Search Results

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

December 28, 2018, the editorial board of the New York Times published the opinion piece “A Woman’s Rights.” The board of Feminists Choosing Life of New York submitted six letters to the editors in response. We are pleased that the letter submitted by Sarah Mullen was accepted for publication. Below are the unpublished FCLNY response letters. The Reproductive Health Act (RHA) referenced in, A Woman’s Rights Part 3: The Cost of Complacency About Roe, potentially endangers women’s lives and completely disregards humans in utero. While every person’s heart must extend to Ericka Christensen for the difficult pregnancy that led her to Colorado to abort, the RHA goes well beyond Roe. To be clear, the RHA permits fully viable infants born alive during an abortion to die, in anguish, without any treatment, whatsoever. The RHA also permits persons other than ‘duly licensed physicians’ to perform late-term surgical abortions. In addition, the bill also allows late-term abortions to occur in facilities other than hospitals. According to, Risk Factors for Legal Induced Abortion-Related Mortality in the United States, published by Obstetrics & Gynecology, the "risk of death" for "women obtaining legally induced abortions" "increase[s] exponentially by 38% for each additional week of gestation." As a feminist, I wonder how removing these safeguards for women can be considered a right. It smacks more of exploitation. Submitted by Michele Sterlace-Accorsi, JD, LLM Feminists Choosing Life of New York, Executive Director ………………………………………………………………………………………………… According to research conducted out of the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at UCSF and published in Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, most late-term abortions are not performed for medical reasons. In “A Woman’s Rights” the NY Times editorial board argues for the passage of the RHA and legalized late-term abortion in NYS by citing rare cases like Erika Christensen’s. However, any honest discussion of the RHA must recognize that fully viable, healthy fetuses of healthy mothers would become legal to abort in NY for essentially any reason. Even in rarer circumstances like Ms. Christensen’s, a resolution is possible without late-term abortion access. It is within a woman’s right to request an induction or c-section following such a diagnosis. Late-term procedures can take hours or days before the child dies. It is hard to argue this is a kinder end than palliative care. Cecelia Hayes Feminists Choosing Life of New York, Vice President ……………………………………………………………………………………………… “A society that embraces a legal concept of fetal personhood would necessarily compromise existing ideals of individual freedom”. What? By that logic, granting full personhood to enslaved Blacks compromised individual whites’ freedoms! How absurdly ludicrous. Until the inherent worth of every human being is recognized and valued, America can hold no claim on the “ideal(s) of individual freedom”. Amy Crossed-Rieck Feminists Choosing Life of New York, Member- Board of Directors ………………………………………………………………………………………………… The Reproductive Health Act is more complicated than portrayed in, “The Cost of Complacency About Roe”. Formally known as the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act and later, part nine of Governor Cuomo’s Women’s Equality Act, the bill, despite its ever-changing title, failed not only because the Republicans were the senate majority but because New Yorkers expressed consistent opposition to the bill’s content. The opposition was strong enough, in fact, to cause the much-praised WEA package to fail until the RHA component was removed entirely. One point of opposition is the heinous legalization of abortion during the second and third trimester of pregnancy through the inclusion of a broad health exception allowing women to abort viable fetuses for essentially any reason; including economic or familial health. The vast majority of Americans, including in New York, oppose these late-term abortions. As a New Yorker, Democrat and feminist, I can’t help but wonder what history will say about a people who allowed the legalized killing of fully formed human beings for the sake of exerting political dominance. Kelly Brunacini Feminists Choosing Life of New York, Member- Board of Directors …………………………………………………………………………………………………… The Cost of Complacency About Roe fails to mention that the Reproductive Health Act (RHA) potentially re-victimizes victims of sex trafficking as well as domestic violence. Something Roe surely never intended. The RHA completely guts abortion from NY’s penal laws. And while this appeals to some feminists who claim abortion is self-care, health-care, and has no place in any criminal statues, the consequences of this blanket removal are discriminatory and devastating. The RHA repeals key statutory provisions that allow for the prosecution of individuals who coerce abortions, and for the prosecution of abusers who kill or cause the death of wanted unborn fetuses. Studies consistently show, including, Acknowledging a Persistent Truth: Domestic Violence in Pregnancy, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, that domestic violence escalates during pregnancy, with significant consequences for women and their unborn children, including death. Studies also reveal, including, Associations Between Intimate Partner Violence and Termination of Pregnancy, and The Health Consequences of Sex Trafficking, Their Implications for Identifying Victims in Healthcare Facilities, respectively, that victims of domestic violence and sex trafficking undergo coerced abortions. Women’s rights are supposed to empower not deprive women of justice. Candice Renaldo Feminists Choosing Life of New York, Member- Board of Directors