"Being pro-choice means you stand up and fight for a woman's right to her own medical decisions, even when it is not popular," said the letter. "You are not pro-choice, you do not share our values and, as such, you will find yourself lacking support from pro-choice women in New York."

Among the scores of signatories were former Manhattan Borough president Ruth Messinger, City Councilwoman Letitia James, Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples, and State Senators Liz Krueger and Andrea Stewart-Cousins.

The letter said Mr. Ford "played politics" when he ran for Senate in 2006, noting his now-famous declaration that he was "pro-life"—a position Mr. Ford has justified as one that used the language more broadly to highlight the hypocrisy of his Republican opponents.

Mr. Ford's spokesman, Davidson Goldin, quickly emailed a statement in reply: "It's so disappointing to see yet another party boss scrambling to protect the unelected senator by maliciously distorting Harold's record. Harold has always supported abortion rights and will always support abortion rights. That's why Planned Parenthood has always supported him." The letter cited a quote from Jeff Teague, the president of Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee, who told the Daily News "it is wrong to characterize him as anti-choice."

In the letter, Ms. Hope and her co-signatories pledged to support Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who volunteered for pro-choice organizations even before garnering 100 percent rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood during her legislative career.

"Please know that we will work tirelessly to promote Senator Gillibrand's strong record on choice and to expose your revisionist one," they wrote. "Senator Gillibrand is our champion and we will work hard to ensure that she continues as Senator from the great State of New York."

Here's the letter in full:

To: Mr. Harold Ford Jr.

Over the years we have had the opportunity to serve in many capacities - as public officials, community leaders, and advocates for the causes we believe in. All of us have worked extremely hard to promote women's equality and to ensure reproductive rights for women. We are proud that New York is one of the most pro-choice states in the country and we support politicians committed to this standard. Based on your own words and deeds, you simply do not measure up.

Your views as a Member of Congress, a candidate, and a political commentator do not match your current claim that you are pro-choice. Being pro-choice means you stand up and fight for a woman's right to her own medical decisions, even when it is not popular. You played politics with a woman's right to choose in your Tennessee Senate race - proudly calling yourself pro-life and spending campaign money on ads to showcase your anti-choice record. Recently, in the New York Post, you decry the "pro-life" label, but when it suited your political ambitions in 2006, you stated clearly that you are "pro-life" and that you "don't run from that." You certainly seem to be running from it today.

Senator Gillibrand, on the other hand, LONG before she sought political office, proudly volunteered with pro-choice groups. As a member of Congress she had 100% voting records with NARAL and Planned Parenthood. We never had any need to question where she stood on protecting a woman's right to choose, even when she ran for election in a relatively conservative district. Now as Senator, she has continued the fight for choice, having stood boldly against the dangerous Stupak amendment in the health care debate. She is, and has always been, our unwavering advocate.

This, Mr. Ford, is why women across the state, and indeed around the country, and pro-choice groups such as NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and WCLA - Choice Matters, have spoken out so strongly against your possible candidacy. It is not about bullying. It IS about making our voices heard. You are not pro-choice, you do not share our values and, as such, you will find yourself lacking support from pro-choice women in New York.

Please know that we will work tirelessly to promote Senator Gillibrand's strong record on choice and to expose your revisionist one. We will make sure that the pro-choice people of New York State know that, with your words and with your votes, time and time again, you have not stood with us on the critical value of a woman's right to choose.

As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said: "Everyone is entitled to his (or her) own opinion, but not to his (or her) own facts." The facts are clear: you have not been straight with us and you are not an advocate of a woman's right to choose. Senator Gillibrand is our champion and we will work hard to ensure that she continues as Senator from the great State of New York.

"Given what has happened, Senator Monserrate is no longer able to effectively serve his constituents, or the people of this state, in the Senate," Espaillat said in a statement. Monserrate was convicted of misdemeanor assault last week. By phone, Espaillat told me that "his leadership is unsustainable."

Then I asked if he thought Monserrate could get a fair hearing from the bi-partisan panel chaired by Eric Schneiderman and tasked with judging him. (Espaillat is Dominican and represents Inwood and Washington Heights.) There are no Hispanic senators on the panel; two Senate sources said that a seat on the panel was discussed both Senators Jose Serrano and Martin Malave Dilan, but they decided not to accept. Along with Schneiderman, Senators Toby Ann Stavisky, Ruth Hassell-Thompson, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Diane Savino, John Flanagan, Jim Alesi, Cathy Young and Andrew Lanza. The lack of Hispanics has been lamented by State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr.

