Know the Facts about A2270: ‘Aid in Dying’ Bill Riddled with Flaws

As appeared in the online edition of the Asbury Park Press on October 16, 2014.

app logo
TASY: ‘Aid in Dying’ bill riddled with flaws
Marie Tasy 3:29 p.m. EDT October 16, 2014

The Sept. 28 Asbury Park Press editorial, “Offer choice, mercy to terminally ill,” attempts to make the case for the Legislature to legalize physician-assisted suicide. Its position originates from the mistaken notion that the legislation contains adequate “safeguards and precautions.” Sponsors’ numerous attempts to amend the bill and change its title to try to make it sound more appealing have done nothing to mitigate the actual dangers present in the bill. Continue reading

Assisted Suicide Cannot Promise You a Peaceful or Painless Death

pillsRead this article, then please take Immediate Action to OPPOSE Bill A2270, which will legalize physician assisted suicide in our state. Go to the “Legislation” tab on the top red bar of this page to tell your legislators to vote NO and get more information! Sponsors are pushing for a vote this fall in the Assembly! 

Assisted suicide cannot promise you a peaceful or painless death.

It can include gasping, muscle spasms, nausea, vomiting, panic, confusion, failure to produce unconsciousness, waking from unconsciousness, and a failure to cause death.

Continue reading

NJ Board of Medical Examiners Issues Final Decision in Case of Steven Brigham; Revokes his license


N.J. medical board revokes abortion doctor’s license

Susan K. Livio | NJ Advance Media for on October 08, 2014 at 7:02 PM, updated October 09, 2014 at 12:46 AM

The state’s physician disciplinary board tonight revoked the license of Steven C. Brigham, a controversial doctor accused of skirting state rules by starting the process of late-term abortions with five women in his South Jersey office, and ordering them to drive to his Maryland clinic where the procedure was finished.

Finding several counts of gross negligence, deception and official misconduct against him, the state Board of Medical Examiners also ordered Brigham to pay $140,000 in penalties. At a future hearing, the board will decide how much of the state’s court costs he will be ordered to pay; the tab is expected to exceed $500,000.

The board suspended Brigham’s license in 2010 after the Attorney General’s Office argued he used the two-state process to evade New Jersey’s requirement that terminating pregnancies must take place in a hospital or licensed health care facility after 14 weeks. Brigham did not have hospital privileges at the time and is not an obstetrician or a gynecologist.

From his main office in Voorhees, Brigham inserted a device, Laminaria, to expand his patients’ cervixes, and administered a shot of Digoxin to cause “fetal demise.” At his instruction, his patients later drove to drive to a clinic in Elkton, Md. where the fetus would be surgically removed would by another doctor in consultation with Brigham.

Brigham was not licensed to practice medicine in Maryland, but his lawyer said he thought he was following Maryland law that allowed its doctors to consult with out-of-state physicians.
Deputy Attorney General Jeri Warhaftig called the two-state practice “a flim-flam” that took advantage of his patients’ trust and put them at risk.

George Shepherd, the lead physician at the Elkton clinic, was an 87-year-old OB/GYN who had never before performed a late-term abortion, said Warhaftig. Brigham was in charge and Shepherd was “just shoe-horned into the process…His presence was clearly not necessary.”

The case is “not about abortion rights — whether we think abortion should be legal or illegal,” she said. “It’s about the substandard care he provided.”

One of Brigham’s five patients suffered a lacerated uterus and bowel, requiring she be airlifted to Johns Hopkins Hospital for surgery.

“He dons the mask of caring practitioner but he puts his patients at risk of harm,” Warhaftig said.

Brigham’s attorney Joseph Gorrell described his client as a devoted physician who felt compelled to fill the void for late-term abortion services after George Tiller, a family doctor in Kansas, was shot to death in May 2009. Tiller had been the only physician east of Colorado willing to perform late-term abortions in the country.

After consulting with an attorney to make sure what he was going to do was legal, Brigham began in the fall of 2009 offering second- and third-trimester abortions for women, Gorrell said. He did the procedures without charge for women who had been raped or were victims of incest.

