Only vote for the Pro-Choice/Endorsed candidates! Only vote for 2 Supreme Court candidates, Fran Connolly and Rolf Thorsen
Let party leaders know You Are Watching and VOTING! The Democratic Party is letting pro-choice voters down. Just look at Brooklyn where their excuse for supporting an anti-choice woman for NYS Supreme Court is that they didn’t know. Really??? She had published an article opposing the Roe v. Wade decision.
Right here in Westchester, we know because Choice Matters and WCLA PAC make sure party leaders know who can and cannot be trusted with our reproductive healthcare decisions. They chose to ignore us when it came to Supreme Court nominees this year. Not acceptable.
Instead, he zeroed in on some of the dates and employers cited—those that came directly from Wood’s own resume[2], the one he has been circulating far and wide. Wood blamed me for errors the origin of which was Wood himself. It turns out that Wood has omitted an employer from his resume for the sake of “brevity”[3].
WCLAPAC went to great lengths to document all of its sources, including Wood. The information in WCLAPAC’s email was footnoted throughout, so that anyone could check the source and verify.
Instead of taking ownership of his own errors and “brevity”, Wood concluded his email with, “Further dissemination of this morning’s false information by you, whether directly, or through one of your favorite alternate platforms, will be considered additional proof of actual malice in the publication of false statements. Be guided accordingly, and have a nice day.”
False??? I reiterate, all the information he cited as “false” was taken directly from Wood’s own resume.
On April 27th, we asked, why didn’t Charles Wood recuse himself? This history of close employment affiliations and alternating judicial roles are fair and legitimate concerns.
But now we must also ask even more fundamental questions: Do we want a judge whose goal is to silence opposition? Who threatens First Amendment Rights protected by the Constitution, but on the bench is tasked with protecting that very right?
Ask yourselves, is intimidation judicial behavior or democratic behavior we wish to advance here in Westchester? As the victim of this intimidation, I personally hope you will say, “NO. Not Now. Not Here. Not Ever.”
Please Support Us in Our Fight for Abortion Rights.
THE ONLY WAY TO WIN
IS TO ELECT
A PRO-CHOICE CONGRESS, STATE & JUDICIARY!
A Judge’s Decisions on the Bench Speak VOLUMES. Listen to what their decisions are telling you.
As we have just witnessed in Texas, the law is not dead. It is open to interpretation and manipulation. A judge’s decisions present a portrait of the person’s views, the perspective applied by the judge hearing the case.
The NYS Supreme Court – 9th Judicial District – comprised of Westchester, Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, and Rockland counties – will have 4 openings in 2023, two to be filled from Westchester. One possible candidate is Charles Wood.
What do we know about Judge Charles Wood?
1.Wood has made two recent decisions from the bench that speak loudly about the kind of judge he is.Many people believe these two decisions should disqualify him from being re-elected.
> The decision most troubling to reproductive rights organizations and advocates for victims of sexual assault is Wood’s decision in GCVAWCG-Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, denying a plaintiff anonymity in a case brought under the Child Victims Act, against the Archdiocese and others.In our opinion, it was a terrible decision and has serious implications for plaintiffs in many different circumstances, including possibly individuals seeking abortion care.
Charles Wood’s interpretation and application of the Law with regard to victim privacy make him “unqualified” for WCLA PAC’s endorsement. To read more about this devastating decision and why WCLA PAC refuses to endorse him, CLICK HERE. (It is important to note that other judges have made the opposite determination, allowing plaintiffs anonymity.)
> The other damaging decision, and the most recent according to his resume, is Wood’s decision in the Project Veritas v. New York Timeswhich earned him national notoriety for seeking to limit press freedom:
2. In 2009,WCLA – Choice Matters rated NYS Supreme Court candidate Charles Woodas“Anti-Choice.” WCLA PAC, which is staunchly non-partisan, refused to endorse him. He was then running on the Republican, Conservative, and Independence Party lines.
He never objected to the anti-choice rating. He never commented on it. He never refuted the rating. That is, until now —14 years later. Why?
3.The 9th Judicial District has become a reliable district for Democratic candidates.
> Wood, who changed his party registration from “R” to “D” in 2019, has himself said he changed his party affiliation “for self-preservation.” But has Wood really changed?
4. Wood is one of just two in a field of 20 who WCLA PAC refuses to endorse. Seven are particularly well-versed in the law, and would be exceptional picks.
Candidates should not be advanced simply because they are running for re-election. Instead, their records should be studied and analyzed.