"There should be somebody Hispanic in the commission. I think that's perhaps a point of weakness for the commission," Espaillat said, while noting that they have hired a Hispanic counsel. "I think that Senator Schneiderman will do everything possible to ensure that he has a fair and open process. I think that the senator is someone who has a background of being always fair and equitable and open-minded."

"I agree with him to the degree that there's a double standard, but that other cases have occurred where perhaps the senate should have taken an equally strong stand and they didn't," Espaillat added. "But that doesn't mean that I think what was done in the past was right, but that it was wrong."

"Violence against women is simply unacceptable and will not be tolerated," said Sampson. "It has no place in the world and it has no place in the Senate. No one knows what happened in the dark and for far too many women from every community, every race, every class, this is a very difficult and very real thing. I along with my colleagues in the Senate remain committed to bringing light to darkness."

Sampson was flanked by the committee's five Democrats--committee chair Eric Schneiderman and four women: Ruth Hassell-Thompson, Diane Savino, Toby Ann Stavisky, and Andrea Stewart-Cousins. Earlier, before Mr. Sampson had even taken to the podium to announce the members, Democratic Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. had criticized the inquiry as racist, and Republican leader Dean Skelos had criticized his Democratic counterpart for not sending the matter to the evenly-divided Senate Ethics Committee, which Sampson happens to chair.

Without mentioning Skelos by name, Sampson defended the Democratic prerogative.

"We are all committed to working with the Republicans in a fair and in a bipartisan manner, but we have to remember that we are Democrats," Sampson said. "We are the party charged by our history, by our common decency, to care for the least, the lost, and the last. We are our brothers' and sisters' keeper. Our conference has to stand up for what is right and against what is wrong. We must bring light to those dark rooms."

The first question from the press directly asked Sampson why he chose to impanel a committee with a partisan advantage instead of sending it to the ethics committee.

"Who said there will be partisan advantage with this committee? The issue is with the Ethics, you can have a deadlock, a 4-4 deadlock. Where do we go from there?"

Sampson said he did not specifically choose women for the panel, which will gather--and possibly hear--testimony and then issue a public recommendation. "I looked at individuals first and foremost that did not make any statements to the media to show their positions or to show their hands, but most of all the members behind me have agreed to be fair, impartial and objective in making their determination," he said.

Later, in an impromptu session with reporters, Schneiderman answered a question about why no Latinos were included. "I think as Senator Sampson stated, he wanted to eliminate anyone who had already taken a position on this issue and he asked senators who would be willing to serve, and some were willing to serve and some weren't."

When a reporter from The New York Times joined late and asked essentially the same question, Schneiderman replied, simply, "asked and answered."

He declined to repeat his answer. "I realize you work for an important paper," he said, "but I'll talk to you later."

Schneiderman explained that the Democratic members would meet with the Republican members to hammer out a set of procedures for the committee, and that would be voted on in the Senate's special session. He said that nothing had been done like this since the 1920s, when the Assembly kicked out five members for being part of the Socialist Party--"fascinating reading," he said.

And he further defended the need for a committee without an even partisan divide. "Anyone who was around in June remembers what even division does," Senator Schneiderman said.

His eyes widened. His head shook. He refused to go on record. I asked why.

"I'm here today to address certain Senate needs, and we are going to have a lengthy debate," Johnson, a Long Island Democrat, said. "My focus right now is on what the Senate accomplishes."

After that embarrassing coup, Paterson threw bombs at legislators, calling them lazy and delinquent in a calculated move to bolster his own political standing. Now, the Democratic senators seem to feel themselves at liberty to express less than full support--or, at least, to defer the decision--for their party's highest ranking official as he heads in 2010 facing a likely challenge from Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

The default public position among the senators at the moment is that they support the governor in tackling the current problems confronting the state--a $2.1 billion mid-year budget imbalance--but aren't ready to talk about next year.

"We're nowhere near there. We'll see what the situation is when we get to 2010," said Eric Schneiderman of Manhattan. "I support him, I hope he does well, for all of our sake that he succeeds and gets the coalition together to fix the state budget. There's no hesitation. I think a lot of us are just focused on how you make it through the next couple of months and close the budget gap. You know, we're in the middle of the '09 elections, we have a primary on Tuesday, I know you guys like to have the permanent horse race, but the reality of state government is that can be crippling to efforts to govern."

