Democracy for Virginia

Warner Signs Anti-Immigrant HB 1798

Democratic Virginia Governor Mark Warner dealt a significant blow to Latino and poverty activists in Virginia yesterday when he signed HB 1798, patroned by Fairfax County Republican Dave Albo, which requires proof of legal presence from those seeking government assistance. "It's very disappointing," the Washington Post quotes Arlington County Board member Walter Tejada (D) chairman of the Virginia Latino Advisory Commission, "It serves no other purpose but to fan the flames of anti-immigrant sentiment . . . and that is simply wrong."

Social service workers have been concerned that the anti-immigrant sentiment the bill embodies will effect many more people than the adult illegal immigrants who are the new law's targets. Many immigrants are already afraid that if they seek services like the FAMIS child health coverage assistance programs (for which all children are eligible regardless of immigration status) they will be turned in to federal officials and deported.

Social service workers have also expressed their dismay at the additional burden this will place on their already imposing workload. State employees whose job it is to ensure that services reach those in need will now have to do the work that federal immigration officials have failed to do, policing federal immigration law.

In addition to the mean-spirited public policy this legislation enacts, it is a political mistake for Virginia's Democratic party. Virginia is estimated to have as many as 250,000 illegal immigrants, most of whom are hard-working, tax-paying residents who do the dirtiest jobs. Over the next decades, many of these people may settle here, becoming citizens themselves or giving birth to children who are American citizens. Gaining the support of this growing portion of the electorate is essential to the long-term health of the Democratic party. Governor Warner should be taken to task for not only signing this "brochure bill" created by right-wing Republicans looking for an election year advantage, but for helping to alienate this growing constituency.

HB1798: Send Gov. Warner Your Opinions

A source close to Governor Warner says that he still has not decided whether to sign House Bill 1798, which would require people seeking public benefits to prove legal presence in the United States. This bill, patroned by Fairfax Republican Dave Albo, would place already overburdened social service workers in the position of acting as immigration police, hindering them from achieving their mandate to help folks in need. Additionally, because this bill requires applicants provide documentation before receiving benefits, those known as "technically undocumented"—who do not have the papers proving their legal presence or who are in a legal limbo pending the resolution of the immigration process—could be barred from services they are entitled to. Many of these people are children who have lived all their lives in the US, but were brought to this country illegally by their parents.

In addition to cutting off needy people from social services, this bill will also further intimidate immigrants from seeking government services. Misinformation that social workers are working with the INS can keep parents from seeking medical care for their children, and neighbors may be unwilling to report child abuse if they fear Social Services will help deport illegals. The enactment of this legislation will lead to the propagation of such a misimpression.

This bill will fundamentally compromise the ability of Social Service workers to ensure the health and safety of the Commonwealth's most vulnerable. Call Governor Warner at (804) 786-2211, or send him an email him through his website to urge him to veto this bill.

How a bill becomes a law, Virginia style!

Lester Feder is one of the new regular contributors to the Democracy for Virginia blog.  You can read about Lester and our other new contributors here.

How can we influence legislation in Virginia? In order to lobby effectively, you first need to know how the process works and what opportunities you have to influence it. First I'll outline the process, and then describe the ways we can help move it in our direction.

For simplicity’s sake, I’ll track a bill originating in the House of Delegates on its way to becoming law:

Step I: Filing and Introduction
Before the beginning of the legislative session, delegates can file as many pieces of legislation as they desire. This means they present them to the House clerk, who assigns them bill numbers. (The infamous domestic partnership ban, for example, is known as House Bill 751, or, more commonly, by the abbreviated HB 751.) After the session begins, each member can file up to five additional proposals.

Filing a bill, however, does not mean it automatically enters the legislative process. In order for the House to act on a bill, a member of that body—known in Virginia as a patron (which is equivalent to a sponsor in the US Congress)—has to introduce it.

Step II: Subcommittee and Committee
After a bill is introduced, the House Speaker assigns it to a committee where it will be given its initial hearing. Usually it is pretty obvious what will go to what committee: bills concerning transportation go to the Transportation Committee, bills concerning child support goes to the Health, Welfare, and Institutions committee, bills concerning guns go to Militia and Public Safety, etc.

The committee chairman usually assigns the bill to a subcommittee, which is made up of a portion of the committee membership, who review the bill and makes a recommendation to the full committee on what action to take on it. In subcommittee they have the option to amend it, and then they vote on whether the full committee should report it, which means the bill would advance to the next step in the process and be presented to the full House for passage; to table it, which means it does not advance, but does not totally die, either; or to pass it by indefinitely (PBI), which means it would be killed without ever coming up for a vote. (SUBCOMMITTEE VOTES ARE NOT RECORDED)

The committee takes up the bill as amended by the subcommittee along with its recommendation. Before taking final action, the full committee has the option to amend the bill once again. They vote on whether to report, table, or PBI the measure. (They are not obligated to follow the subcommittee’s recommendation.