We have the opportunity to put forth judicial candidates who will move New York in a positive direction. Charles Wood is NOT one of them.
Remember – as Wisconsin and Texas have shown us – who the judge is matters.
20 Candidates for 2 seats—and 2 Seeking Re-election
Charles (Charley) Wood, his record, and why WCLA PAC refuses to endorse him
This Is Unacceptable: A Survivor’s Right to Privacy
We’re all outraged by what is happening in our highest federal and state courts. The US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade. A federal court judge in Texas is likely to overturn the FDA’s approval of mifepristone—making medication abortion illegal in all 50 states. Some state judges assign fetuses an attorney to cross-examine minors seeking abortion care. And on it goes…But our blame may be misplaced. These judges didn’t get there overnight. They rose through the ranks, with their records of decisions and affiliations available to be reviewed and considered at every stage.
Every General Election, candidates for “Judge” appear on your ballot. These candidates are mostly picked by your political party, in accordance with State law, and yet without your direct involvement. There are rarely primaries. Once elected, judges for Family, County, and Supreme Court will serve for terms ranging from 10 –14 years, depending on the court.
What We’re Doing About That:
The WCLA PAC and Choice Matters Process
Every year, WCLA – Choice Matters (Choice Matters) interviews prospective candidates, on a nonpartisan basis, who may be running for Family, County, or NYS Supreme Court, 9th Judicial District, which encompasses Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester counties. The organization has been doing this for decades, and it makes sure to conduct the interviews with full respect to New York’s ethics law.Following the interviews, Choice Matters rates the prospective candidates as “Pro-Choice” or “Anti-Choice.” Choice Matters does not make endorsements.
No candidate is given a “pass” on this issue. Choice Matters extends its invitation for an interview by email, text, phone, and even US mail. It is made clear that if a candidate does not accept the invitation for an interview, that candidate will be rated “Anti-Choice.”
All “Pro-Choice” Candidates Are Not Created Equal
While Choice Matters does not endorse, Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion PAC (WCLA PAC) does. WCLA PAC evaluates the “whole” candidate, using the ratings as a guide.Sometimes, WCLA PAC chooses not to endorse a candidate rated “Pro-Choice” by Choice Matters. This is a reflection on the quality of the candidate as viewed through their record.
Last year, there was such a candidate. This individual was rated “Pro-Choice” by Choice Matter. However, he was also involved with the Federalist Society, including being recognized by their Albany Law School Chapter. The candidate did not receive WCLA PAC’s endorsement.
20 Candidates for 2 Seats—and 2 Seeking Re-Election
This year, the Westchester County Democratic Committee is screening 20 candidates who have presented themselves for consideration for two openings on the NYS Supreme Court, 9th Judicial District. Choice Matters has interviewed each of these candidates.
Of these 20 candidates, one has been rated “Anti-Choice.” The remaining 19 have been rated “Pro-Choice,” but are not equally strong. Seven are particularly well-versed in the law, and would be exceptional picks. The remaining 12 show a broad range of knowledge and understanding, with only one having a history that would result in a refusal by WCLA PAC to endorse him.
Candidates should not be advanced simply because they are running for re-election. Instead, their records should be studied and analyzed.
Two of the 20 candidates are seeking re-election—Francesca E. Connolly and Charles (Charley) D. Wood. Both candidates have been interviewed and their published decisions have been examined. While there was no issue with Francesca Connolly’s responses or her published record, there are serious concerns with Charles Wood’s.
As is common in sexual assault cases like rape, the plaintiff requested anonymity.
Wood denied the plaintiff in this sexual assault case the right to proceed under a pseudonym, and did so even though the request was unopposed by the defendants. The plaintiff had also “consented to confidentially providing the institutional defendants with his full name, address, and date of birth, so no prejudice would fall upon the institutional defendants in investigating this matter or in responding to the Verified Complaint.” Wood still decided in favor of “full public disclosure” rather than granting the request for anonymity.
Wood wrote in his decision: “While plaintiff’s application contains allegations of acts against him when he was a minor, involving highly sensitive matters, including potential social stigmatization, claims of public humiliation and embarrassment alone are not sufficient grounds for allowing a plaintiff to proceed anonymously.”
Note: Judge Wood uses the name “Charles” when signing judicial decisions, but “Charley” in the voter registration rolls.
This is Unacceptable: A Survivor’s Right to Privacy
Sexual assault survivors should not have to disclose their names publicly in order to seek justice. Doing so victimizes them all over again, with that information living forever on the internet for co-workers, neighbors, romantic partners, children and grandchildren, friends, and even foes to see.