Gorrell argued the two-state procedure allowed Brigham to comply with New Jersey regulations, which require abortions after 14 weeks to be performed in a hospital or state-licensed surgery center. Although Brigham did not have hospital privileges at the time, a 1994 New Jersey court decision – also involving Brigham—had defined an abortion as the surgical procedure, and not the administration of medication. Under this interpretation, Brigham performed no abortions in New Jersey, Gorrell said.

“Dr. Brigham did what he did in good faith,” he said.

Brigham himself appealed to the board to “see me for who I am,” as someone who has “taken up the cause of women’s rights and women’s freedom.”

“This is about late-term abortions,” and the political agenda of anti-abortion activists, Brigham said. “If there are members of the board who are opposed to late-term abortions, I understand. But I ask you please to do the best you can and do not give in to hate.”

Warhaftig, the deputy attorney general, said his suggestion was “offensive.”

“Never fear — there are no forces of of hate here. What’s at work here is a lawful prosecution.”

The board’s actions go further than Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin recommended in August after a 19-day trial in the matter. Although both the board and Masin said Brigham should lose is license, Masin said it was for practicing in Maryland unlawfully. The board, however, found the doctor had practiced without a license and commenced abortiond in his office by causing fetal demise with the medication.

Brigham operates clinics under the corporate name American Women’s Services in Elizabeth, Mount Laurel, Paramus, Phillipsburg, Toms River, Woodbridge and Voorhees.

Susan K. Livio may be reached at

© 2014 All rights reserved.

New Jersey Right to Life PAC Endorsements: 2014 General Election

The New Jersey Right to Life PAC endorsements for the 2014 General Election,
taking place on Tuesday, November 4, 2014, are as follows:

U.S. Senate
Jeff Bell (R)

U.S. House of Representatives
Garry Cobb (R) – 1st Congressional District
Tom MacArthur (R) – 3rd Congressional District
*Chris Smith (R) – 4th Congressional District
*Scott Garrett (R) – 5th Congressional District
Anthony Wilkinson (R) – 6th Congressional District
Deirdre Paul (R) – 9th Congressional District
Dr. Alieta Eck (R) – 12th Congressional District

*Incumbent Member of Congress

Remember to vote pro-life on Tuesday, November 4th!
Polls are open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Don’t Be Fooled: Cory Booker is One of the Most Liberal U.S. Senators

On November 4, 2014, voters will go to the polls to elect our next U.S. Senator.

The candidates are Democrat Cory Booker who is pro-abortion and won the seat in a special election last year and Republican Jeff Bell who is pro-life. Please educate your friends and family about the candidates and remember to always vote pro-life.

The article below outlines Cory Booker’s positions on issues which are out of sync with NJ voters. Please don’t be fooled. Cory Booker is radical on abortion. He has appeared at many  Planned Parenthood events and locations, where he has vowed his support for sending more of our tax dollars to the the abortion giant. Booker, has, and will continue to, introduce and sponsor legislation that go against the views and consciences of NJ voters who respect the sanctity of human life.

 Jackson: Booker running for center while voting leans left
OCTOBER 5, 2014, 10:40 PM

 U.S. Sens. Cory Booker, left, and Robert Menendez march in New Jersey's 39th Annual Hispanic Parade Sunday.


U.S. Sens. Cory Booker, left, and Robert Menendez march in New Jersey’s 39th Annual Hispanic Parade Sunday.

Public disapproval of the gridlocked Congress is at a record high. President Obama’s approval rating in New Jersey is at a record low. For Cory Booker, the Democratic senator up for reelection in November, that means he must convince voters he can work with conservatives and liberals.

And while Booker can cite bills he sponsored with Republicans from Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada and South Carolina, when it comes to voting on the Senate floor and to the legislation Booker has sponsored, the record he has built during his 11 months as a senator easily fits the mold of the liberal Democrat.

That raises the question (which may be too early to answer) of whether Booker really will be the different kind of senator he claims on the campaign trail to be — “It’s not about right or left,” he says in a television ad — or just another party-line Democrat.

“Although bipartisanship is hard to come by, ornamentally it’s very important,” said Ross Baker, a Rutgers University political scientist whose book about the Senate, “Is Bipartisanship Dead?” was published this year.

“All senators will give you a long list of co-sponsorships with ideological opposites,” Baker said. “There’s a lot of bragging about bipartisanship but very little voting along those lines.”

