.

Demonstrators to Hayworth: 'We Stand with Planned Parenthood, Why Don't You?'

The congresswoman's communications director says that Hayworth is pro-choice.

Approximately 30 people from Putnam, Rockland and Westchester Counties rallied in Fishkill Thursday against Congresswoman Nan Hayworth's (R-NY 19) stance on federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

Members of Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic and Planned Parenthood Mid-Hudson Valley organized the gathering, which garnered frequent honks and cheers from passing vehicles at the intersection of Routes 9 and 52, less than a mile from one of Hayworth's offices. Critics expressed their disappointment in Hayworth for voting against federal funding for the organization earlier this year.

Nat Sillin, Hayworth's communications director, said in a phone interview that Hayworth's stance stems from a belief that taxpayers should not fund "elective abortions." He also confirmed that Hayworth is pro-choice.

Men and women of all ages — from 11 to 60 years old — held signs, some of which named the congresswoman directly, in support of Planned Parenthood. Organizers expected a total of 50 people to attend the rally, which was slated to run from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.

"Our goal was to get constituents of Hayworth here and to really make sure people understand her position on reproductive healthcare rights," Reina Schiffrin, the president of the Hudson Peconic branch, said. 

Schriffin said that the federal funding Planned Parenthood receives goes to preventative services, like examinations and contraception, in accordance with Title X. Title X is a program that provides grant money for 

"We are appalled and shocked that she would not want to support the millions of women and men who benefit from Title X in every state," Schriffin said.

Sillin said that there is no way to ensure that federal funding for Planned Parenthood does not got to elective abortions. He called it a budgetary issue.

According to Schriffin, abortion is a moot point because of the Hyde Amendment. She said that the organization has requested to meet with the congresswoman several times, but has come face-to-face only with her staff. 

"We really need to meet with her and have a respectful discussion," she said.

Sillin said he could not comment on specifics requests without looking back into notes, but confirmed that Hayworth's staff has been in touch with the organization. 

"The bottom line is she [Hayworth] would be more than happy to meet with the president [of Hudson Peconic Planned Parenthood]," he said.