We know that most victims of sexual assault suffer for decades, if not their whole lives, and that the trauma does not end with childhood. They should not be traumatized again by a judge’s rejection of their need for anonymity.
But in his decision, Wood dismissed that concern as, “the mere fact that the internet exists…”
And what would happen in Judge Wood’s court to a person assaulted while seeking abortion care? Would she also be required to reveal her name and her healthcare choices in order to hold an anti-choice extremist accountable?
People seeking abortion care need to know that their privacy is secure, and that the system will allow them to maintain their privacy if they choose to hold their abusers accountable. We cannot have a judicial system that victimizes them again.
Charles Wood’s interpretation and application of the Law with regard to victim privacy make him “unqualified” for WCLA PAC’s endorsement. He is not leading the courts in the direction New York is going and should continue to go, and he should not be advanced for re-election.
About Project Veritas v. New York Times
Project Veritas v. New York Timeswas, and still is, one of the most watched cases on First Amendment rights. Charles Wood’s decision was stayed in the NYS Court of Appeals in 2022, stopping his order to destroy documents gathered by the Times as part of their reporting on Project Veritas.“The case involves a lawyer’s advice to Project Veritas with regards to strategy for conducting their deceptive sting operations. The Times obtained memos describing the strategy. Project Veritas claimed attorney client privilege and Judge Wood not only agreed and stopped the Times from publishing their story, but also demanded that the Times destroy and or turn over all their notes. This is known as prior restraint and is unheard of except in cases of national security.
In support of the Times’ objections to the prior restraint and the order to turn over documents, the Reporters Committee and a coalition of 63 news organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Jan. 12, 2022, urging the appeals court to immediately vacate the lower court’s decision and order. “Prohibiting a news organization from publishing information of public interest is clearly unconstitutional,” said Reporters Committee Executive Director Bruce Brown. “It was unconstitutional on day one, and it’s unconstitutional on day 85, and we’re glad to see it lifted.” This case was stayed on appeal and the Times published their story.”
On a typical day, in a typical week, WCLA – Choice Matters and its 2 political action committees would not get involved in party politics. Choice Matters, ProChoice Voter and WCLA PAC are proudly non-partisan.
But these are not typical times. AND, our mission is simple – to advance abortion rights.
Choice Matters and WCLA PAC are proud to support and endorse Suzanne Berger for Chair of the Westchester County Democratic Party Committee – no “ifs,” “ands” or “buts”.
The Chair of a committee steers the ship, determining tenor and course.
Suzanne Berger is literally the ONLY candidate in this race who has demonstrated a true and unwavering commitment to abortion rights and reproductive freedom.
Abortion rights is not just a bullet point on a list or a photo op. It is not simply attending an event or having a photo snapped with elected officials. Quite the contrary.
Being an abortion rights advocate and an activist is a fundamental commitment – one that Suzanne Berger has demonstrated over and over again.
Under Suzanne Berger’s leadership,ALL of Greenburgh candidates running for office have been interviewed by Choice Matters to determine whether they are truly committed to a woman’s right to make her own decisions. The interviews and Choice Matters’ respective pro-choice rating have been reported to Greenburgh’s Executive Committee.
Suzanne’s opponent has done none of this.
What does being “pro-choice” mean? It is a phrase thrown around by many because it helps candidates get elected – just like Jeannine Pirro and Robert Castelli did. For Choice Matters, a candidate cannot be “kind of” pro-choice. Just as you cannot be a little pregnant, you cannot be a little pro-choice.
Now, across this nation, we face a reckoning. Our constitutional rights are being challenged and threatened. And sadly, today, the fight for women’s reproductive freedom is sinking to the bottom of that bushel basket of rights.
This week, Westchester’s Democratic District Leaders have the opportunity to make history by making Suzanne Berger the first elected Woman Chair of the Westchester County Democratic Party Committee.
Suzanne has proven herself a forceful voice for the rights of all – regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, disability, financial fortitude or gender identity.
Please join me in supporting Suzanne Berger for Westchester County Democratic Chair!
Together let’s make history.
Sincerely,
Filed under: Uncategorized
Comments: Comments Off on Suzanne Berger – Making History
NYS ASSEMBLY DISTRICT # 93 Bedford, Harrison, Lewisboro, Mt. Kisco, New Castle, North Castle, No. Salem, Pound Ridge, parts of White Plains.
Five (5) candidates are battling to win the Democratic Primary to succeed Assemblyman Buchwald as the Party nominee in NYS AD #93.
<<>>
ALL FIVE (5) CANDIDATES HAVE BEEN RATED PRO-CHOICE
WCLA PAC is not endorsing a candidate in this race.
All five (5) candidates have been rated “pro-choice”.
To enable you to make a more informed decision, we are providing information about individual candidates. Only one holds elected office, so we have sought out additional information to shed some light.
KRISTEN BROWDE is an attorney,anda former news reporter, anchor, and award-winning journalist. She presently serves on several boards including the New York State Commission on Women and Girls and Westchester County Women’s Advisory Board.
CHRIS BURDICK, an attorney, currently serves as full-time Supervisor of the Town of Bedford, a post to which he was elected in 2013. He has a proven track record on critical issues including the climate crisis, immigration, housing, and clean water infrastructure – and recognizes that access is key to advancing women’s reproductive healthcare here in New York.
JEREMIAH FREI-PEARSON is a civil rights attorney and founding partner of a public interest class action law firm with a history of pro bono work that includes advocacy at the Mexican border to fight against the Trump administration’s policy of separating children from their families.
MARK JAFFE, an attorney, serves as the President and CEO of the Greater NY Chamber of Commerce. His campaign website is the only one of these five candidates that makes no mention of women or any aspect of women’s healthcare.
ALEX ROITHMAYR has served as Community Liaison and Chief of Staff in Assembly District 93 for Assemblyman Buchwald.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Comments: Comments Off on NYS Assembly District #93 – Meet the Candidates
Sexual Education in New York – another casualty.
(Is it the virus or elected officials who refuse to pass this bill?)
New York State is one of the 21 states that do not mandate that sexual education (sex ed) be part of the required academic curriculum. Despite New York State’s image as a progressive bastion, there are no state standards – not even regarding birth control, std’s or simply saying “no”. 2020 was supposed to be the year that changed, with the passage of comprehensive legislation requiring age-appropriate sexual education instruction from K-12. But, now, with the coronavirus, budgetary challenges, and the rest of the legislative session in question, the young people of New York State may very well be forced to wait again.
According to the New York Civil Liberties Union , “Many public schools across New York provide sex-ed curriculum that is inaccurate, incomplete, and stigmatizing.” Other schools provide nothing. Much of the current curriculum fails to include education on sexually transmitted disease and LGBTQ+ students are often stigmatized or ignored completely. However, New York does have mandated HIV education, which may seem like a good thing but, in reality, isn’t because it is not required to be medically accurate. This can end up being more harmful than helpful. For example, in a local Westchester middle school, the gym teacher assigned to teach about HIV told students they could contract it from sweat. Not since 1991, when Magic Johnson announced that he had contracted HIV, has such absolute unscientific mis-information been on such public display – and this was in an academic institution students are required to attend.
Sex ed is an extremely important and valuable subject that should be mandated in all schools. Research done by the Public Library of Science shows “that when sex education is comprehensive, students feel more informed, make safer choices and have healthier outcomes — resulting in fewer unplanned pregnancies and more protection against sexually transmitted diseases and infection.” Having sex ed taught in school gives students the ability to get clear concise answers to any questions they may have, instead of relying on the internet which can provide incorrect and confusing information, or parents who may be too self-conscious or ill-informed. A curriculum, which the teachers must follow, alleviates any discrepancies between medical facts and individual opinions. The Journal of Adolescent Health published research that found “that when sex education included information about contraception, teens had a lower risk of pregnancy than adolescents who received abstinence-only or no sex education.”
New York’s Senator Jen Metzger and Assemblywoman Cathy Nolan have sponsored proposed legislation S4884/A6512 respectively which would make age-appropriate comprehensive sexuality education required teaching in NYS schools. The bill would require “comprehensive sexuality instruction for students in grades K-12 which addresses age and developmentally appropriate physical, mental, emotional and social dimensions of human sexuality and reflects the national sexuality education standards.” The bill was introduced to the New York State Senate in March of 2019 and since then has been moved to the Education Committee. It has yet to be passed by the Senate or the Assembly. The success of this legislation rests not only on its passage but also on adequate funding for implementation. Unfortunately, 2020 may not be the year that students in New York State receive quality and informative sex ed.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Comments: Comments Off on Another Possible Victim of the COVID-19
Kathy Hochul (D)
Antonio Delgado (D)
Dana Levenberg (D)
MaryJane Shimsky (D)