Baker said measuring Booker by his Senate record is difficult for two reasons: Junior senators are expected to listen and learn when they first arrive, and in the current political climate, even the most experienced deal makers are having a hard time passing bills.

Booker appears to be following the pattern of Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York by not wielding the celebrity power he brought to the Senate while he learns the ropes and builds personal relationships.

“The kinds of things he did were useful but not spectacular,” Baker said. “But ‘spectacular’ is a standard that’s unreasonable to apply to a first-year senator in a polarized Senate.”

Booker’s spokeswoman said the senator’s votes have been based on his principles and on what is best for New Jersey.

“He’s worked hard to foster relationships across the aisle so that legislation he does vote for has cross-party support,” spokeswoman Beth DeFalco said. “But as hard as he’s working to break the partisan gridlock in Washington, there remain many who simply want to block progress.”

At the same time Booker was crafting an image of working across the aisle, he was voting consistently with the Democratic majority on legislation, nominations and procedural matters. Other than missed votes the day of the June primary and the day before, when he spoke at a funeral, there were only two times when Booker did not vote with the majority in his party. Both times he took a position that was further to the left, according to vote data tracked by

On those votes, Booker opposed a compromise agriculture bill because it cut the food assistance program formerly known as food stamps, and he opposed a bill that expanded opportunities for recreational hunting and shooting on federal lands. Booker is a supporter of stricter gun control laws.

Booker has joined Democrats in speaking on the floor and voting in support of what have been described as “messaging bills” that leaders of both parties know  have no chance of passing the Republican-controlled House. The votes are intended to highlight a Democratic agenda in support of such issues as a higher minimum wage and refinancing college loans, and opposing Supreme Court rulings on campaign contribution limits and contraceptive coverage in employer health insurance plans. The votes also create fodder that can be used to attack Republicans in this year’s elections.

On his own or with fellow Democrats, Booker has sponsored bills that could place him among the most liberal members of the Senate. He introduced two measures — to create a tax on chemical companies to support Superfund cleanups and to bar pharmacists from refusing to fill birth control prescriptions — that had been sponsored in many previous Congresses, with no success, by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

At times Booker has teamed up with Republicans. He sponsored a measure with Republican Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada providing for care in assisted-living homes for veterans with traumatic brain injuries. Booker was a cosponsor with Heller and Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., of a bill to extend unemployment benefits. It passed the Senate and died in the House.

Another bill, sponsored with Nebraska Republican Sen. Deb Fischer and requiring the Federal Communications Commission to study increased news coverage in states without major television markets, advanced in committee.

Two highly publicized collaborations with conservatives — a bill making it easier for first-time drug offenders to expunge convictions, sponsored with presidential contender Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, and a bill providing tax credits to companies that establish apprenticeships, sponsored with Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina — have not advanced past the introduction stage.

Booker was elected to fill Lautenberg’s unexpired term last year, and this year is seeking a full six-year term against Republican Jeffrey Bell.

Bell has criticized some of Booker’s bipartisan proposals, including the drug-crime-expungement bill sponsored with Paul. In a campaign mailing, Bell derided Booker’s approach to lawmaking by pointing to his stated goal on social media to take “selfie” photos with the 99 other senators.

“He doesn’t have any big ideas and instead spends his days in the Senate taking pictures and introducing minuscule pieces of legislation designed to make friends,” Bell wrote. “What a wasted opportunity. Who goes to the Senate to try and win friends? I’m 70 years old and don’t need any more friends. I want to go there to change the policies that have caused our economy to melt down.”

One resolution Booker sponsored passed unanimously in the Senate. It would designate a National Solidarity Day for Compassionate Care, which “recognizes the importance of a respectful relationship between health care professionals and their patients.”

The date chosen for the designation is Feb. 14, also known as Valentine’s Day.

Email: Blog:

See more at:…

Governor Christie Vetoes A2795, Planned Parenthood Funding Bill

Update: 9/9/2014 – Governor Christie vetoed Bill A2795. Please call the Governor to thank him at 609-292-6000 or 609-292-6000.

Take action to oppose A2795/S1203, that provides Medicaid coverage for family planning services to individuals with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. A2795/S1203 passed both houses at the end of June. The bill is sitting on the Governor’s desk.

Please email and call Governor Christie to urge him to veto A2795/S1203.This bill will use our tax dollars to provide a financial boondoggle to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.

Governor Christie: 609-292-6000 or 609-292-6000

You can mail Governor Christie here. Select “Health” from the drop down menu.

Message for Governor: Please veto A2795/S1203. I don’t want my tax dollars used for this purpose.

NJ Judge Moves to Revoke Abortionist Steven Brigham’s License

South Jersey-based abortion provider Steven Brigham, who has spent much of his two-decade career fighting charges of misconduct and negligence, suffered a major blow Thursday in his bid to keep his medical license in New Jersey.

An administrative judge recommended permanent revocation of Brigham’s medical privileges, which were suspended almost four years ago after one of his patients was critically injured during a botched abortion.

If the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners upholds the judge’s decision, Brigham, 57, will lose his eight clinics in that state, which have continued to operate and make up the bulk of his multistate business, called American Women’s Services.

Brigham’s “past conduct is troubling,” Judge Jeff S. Masin wrote in an 86-page decision. “He has suffered license revocations. He has run afoul of the licensing authorities in New York, Pennsylvania and Florida. He has a conviction for failure to file income taxes. And here, he has demonstrated a willingness to play fast and loose with the law in Maryland.”

Neither Brigham nor his lawyer, Joseph M. Gorrell, returned calls requesting comment.

In hearings before Masin last fall and winter, New Jersey prosecutors presented evidence that Brigham – who has never been licensed in Maryland – used a bistate abortion scheme so he could perform late-term abortions for which his New Jersey clinics were not licensed or equipped.

Brigham induced fetal death in his Voorhees clinic; a few days later, he surgically removed the fetuses at a clinic in Elkton, Md. – a facility so clandestine that even patients were not told where they were going until the last minute.

The scheme came to light in August 2010 because the 18-year-old patient who was critically injured, and the doctor who performed emergency surgery on her at a Baltimore hospital, went to Elkton police.

Masin concluded that Brigham’s practice of inducing fetal death in Voorhees was not illegal because the wording of New Jersey’s regulation is ambiguous. But Masin came down on Brigham for his “unlawful practice of medicine in the state of Maryland.”

Masin dismissed Brigham’s defense that he was acting as a medical “consultant,” which would have been permitted under Maryland’s law. Brigham claimed the clinic was run by the man he hired as medical director – George Shepard, an 88-year-old Delaware obstetrician-gynecologist who was partly disabled by a stroke.

Maryland never went after Brigham for illegally practicing medicine. Instead, the state charged him with murdering viable fetuses found at the Elkton clinic. Maryland has a law recognizing viable fetuses as murder victims, although the statute had been used only in cases in which a pregnant woman was murdered or assaulted.

Maryland prosecutors dropped the charges in 2012, acknowledging that they lacked jurisdiction because the fetal deaths occurred in New Jersey.

This is the second time in Brigham’s career that New Jersey prosecutors have tried to yank his license for performing bistate abortions that severely injured several patients. However, in the early 1990s, the abortions that Brigham initiated in his New Jersey clinics were completed in a New York facility.

Brigham lost his New York license as a result. But in New Jersey, an administrative judge ultimately concluded that Brigham’s only legal violation was advertising “painless” abortions. The Board of Medical Examiners chose not to overrule the judge.

Brigham tried to argue that New Jersey was barred from punishing him this time around because he was exonerated in 1996.

Jeri Warhaftig, the N.J. deputy attorney general who was involved at the end of the prosecution of Brigham in the 1990s, faced him again this time around. She pounded him for a history of deception, and for his attempts to portray himself as a victim of anti-abortion activism.

“His desire to create a [victim] persona . . . has blinded him to his lack of qualifications,” she wrote in legal papers.

The Board of Medical Examiners, which has given both sides until Sept. 15 to respond to Masin’s ruling, will then hear oral arguments from the attorneys and issue a final ruling.

Under New Jersey law, Brigham will not be allowed to own medical clinics in the state if he loses his medical privileges, both sides agreed during the hearings.

That is not the rule, however, in other states. American Women’s Services has two clinics in Virginia, where Brigham is not licensed, and one in Florida, where his license was revoked.

In Pennsylvania, Brigham gave up his license in 1992 amid an investigation. He was barred in 2010 from owning abortion clinics in the state due to a history of hiring unqualified medical workers.