Catherine June 05, 2011 at 08:38 PM
"The questions still is, " Should taxpayers have to pay for abortions"? So it is an economics question and NOT a question of morality? Should tax-payers pay for subsidies to oil companies?
Bill June 05, 2011 at 11:25 PM
Of course, that is the crux of the problem, because the opponents claim they are being used to pay for abortions, when PP does much more than that, The federal funds pay for the other activities, which everyone should be able to admit are useful.
Francis T McVetty June 06, 2011 at 12:18 AM
Come on folks, it is called Planed Parenthood. That is their mission. The rest of the stuff is thrown in to make it look like they are doing something else. You know, the old shell game or three card Monty.
John Dickerson June 06, 2011 at 01:17 AM
"..opponents claim they are being used to pay for abortions, when PP does much more than that, The federal funds pay for the other activities, which everyone should be able to admit are useful." Not quite everyone. You may exclude me as well as most of the people who viewed the Breitbart "candid camera" videos that show Planned Parenthood employees aiding and abetting what they thought were "businessmen" seeking advice on getting abortions for illegal alien teenage prostitutes from Planned Parenthood. A few years ago, there were people in my office, residents of Howard Beach, who during the John Gotti trial protested sincerely that the "Don" had done a lot of good for their community, that all the 'talk' about mob violence was exaggerated, and the press and the prosecution hadn't taken into account Gotti's charitable work. I wasn't persuaded by that sort of argument then and I'm swayed even less by that reasoning now. The innocent lives ended by Gotti and his organization pale in comparison to the activities Planned Parenthood in stopping the heartbeats of innocents. To make the American taxpayer a party to this is an abomination. The (Rep) Henry Hyde (D, Ill) "amendment" has prevented Federal funding of abortions since 1976. That rule has been accepted by Congress for thirty-five years through Democrat and Republican majorities and administrations. There is no compelling reason to change that policy.
Bill June 06, 2011 at 01:20 AM
Except that Gotti was doing things that were illegal, while PP does not. That you disagree with what they do does not make it illegal, despite what you would like to be the law.
John Dickerson June 06, 2011 at 01:30 AM
That's quite true, Bill. Abortion is legal, for now. However, opinion about the legitimacy of that "legality" is changing as a recent Gallup poll demonstrates. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/theologyinthenews/gallup-poll-over-60-of-americans-believe-abortion-should-be-illegal-in-most-circumstances/ I think the overreaching of Planned Parenthood and its supporters who want to have government funding of abortions has a lot to do with that change.
Catherine June 06, 2011 at 01:14 PM
Mr. Dickerson, you have claimed that those who profit from abortion are as guilty of murder as the mother. Does this apply to Congresswoman Hayworth whose family profit from abortion procedures at MKMG?
Catherine June 06, 2011 at 01:15 PM
"Come on folks, it is called Planed Parenthood. That is their mission. The rest of the stuff is thrown in to make it look like they are doing something else. You know, the old shell game or three card Monty." Please cite credible sources to support your comments here? What percentage of PPs business is abortion? Thank you.
Catherine June 06, 2011 at 01:52 PM
To Francis T. Mc Vetty: The questions still is, " Should taxpayers have to pay for abortions"? So it is an economics question and NOT a question of morality? Should tax-payers pay for subsidies to oil companies?
Francis T McVetty June 06, 2011 at 05:00 PM
Maybe, at least the oil companies don't kill innocent children!!!
Francis T McVetty June 06, 2011 at 05:04 PM
Your question "What percentage of PPs business is abortion?" could be answered if I could see their "uncooked" books. It really doesn't matter anyway, even if one innocent life was saved, it would be a mitzvah.
Robert Groves June 06, 2011 at 06:09 PM
To Chauncy Tillinghast - I'm curious - based on your position, I would assume that you would agree that said defenseless babies deserve to be cared for, fed, housed, educated, and medically treated just like everyone else, right? Even if they are born to a mother who has neither the means nor the method of caring for it and nurturing it, I would assume, because they are defenseless, that it's okay to spend your taxpayer dollars on programs that would insure that these babies have every chance to succeed. Right? Or to a larger issue, I assume that the sanctity of life applies to everybody and not just babies, right? So people who are terminally ill and can't afford healthcare deserve to have treatment paid for with taxpayer money to prolong their lives because they are, after all, still alive, right? When my wife was pregnant with our first child, there were very serious complications that could have, in theory, forced me to choose her or the baby. As tragic a choice as that is, and thankfully one that did not have to be made, I have to believe that I would NEVER choose to end someone's life while it's in full flower. Now, if SHE said save the baby, that's a different circumstance. Not that it's any of your business, which is my main point. The problem with political and religious groups on both sides of the aisle is that they want to make this a world only THEY can be happy in instead of a world we can ALL be happy in.
Catherine June 06, 2011 at 07:52 PM
Francis T. McVetty "Maybe, at least the oil companies don't kill innocent children!!!" So is it a matter of economics of morality? You seem to be undecided, Mr. Mc Vetty. Again I ask, should tax-payers fund subsidies for oil companies?
Catherine June 06, 2011 at 07:53 PM
