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.