In Maryland, Brigham’s Elkton storefront is gone, but four other American Women’s Services clinics are offering appointments.
Read more at:…

Advocates Shun ‘Pro-Choice’ to Expand Message

CHOICE-master675WASHINGTON — For all the talk about women’s issues in this year’s midterm election campaigns, something is missing. One of the most enduring labels of modern politics — pro-choice — has fallen from favor, a victim of changed times and generational preferences.

That shift might seem surprising in this political season, when there has been a renewed focus on reproductive issues like access to abortion and birth control. Yet advocates say that the term pro-choice, which has for so long been closely identified with abortion, does not reflect the range of women’s health and economic issues now being debated.

Nor, they add, does it speak to a new generation of young women, who tell pollsters that they reject political labels — not least one that dates back four decades, to the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.

“The labels we’ve always used about pro-choice and pro-life — they’re outdated and they don’t mean anything,” said Janet Colm, 62, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Central North Carolina, as she prepared to take several younger women to a summer protest at the legislature in Raleigh. “I used to be a one-issue voter” — pro-choice — “but I think most younger people today aren’t.”

No pithy phrase has replaced pro-choice. Activists talk mainly of “women’s health” and “economic security,” usually with policy specifics.

“You just have to take more words,” said Dawn Laguens, the executive vice president of the political-advocacy arm of Planned Parenthood and an early proponent of a broader message.

Anti-abortion activists have noticed that their opponents have all but stopped saying pro-choice, and they count that as a victory.

“I find it very encouraging that they find that after 40 years they have to do something different because they know it’s not working,” said Carol Tobias, the president of the National Right to Life Committee.

Just as longtime activists and historians of the abortion movement cannot cite a moment when pro-choice became advocates’ preferred label, current leaders of women’s organizations cannot pinpoint when it began losing popularity. It has been gradual, they say, prompted by politics and poll findings back to 2010, the year President Obama’s Affordable Care Act became law and Republicans subsequently made gains in Congress and state capitals. Since then Republicans have spent a good deal of energy attacking the law, its birth control mandate, Planned Parenthood and Democrats’ economic agenda for women.

The change “is something that we have been talking about for several years,” said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “I just think the ‘pro-choice’ language doesn’t really resonate particularly with a lot of young women voters. We’re really trying to focus on, what are the real things you’re going to lose? Sometimes that’s rights. Sometimes that’s economic or access to health care for you or for your kids.”

Pro-choice became commonplace after the 1973 Roe ruling, to counter the pro-life label of the anti-abortion movement. The description was seen as having broader appeal than “pro-abortion,” since it fit those who were personally against abortion but opposed any government control over women’s health decisions.

“ ‘Choice’ has been extraordinarily successful as a frame for the abortion-rights side because a lot of Americans may not like the idea of abortion but they definitely agree with the idea of choice,” said Suzanne Staggenborg, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh who researches social movements. “And they agree that it should be a woman’s choice in consultation with her doctor.”

But by 2010 some abortion-rights activists began to sense in their outreach to young women, whose support was needed not only for the midterm elections but for the movement’s future as well, that the term pro-choice was virtually meaningless. That was confirmed by postelection polls and focus groups that women’s organizations and Democrats commissioned to understand what went wrong.

Among the findings, according to several people familiar with them: Many young women, when asked whether they were pro-choice or pro-life, said pro-life. Yet they supported the Roe ruling. Explaining the contradiction, Ms. Laguens said these self-described pro-life voters were “talking about their personal decision-making, for themselves, and not about what they want to push on others.”

But such results also showed the weakness of the pro-choice label, advocates and pollsters said. Planned Parenthood took the lead, conducting research on public attitudes throughout 2011 and then presenting the findings to allies in various meetings.

“It definitely was a bit destabilizing when we started,” Ms. Laguens said. When Planned Parenthood produced a YouTube video last year for supporters on the shift to a broader message, one member wrote online: “I’m pro-choice and I won’t be bullied into saying anything different. This is nothing but a retreat and a shame!”

Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York, who for 15 years has been a co-chairwoman of the Pro-Choice Caucus in Congress, scoffed at the idea of a name change. “I’ve never worried about it,” she said.