"He's got a lot of work to do, and I'm trying to focus on doing that work with him," said Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins, a Westchester Democrat. "I think I was saying to you is that we are working together to focus on what really has to be done, and the governor, you know, has my support."

Several weeks ago, the Times ran a story in which several freshman Democrats in Congress expressed concern that Paterson would hurt their electoral chances if he were atop the party ticket. Representative Eric Massa, a freshman representing the Finger Lakes and Southern Tier regions, wasn't quoted in that story but told me last week it would be "presumptuous" and "arrogant" to endorse Paterson's election. He had no problem endorsing Kirsten Gillibrand's election, explaining that "she asked me."

Senator Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat who during the coup was more critical of Paterson than Breslin, Schneiderman, Stewart-Cousins or Johnson was, said that despite Paterson's public insistence to the contrary, he was not even sure Paterson would run.

"What I could say is I don't support anyone else," Adams told me. "Right now, the way I'm viewing it is that he's the governor, I'm 100 percent behind him right now because I believe that we need to be united as a state right now, so I'm 100 percent behind him, and once he makes a determination about what he's going to do next year then I can make that determination on what I'm going to do."

Tracy Sefl, a spokeswoman for Paterson's 2010 campaign, reiterated that the governor was running.

"Governor Paterson is familiar with legislators who seem resentful of his difficult decisions," Sefl said. "But what matters more to the Governor is that he make his decisions in the best interest of all New Yorkers.  That's his priority.  In the meantime, he remains grateful for the support of those who understand this, and he's confident those numbers will continue to grow."

"We're going to be the first casualty of this political war," David Simpson, the spokesman, said. "The whole city is being held hostage."

Yonkers needs the State Legislature to reauthorize its mortgage-recording tax as well as its income tax. Both kick in later this year, but Simpson explained that because Yonkers operated under a financial-control board in past decades, its budget must be certified each year by the Office of the State Comptroller.

"He has said he is not going to certify Yonkers' budget without all the revenue sources being accounted for," Simpson said. "We're running on fumes. We're running on money that is essentially surplus from that last fiscal year, and it's going to run out in a few weeks."

Yonkers is represented by Senators Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Jeff Klein, both Democrats. Simpson said that Amicone has been in "constant contact" with Stewart-Cousin, but Klein hasn't returned his calls.

"Considering what's at stake, it would nice to get Senator Klein to return the mayor's phone call," Simpson said.

I spoke to Klein, who said he talked to Amicone on May 14 and June 1. He said he was not aware he had called since the chamber was thrown into turmoil in an alleged floor-coup on June 8.

And it's all because Senator Frank Padavan walked through the back of the chamber, Democrats say. He was spotted by several people (although I didn't see him), and journal clerks counted him as a present as Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins gaveled in and led the pledge. His presence, however brief, apparently, gives the Democrats the 32nd vote they need for a quorum. Now the senators are reading through non-controversial bills on their active list, calling the vote as 32-0.

Legislation renewing mayoral control of New York City schools is not on the list, still.

Since this is ostensibly a regular session, not an extraordinary session, the arguments about the validity of bills passed by the Assembly and then advanced by Democratic senators wouldn't apply.

UPDATE: Scott Reif, a Republican spokesman, said of Padavan, “He did walk through the chamber at a time when he did not believe it had convened, and he believes using his presence toward a quorum would be a ‘fraud.’"

I obtained a copy early, and one thing that jumped out as an extra detail above the framework revealed Monday is the exact structure of the payroll tax: It will be 34 cents per hundred dollars of payroll for New York, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and Rockland counties, and 25 cents for Dutchess, Orange and Putnam counties.

On Monday, spokesman Austin Shafran only said it would be "graduated."

It's unclear whether there are 32 votes for the bill in the chamber. Both Democratic senators from Long Island--Craig Johnson and Brian Foley--have indicated they won't support the bill because of the payroll tax. Under the bill's current structure, businesses in their districts would pay the same amount as businesses in the five boroughs, which benefit from Subway and bus service.

Westchester County also doesn't make the lower bracket; sources say Smith is hoping to rope in members like Suzi Oppenheimer, Ruth Hassell-Thompson and Andrea Stewart-Cousins to vote for the plan. This would make that a harder sell.

UPDATE: Spokesman Austin Shafran sent along this PDF of the draft bill, and said it is now "likely to be introduced later this week" for a potential vote early next week. The bill is embedded below.

NYS Senate MTA Draft Bill