Francis T. Mc Vetty: "Your question "What percentage of PPs business is abortion?" could be answered if I could see their "uncooked" books. It really doesn't matter anyway, even if one innocent life was saved, it would be a mitzvah." Mr. Mc Vetty, please provide credible evidence to support your claims that PP 'cooks its book." Thank you.
Catherine June 06, 2011 at 07:58 PM
"My congresswoman has exercised her "right to choose" and she has chosen life. I admire her judgment and I'm proud to say that I and a majority of voters in the 19th congressional district voted for her in the last election. Government sponsorship of abortion and the abortionist "doctors" and organizations that perform them is an abomination. Most people who have seen a first trimester sonogram would tend to agree." Mr Dickerson, again I ask you. Is Congresswoman Hayworth as guilty of murder as the mother of an aborted baby is? Congresswoman Hayworth family profit immensely from abortion services provided at MKMG.
Francis T McVetty June 06, 2011 at 09:57 PM
Catherine, show me the family profit that the congresswoman is making on these abortions. How many do they do? How much $ for each one?
Francis T McVetty June 06, 2011 at 10:06 PM
Catherine, in response to your question "should tax-payers fund subsidies for oil companies?", probably not, but there are a lot of things the government should not be subsidizing. Number one is ethanol. Why should we, the taxpayer, being paying to turn food into gasoline? Why should the taxpayer subsidize solar energy? If it was that good it should stand on its own. There are many more things that our tax dollars pay for that are useless. One more, the Department of Energy. That should be scrapped. What has it accomplished over the 40 years it has been in existence? We are now more dependent on foreign oil than when it was started. How about another, NPR. Why is the government in the radio and television business? The list goes on and on. Let Planned Parenthood raise money on its own. I'm sure you and many others would contribute. I wouldn't .
Bill June 06, 2011 at 10:10 PM
Her husband is the CEO of MKMG. By definition anything that goes on there contributes to the profits. which I am sure he gets a bonus based on. You can't be claiming that PP is all about abortion (when it is not) and then say that MKMG has nothing to do with them when they do.
Francis T McVetty June 06, 2011 at 10:22 PM
Bill, I don't recall saying that MKMG hadn't had anything to do with abortions. All I read are rumors about that. Haven't found any conformation that in fact they did occur. I do know that she has kept her campaign promise to the people that elected her.
Catherine June 07, 2011 at 12:01 AM
Might I ask again: Francis T. Mc Vetty: "Your question "What percentage of PPs business is abortion?" could be answered if I could see their "uncooked" books. It really doesn't matter anyway, even if one innocent life was saved, it would be a mitzvah." Mr. Mc Vetty, please provide credible evidence to support your claims that PP 'cooks its book." Thank you.
Catherine June 07, 2011 at 12:04 AM
Mr. Mc Vetty You say that Nan Hayworth is doing what she is voted to do. Does this include her vote to give $21 Billion of the tax payers money to oil companies ( some of them foreign) who recorded record profits last quarter?
Catherine June 07, 2011 at 12:08 AM
http://www.mkmg.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/site.physicians/action/search.cfm Mr. Mc Vetty, please call MKMG to find out the information you need about the number of abortions etc they perform. As for how much Congresswoman Hayworth profits from abortion- you might want to ask her or her office directly.
Bill June 07, 2011 at 06:24 AM
Here's an amusing story I found from last year. http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/ny-republican-party-elect-an-abortionists-wife-for-congress/
Bill June 07, 2011 at 06:37 AM
Here's another site with an extensive discussion on the MKMG topic (and I believe they eventually do agree that they do abortions there). The discussion there is even crazier than here! http://raquelokyay.com/2010-election/128/matter-of-time/
Catherine June 07, 2011 at 12:53 PM
Bill, the links have all been scrubbed from that page. The You Tube states that the MKMG had the video removed. Looks like someone is trying to hide something.
Catherine June 07, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Mr. Dickerson: It has emerged from the links that Bill provided that the Hayworth family have indeed profited from the abortions they perform at MKMG. Would you like to revisit your comments about the guilt of mothers and providers?
Ashley Tarr (Editor) June 07, 2011 at 02:59 PM
Several comments have been removed because of name-calling and attacks. Please refrain from posting any additional comments of this nature and please do keep the conversation civil. Patch's Terms of Use may be found here: http://www.patch.com/terms.
pauline schneider June 07, 2011 at 03:27 PM
Oil companies kill innocent chldren every day across the world. In Nigeria they drill and allow the polluting of local drinking water that causes illness and death, in the Gulf they have poised the sea to point that there are fish kills on a daily basis. This is just a tip of a giant oil iceberg. They do this indiscriminately and do it to cover their bottom line and pay their investors. Pollution just from Coal kills 60,000 Americans every year. These dirty energy companies are reaping billions of profits off the lives of all of us. Meanwhile PPH gets raked over the coals because it saves women's lives and isn't a wall street stock for men to exchange. I'm sure many here would take a different tack if it were a tradeable commodity. Like health insurance companies are...
Chauncy Tillinghast June 07, 2011 at 03:55 PM
Ashley, are we in America or what. Your new found power is confining the discussion.
Ashley Tarr (Editor) June 07, 2011 at 04:02 PM
Hi Chauncy. We encourage the discussion, just in a civil manner — without attacks, name-calling and more. Please adhere to Patch's Terms of Use (http://www.patch.com/terms) and there won't be a need for any comment removal.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »