10705-6201. Tel: 914-965-7551. MORRIS HEIGHTS HEALTH CENTER AT 233RD STREET, 825 E. 233rd Street, Bronx, NY 10466-3203. Tel: 718-716-4400. MOUNT VERNON NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH CENTER, 107 W. 4th St. Mount Vernon, NY 10550-4002. Tel: 914-699-7200. This guide is not a comprehensive listing of all medical services available to women New York. It is provided for informational purposes only. It is not meant or intended to be an endorsement of the healthcare centers or the services provided.

My children value me for my ability to tie their shoes, read them a book, or comfort them after a difficult day. My husband values me for my ability to manage our household of six and have his favorite chicken chili on the table after a long day. My clients value my ability to analyze data and pull out insights. Yet, regardless of whether or not anyone values my abilities or my relationships, my rights as an individual remain the same. In this “enlightened” age, the idea that rights are not related to how others value us is certainly not a revolutionary or novel idea. We acknowledge the inherent worth of all. We know that race, religion, or sexual orientation should not determine our self-worth and certainly not our rights. As women, touting the sentiment: “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle” seems archaic. It’s obvious that a woman can stand on her own and has rights and values irrespective of her value as a wife or mother. Yet, this is exactly what we have done to our unborn children. Their most basic right—the right to life—is predicated on whether or not they are valued by another. It is incomprehensible to imagine any other group of people’s rights being denied because they were considered inconvenient or unwanted. Would we deny the elderly in our lives access to decent housing and medical care even though their needs may be burdensome to us at this point in our life? Would we tell our LGBTQ friends that it is acceptable to discriminate against them in the workplace and in housing because some people will not be able to see past their sexual orientation and value their contributions as individuals? Would we tell a woman candidate that she is less qualified to run for President because she is a member of the “fairer sex”? To suggest that any of these scenarios would be acceptable or just would suggest a lack of morality. Yet, each time we uphold a woman’s right to choose we reveal that we truly believe that rights are malleable and dependent on how another person values our self-worth. A recent ad promoting Planned Parenthood goes so far as to explicitly call out that a child should be wanted. The ad shows a picture of a smiling baby girl, saying, “She deserves to be loved. She deserves to be wanted. She deserves to be a choice.” How has it come to be that supposedly pro-woman activists and organizations would deny this baby girl the right to life if she is not wanted or loved? Throughout history women have clamored for rights separate from their husbands—rights defined by their individual self-worth—not based on whether or not we were wanted or loved by another. When talking about her marriage at age 66, Gloria Steinem said, “If I had got married when I was supposed to have in my 20s, I would have lost almost all my civil rights. I wouldn't have had my own name, my own legal residence, my own credit rating. I would have had to get a husband to sign off on a bank loan, or starting a business. It's changed profoundly.” If feminism is about civil rights that are not connected to another, how is it that this baby girl can only have her life protected if she is desired by another person? Does this not stand at odds with the basic tenets of feminism—that we recognize the equality and full humanity of females and males? At this moment in history, we are watching a caravan of migrants press on to the United States. While we may disagree about what should happen once these men, women, and children reach the US border, as a mother it is hard not to find compassion for the mothers in this caravan who are risking everything to give their children a better future. It is hard to argue with the notion that a child’s future should not be determined by the circumstances of her birth. According to the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, thousands of girls and women are fleeing Central America to escape violence. The lives of these women and girls are threatened by rape and forced prostitution. The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies outlines countless stories of women who have been raped and beaten and suffered violence at the hands of gangs and who have come to the US seeking asylum. Unfortunately, for these women, they have not been able to find protection in their own countries and many believe that if they do not leave their homes they will be murdered. One El Salvadoran woman recounts being raped by two men and becoming pregnant as a result, then being forced to pay her rapists “renta.” Another 13-year-old girl fled gang violence in El Salvador only to be kidnapped in Mexico, used for sex, and forced to be a drug mule. A Honduran woman was raped by more than a dozen gang members. After reporting the gang rape to the police, her family began to receive death threats. These young women are looking to the future—a future where they are free from violence, where they can turn to the police for protection, where they have civil rights. These young women were born in a country that did not value