Emily’s List, a political fund-raising organization formed three decades ago to back female candidates who support abortion rights, still says on its website’s home page, “We ignite change by getting pro-choice Democratic women elected to office.” But its research arm, American Women, like Planned Parenthood, has also done extensive polling and recently produced a “tool kit” for candidates and activists — customized for each state — of economic policies for women, including paid leave, higher minimum wage, equal pay for women and men for equivalent work, and birth control coverage. (“Birth control is only a social issue if you’ve never had to pay for it,” advocates often say, to highlight the economic angle.)

The broadened message from women’s groups coincided with — and, they say, was hastened by — Republicans’ actions after taking control of the House and some state legislatures in the 2010 elections. Congressional Republicans sought to defund Planned Parenthood, threatening a government shutdown. Then they began their campaign to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which includes specific benefits for women — mandated coverage of contraception, mammograms and annual gynecological exams without co-payments; an end to an insurance industry rating system that charged women more than men, and a ban on insurers refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Republicans singled out the birth control benefit of the Affordable Care Act as a violation of employers’ religious freedom. They proposed “personhood” amendments defining life as starting at conception, which would criminalize not only abortion but also some fertility treatments. And they blocked economic proposals like equal pay.

“When you really look at the broad scope of all the Republicans’ attacks,” said Marcy Stech, a spokeswoman for Emily’s List, “it’s clear ‘women’s health’ is what’s at stake.”

Updated 6/26/14: NJ Assisted Suicide Bill Pulled from Assembly Board List Due to Lack of Votes

6/26/2014: Lacking votes, bill A2270 was pulled from the Board List. Thanks to all who acted on our alerts!

Please continue to contact your legislators to urge them to vote No on A2270! Please go to our Legislative action center to continue to take action on this matter. The sponsor said he would try to put this bill up for a vote again in the fall. See the article here:…

Updated 6/25/2014 – Assisted Suicide Bill, A2270, scheduled for a Vote in the Assembly tomorrow, June 26 at 1 p.m!  Go to our Legislative Action Center now and take action! Call your two Assembly members and urge them to Vote No on A2270. Do this even if you have already done so. Please also plan to come down to Trenton tomorrow. See our Legislative Action page for more details and information.

Updated 6/24/2014 – Join in Our Call In Campaign Today. Go to our Legislative Action Page now and follow directions. Thank you.

On June 5, 2014, the NJ Assembly Health and Senior Services committee released Bill A2270 from committee by a vote of 8-4 along party lines. The bill was amended to change the name from the NJ Death with Dignity Act to the NJ Aid in Dying for the Terminally ill. The referendum language was also removed so it will not be a question that will go before the voters at election time. It still has the same bill number, which is A2270. All Democrats voted in favor and all Republicans voted against it. The bill is expected to be scheduled for a vote by the full Assembly before the end of June.

Please contact your two Assembly members and State senator immediately and tell them to vote NO on A2270/S382. Please also email and call Governor Christie and urge him to veto this bill. The Governor’s office can be reached at 609 292-6000609 292-6000.

If you do not know who your two Assembly members, call the Office of Legislative Services at 1-800-792-8630 and 1-800-792-8630 during regular business hours. Provide your name, town and zip code to obtain this information and ask for the name and contact information for your two assembly members.You can also go to the Legislative Action button on our website to take action.

Please act now. Time is of the essence!

Here is a recent TV news clip regarding the bill.…

Below are links two articles on the hearing:……

See How Your Senators & Two Assembly Members Voted on Flawed Adoption Bill

On Monday, May 12, the NJ Senate voted on the Governor’s conditional Veto of S873. Below is the vote tally. Please call and thank the Senators who voted No on the conditional veto. NJRTL is opposed to the Governor’s conditional veto of S873 because it will discourage adoptions and encourage abortions.

