|
Written by From Sen. Steve Martin
|
|
 Sen. Martin is my Senator; I know, some people have all the luck. Below is a message that Sen. Stephen Martin (VA-11) asked us to pass along in response to the petition “Stop the War on Women” (http://signon.org/sign/stop-the-war-on-women-1)
Thank you for taking the time to contact my office with your concerns, regarding two pieces of legislation that were considered during the 2012 General Assembly session and your belief that we spent too much effort in those areas.
My votes on those two bills - and their companions in both committee and on the floor - amounted to less than a quarter of one percent of my votes (that's less than 0.0025). So, obviously, it did not command as much of our time as the press reports and your assertion would suggest.
As you may already be aware, House Bill 1 (commonly called the “personhood” bill) was recommitted to the Education and Health Committee and continued to the 2013 Session. That is usually considered to be an action to kill the bill, but for some reason is being treated as if it received favorable treatment. However, it is important that the facts be presented as they are, and not as various media sources or certain opponents purport them to be.
HB 1 in no way and at no time would have restricted a woman’s lawful access to birth control, in-vitro fertilization, or even to abortions in the state of Virginia. It even had specific language to assure that these remained available. In other words, it dealt with construct of law – and in its own language, defers to the Constitution and rulings of the Supreme Court as to its limitations. So despite what you may have heard, Roe vs. Wade and the “choice” it provides for abortions would not have been affected by the legislation. What the bill would have actually done is create a legal cause of action for civil suit in court, in cases where an unborn child dies as a result of harm caused to the mother. That is something we all agree is an important ability for a mother to have, when it comes to what happens with her child, in her body.
The other piece of legislation that received so much media attention, House Bill 462, did pass both the House and the Senate with bi-partisan support and was signed by the Governor. This bill, despite incredibly false claims to the contrary, does not require or mandate any procedure that abortion providers do not already require (for compliance with the law) in almost every case. In fact, Adrienne Schreiber – an official from the Washington, D.C. Planned Parenthood office - states: “That’s just the medical standard…To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound” (Goodman, “Planned Parenthood Says it Won’t Do Abortions Without Ultrasounds”, Commentary Magazine).
The fact is, the procedure is indeed very necessary. HB 462’s only real effect is that a woman be offered an opportunity to view the results of the ultrasound, and that the results be put into her medical file. And, while some health insurance companies may not provide coverage for the abortion itself, they will cover the cost of the necessary ultrasound beforehand (in addition to the numerous facilities across the Commonwealth that offer them, at no cost). Again, the procedure is already required by present standards of practice and already covered by insurers. So, the only new element is that the mother be offered the opportunity to view the image from the ultrasound.
It is hard for most citizens to see where the “war” on women is occurring – particularly since the patrons of both pieces of legislation regarding ultrasounds are, in fact, women. One of them is pregnant at this very time, herself.
You can be assured that my focus as a legislator always has been – and always will be – promoting economic growth, ensuring personal liberty and safety, striving for excellence in education, and making sure Virginia maintains its reputation as a business-friendly state. If something were actually happening legislatively that would endanger or oppress Virginia’s women, I would be the first to stand in opposition.
Again, thank you for being involved in the process and voicing your concerns to me. As the legislature returns to Richmond in the coming weeks to address the remaining issue – passage of the budget – know that I will be working towards resolution on that topic, that affects the general well-being of Virginia families. You, and all citizens, do deserve better.
Sincerely,
Steve Martin
|
|
Last Updated on Monday, 02 April 2012 19:47 |
|
Written by Mark Bowes | Richmond Times Dispatch
|
 Kent Willis, whom many Virginians identify as the embodiment of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, is leaving his post as its leader after building the organization into one of the top ACLU affiliates in the nation.
Willis has been a tenacious fixture at the ACLU since he was hired in October 1987 as an associate director. He was promoted less than two years later to executive director, a post he has held 23 years as of this month.
Willis' departure date was not announced, but the organization's board of directors said in a news release late Monday that he will leave when his replacement is named. That could come soon. "They are in the final stages," Willis said Monday evening.
In the release, the ACLU said Willis informed the board of directors last fall of his intent to leave, at which time the organization began a nationwide search for his successor.
"I've been here a very long time, and it feels like it's time for someone else to run this organization," Willis said. "There's nothing pushing me out and there's nothing beckoning me to move into a different direction, except that I feel like it's time to just try something else."
Willis said he "could not have had a more rewarding job" and that he was "proud to have been part of the ACLU's many accomplishments and enormous organizational growth over the last 25 years."
At 64, Willis said he has no plans to retire, but he hasn't precisely decided what his future holds.
"The problem with giving an indefinite leave date — depending on the hiring of the new person — is that you really can't make plans to do anything," Willis said.
|
|
Written by Wesley P. Hester | Richmond Times Dispatch
|
 Virginia is among eight states that received failing grades for state government integrity, and its weaknesses leave the commonwealth highly vulnerable to corruption, according to a new report.
Only three states were ranked below Virginia on the "Corruption Risk Report Card" from the State Integrity Investigation, a study conducted over several months by the Center for Public Integrity, Public Radio International and the nonprofit group Global Integrity.
The study looked at 330 indicators in 14 categories. Virginia flunked nine of the categories: public access to information, political financing, executive accountability, legislative accountability, judicial accountability, state budget processes, lobbying disclosure, state pension fund management, and ethics enforcement agencies.
"This is a real wake-up call for Virginia," said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, suggesting that Virginians have become too self-satisfied with a state that has historically been free of corruption.
"We live in a whole new world from the Virginia that many of us grew up in," he said. "Government was much smaller, we were tradition-bound, and senior officials lived by the honor system they had learned in school. All that's gone with the wind."
That theory was affirmed by the report, in which the Virginia summary attributes the low grade in part to "the state's lax oversight rules, weak consumer representation protections, dwindling Capitol press corps, and coziness between political and economic elites."
|
|
Written by Wesley P. Hester/Reed Williams | Richmond Times dispatch
|
 As 14 of the 30 women's rights protesters arrested Saturday at the state Capitol made initial court appearances Monday, a war of words erupted at the General Assembly over the police response.
Angry Democrats took to the floor of the Virginia Senate to denounce the treatment and arrest of the protesters.
Gov. Bob McDonnell and Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling — speaking at a news conference on today's GOP presidential primary — then blasted Senate Democrats for criticizing the judgment of law enforcement and called on the legislators to apologize.
The arrest of the protesters — reported in newspapers and on television stations around the country — again drew national attention to Virginia over a contentious bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion.
McDonnell said law enforcement officials are doing what they are supposed to do but said he had no involvement in the police response. Asked whether he was directly involved in the protesters' arrests, McDonnell said: "Absolutely not."
Sen. J. Chapman Petersen, D-Fairfax, raised the issue first Monday, saying the heavy police presence during the rally, attended mostly by females, was a "completely over-the-top response … more appropriate for a bar fight than a civil protest."
|
|
Last Updated on Monday, 12 March 2012 15:03 |
|
Written by Commonwealth Institute
|
|
 Conferees will have to face the reality that new provisions will cost up to $1.2 million
RICHMOND, VA - Senate and House of Delegates conferees will have to figure out not only how to resolve the differences between two bills that will significantly change voter identification requirements in Virginia (SB1 and HB9), they'll also have to face the fiscal reality that the new requirements are costly.
According to recent analysis published by The Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis, implementing the new voter ID requirements of either of the bills will cost between half a million to over a million dollars and involve significant public education efforts, staff training, and provisional ballot administration.
"So far debate on these bills hasn't adequately addressed these significant costs," says Michael Cassidy, president and CEO of The Commonwealth Institute.
Under the bills, the voters who show up to the polls without an acceptable form of identification would be required to vote provisionally, resulting in significant implementation costs. The Institute's analysis examined voter ID laws in Maryland, North Carolina, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia and South Carolina, and put the cost for Virginia between $522,263 and $1,258,959.
In a year of budget tightening and program cuts in other areas, the costs to the state represent significant tradeoffs. The cost of implementing these voter ID requirements is the rough equivalent of providing health care to between 396 and 954 Virginia children or providing support for an additional 109 to 262 Virginia children to attend high-quality pre-school.
"Rather than pushing a costly and misguided solution to a nonexistent problem, Virginia could be investing this money in ways that strengthen our economy and build jobs for a brighter future for our children," says Cassidy.
Analysis: Tighter Voter ID Requirements Come with a Cost |
|
|
Richmond-area attorney E. Wayne Powell has secured the Democratic nomination in the 7th Congressional District.
H.R. 676 - Expanded and Improved Medicare for All
H.R. 870 Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Training Act