them as women—that saw them as only tools of the sex trade—and did not protect their rights. Yet, at no time did these young women stop fighting for their lives. Despite being devalued by the gangs in their home country and by law enforcement, these young women sought a better life, knowing that their lives should be protected. And, isn’t that what we want for our daughters? For them to know their own self-worth. To know that they are not simply sex objects to be used by men? To never stop fighting for their rights, regardless of whether or not they are valued by others or deemed worthy of protection? Yet, this is what we have done to our unborn children. We have declared that they are only worthy if they are loved. They are only protected if they are born at the “right time and right circumstances.” The rights of our unborn children are dependent on whether they are wanted. This is not the feminism I seek—where women declare our rights are subject to whether or not we are wanted. Where is the equality and humanity in such a stand? #Unborn #Prowoman #Feminists #Feminism #ProLifeFeminist

Women have a long history of leading the way in calling for an end to the many injustices in the world. We have marched with the abolitionists. We have marched for the right to vote. We have marched with the great civil rights leaders. We have marched for an end to violence against women. And, just like we have done every year since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision we march for life. We gather in at state capitols, cities, and towns across the U.S, including in Washington, DC to protest abortion and to advocate for a world in which women have life-affirming choices that do not involve destroying our children. While those that advocate for abortion will call us anti-woman and anti-choice, we know that there is no better way to advance the cause of women than to protect our unborn children. Those demanding a woman’s right to abortion are bolstering the notion that this will forever be a world dictated by the needs of men. If we do not need to accommodate pregnancy, then we do not need to provide health care to pregnant women, we do not need to find ways to care for our children, we do not need to create changes that will allow a woman to succeed as a mother. When abortion is offered as a “solution” to pregnancy, the needs of women and children have pushed aside. Planned Parenthood itself has fallen prey to putting this philosophy into action. In a New York Times article, pregnant women came forward to share their stories of how Planned Parenthood discriminated against them when they were pregnant. Women who worked at Planned Parenthood reported that Planned Parenthood would not accommodate their need for additional breaks that were recommended by their health care providers; Planned Parenthood was accused of making hiring and employment decisions based on pregnancy, and pregnant workers said that Planned Parenthood created an environment that was hostile to pregnant women—some of whom were afraid to even announce their pregnancy at work because of the repercussions. The NY Times interviewed Ta’Lisa Hairston, a medical assistant who had wanted to work at Planned Parenthood because she believed in Planned Parenthood’s mission and wanted to help women have autonomy over their bodies. Hairston expected that “there would be no better place to work than a clinic that dealt with expecting mothers every day.” Yet, she was wrong. When Hairston provided notes from her nurse recommending additional breaks because her high blood pressure was threatening her pregnancy, Planned Parenthood managers ignored the notes. “I had to hold back tears talking to pregnant women, telling them to take care of their pregnancies when I couldn’t take care of mine,” said Hairston. While Hairston’s story is sad, it is not surprising. As an abortion provider, Planned Parenthood sees pregnancy as a barrier to be removed, not a life to be embraced. According to the 2016-2017 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, PPFA performed 321,384 abortion procedures (a number which does not include the over 730,000 emergency contraception kits provided by PPFA). Yet, PPFA only provided prenatal services to 7,762 women, and adoption referrals were only provided to 3,889 women. These numbers make it clear that the only choice Planned Parenthood wants to offer women is the choice to abort their children. What would have happened if those 321,384 children were not aborted? What if Planned Parenthood had instead worked with those women to address the underlying problems that were bringing them to their doors looking to end the lives of their unborn children? Would we have started to tackle problems associated with the poverty that single mothers face? Would we have tried to figure out ways to portray the women who place their children in adoptive homes as heroes and address the legal and financial barriers to adoption that exist? And, how much more beauty and wonder could those 321,384 children have brought to this world? As pro-life women, we know that we cannot make gains for ourselves while aborting our children. We will continue to march against abortion and for women. We will continue to shout out against the injustice that says decrees that pregnancy is a problem to be terminated. And we will not stand for a women’s movement based on the premise that our children must be sacrificed to advance women’s equality. #MarchforLife #WomensMarch #Abortion #PlannedParenthood #ProLifeFeminist