Sen.    5/12/2014  –  CONCUR GOV REC   –  Yes {29}  No {5}  Not Voting {6}    –  Roll Call

Addiego, Dawn Marie – Yes Allen, Diane B. – Yes Barnes, Peter J., III – Yes
Bateman, Christopher – Yes Beach, James – Yes Beck, Jennifer – Yes
Bucco, Anthony R. – No Cardinale, Gerald – No Codey, Richard J. – Yes
Connors, Christopher J. – Not Voting Cunningham, Sandra B. – Yes Doherty, Michael J. – No
Gill, Nia H. – Yes Gordon, Robert M. – Yes Greenstein, Linda R. – Yes
Holzapfel, James W. – Not Voting Kean, Thomas H., Jr. – Yes Kyrillos, Joseph M., Jr. – Not Voting
Lesniak, Raymond J. – Yes Madden, Fred H., Jr. – Not Voting Norcross, Donald – Yes
O’Toole, Kevin J. – Yes Oroho, Steven V. – No Pennacchio, Joseph – No
Pou, Nellie – Yes Rice, Ronald L. – Yes Ruiz, M. Teresa – Yes
Sacco, Nicholas J. – Yes Sarlo, Paul A. – Yes Scutari, Nicholas P. – Yes
Singer, Robert W. – Yes Smith, Bob – Yes Stack, Brian P. – Yes
Sweeney, Stephen M. – Yes Thompson, Samuel D. – Not Voting Turner, Shirley K. – Not Voting
Van Drew, Jeff – Yes Vitale, Joseph F. – Yes Weinberg, Loretta – Yes
Whelan, Jim – Yes

On Thursday, May 27, 2014, the NJ Assembly voted on the Governor’s conditional veto of S873.  Below is the tally. Please see below to find out how your two Assembly members voted.   Please call and thank the Assembly members who voted No on the conditional veto.

Asm.  5/22/2014  –  CONCUR GOV REC   –  Yes {56}  No {19}  Not Voting {2}  Abstains {3}

Benson, Daniel R. – Yes Bramnick, Jon M. – Yes Brown, Chris A. – Yes
Brown, Christopher J. – Yes Bucco, Anthony M. – No Burzichelli, John J. – Yes
Caputo, Ralph R. – Yes Caride, Marlene – No Carroll, Michael Patrick – No
Casagrande, Caroline – No Chivukula, Upendra J. – Yes Ciattarelli, Jack M. – Yes
Clifton, Robert D. – No Conaway, Herb, Jr. – No Coughlin, Craig J. – Yes
Cryan, Joseph – Yes Dancer, Ronald S. – Abstain DeAngelo, Wayne P. – Yes
DeCroce, BettyLou – No DiMaio, John – No Diegnan, Patrick J., Jr. – Yes
Egan, Joseph V. – Yes Eustace, Timothy J. – Yes Fiocchi, Samuel L. – Yes
Fuentes, Angel – Yes Garcia, Carmelo G. – Yes Giblin, Thomas P. – Yes
Gove, DiAnne C. – No Green, Jerry – Yes Greenwald, Louis D. – Yes
Gusciora, Reed – Yes Handlin, Amy H. – Yes Jasey, Mila M. – Yes
Jimenez, Angelica M. – Yes Johnson, Gordon M. – Yes Kean, Sean T. – No
Lagana, Joseph A. – Yes Lampitt, Pamela R. – Not Voting Mainor, Charles – Yes
Mazzeo, Vincent – Yes McGuckin, Gregory P. – Yes McHose, Alison Littell – No
McKeon, John F. – Yes Moriarty, Paul D. – Yes Mosquera, Gabriela M. – Yes
Mukherji, Raj – Yes Munoz, Nancy F. – Yes O’Donnell, Jason – Yes
O’Scanlon, Declan J., Jr. – Yes Oliver, Sheila Y. – Yes Peterson, Erik – No
Pinkin, Nancy J. – Yes Pintor Marin, Eliana – Yes Prieto, Vincent – Yes
Quijano, Annette – Yes Rible, David P. – No Riley, Celeste M. – Yes
Rodriguez-Gregg, Maria – Yes Rumana, Scott T. – No Rumpf, Brian E. – No
Russo, David C. – No Schaer, Gary S. – Yes Schepisi, Holly – Yes
Simon, Donna M. – Abstain Singleton, Troy – Yes Space, Parker – No
Spencer, L. Grace – Yes Stender, Linda – Yes Sumter, Shavonda E. – Not Voting
Tucker, Cleopatra G. – Yes Vainieri Huttle, Valerie – Yes Watson Coleman, Bonnie – Yes
Webber, Jay – No Wilson, Gilbert L. – Yes Wimberly, Benjie E. – Yes
Wisniewski, John S. – Yes Wolfe, David W. – Yes