If they vote to table of PBI a bill, it does not advance. If, however, they vote to report it …

How did Virginia's local press cover the story on the fetal death reporting bill?

Those of you who watched ABC's Nightline story on blogging tonight may be interested to read about the traditional media's coverage of Delegate Cosgrove's decision to withdraw HB1677 and the role that blogging played in that decision.  Below are links to a few of the related stories and editorials that appeared in newspapers around the Commonwealth:

"Delegate to withdraw HB 1677"
Augusta Free Press, 1/11/05

"Del. Cosgrove pulls bill after Internet fuels fiery protest"
Hampton Roads Virginian-Pilot, 1/11/05

"Good for us, pregnancy bill is nipped in the bud"
Hampton Roads Virginian-Pilot, 1/12/05

"Power to the people: The story behind the withdrawal of HB 1677"
Augusta Free Press, 1/12/05

"A Blog Flog for Del. Cosgrove"
Hampton Roads Virginian-Pilot, 1/13/05

"Delegate Pulls Fetal Death Bill Under Pressure"
Times Community Newspapers, 1/19/05

As you can see from these clippings, particularly the editorials, the mainstream media in Virginia was actually quite (surprisingly) positive about the role that blogs played in informing Virginians about the bill and in inspiring people to write to Delegate Cosgrove, motivating him to withdraw HB1677 on the first day of the General Assembly session.

Senate Resoundingly Rejects Black and Marshall's Adoption Ban Bill

More good news from the Virginia Senate.  The Dynamic Duo of Discrimination, Delegate Robert Marshall and Delegate Dick "Baby Pesticides" Black, have been thwarted by the Senate in their attempt to ban adoptions by responsible gay and lesbian Virginians. 

In furthering their opinions that "having no parent is better than having a gay parent", Black and Marshall have shown that they'd prefer to leave hundreds of adoptable Virginia children stuck in the foster care system without permanent homes in order to advance their anti-gay agenda.  Thankfully, wiser legislators in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee have prevailed, soundly defeating HB2921 by voice vote yesterday.

The first roadblock that Black and Marshall faced was in the House, where the Committee on Health, Welfare, and Institutions rejected the original language of their proposed ban, which simply stated, "No person under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual."

The committee replaced that language with a substitute that was, presumably, considered to be slightly less hateful.  Instead of an outright ban, the committee suggested that the courts investigate "whether the petitioner is known to engage in current voluntary homosexual activity or is unmarried and cohabiting with another adult to whom he is not related by blood or marriage" in addition to the current rigorous investigation into the fitness of prospective adoptive parents. 

The revised bill passed the House 71-24.  According to the Daily Progress, this House vote was influenced by claims by Delegate Black that "29 percent of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation."

The Daily Press covers yesterday's committee hearing most dramatically, saying senators "verbally eviscerated" Delegate Black's "star witness", the pseudo-sociologist who made the dubious claims of abuse by gay parents that Black cited in his earlier House testimony.

The most hostile attacks during an hourlong hearing were levied at Black's main witness - the author of a highly criticized study that purports to show that gays and lesbians are 34 percent more likely to molest their adopted children than are straight parents.

The author of that study, Paul Cameron, who bills himself as a sociologist, also told the committee that gays and lesbians are more likely to die younger, most around age 50, and that's not good for any children they adopt.

On questioning, Cameron admitted his life-span analysis was based on reading the obituary pages of the Washington Blade, a gay and lesbian newspaper, and that his molestation statistics had been dismissed by some sociologists as scientifically suspect, based on numerous errors.

He also admitted, under harsh questioning by Howell, that he was kicked out of the American Psychological Association on ethics charges in 1983, and that in 1986 the American Sociological Association passed a resolution denying that Cameron was a sociologist and condemning his "consistent misrepresentation of sociological research."

The Roanoke Times also features detailed coverage of the hearing, including the remarkable quote from Delegate Black's star witness claiming that gays and lesbians are similar to drug addicts and prostitutes, "in a sense that they more frequently disrupt society, they less frequently contribute to society and they generally generate excessive costs for society." 

Kudos to Senator Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) for her rigorous questioning of Delegate Black's witness, to Equality Virginia for their excellent work in opposition to this bill, and to the ordinary Virginians who stood together to oppose Black and Marshall's bigotry by raising public awareness about this bill.  But the greatest thanks goes to the Senate Courts of Justice Committee for welcoming a vigorous debate on the bill and for standing up for Virginia children and families and against bigotry. 

News "flash": Senate saves VA from being "butt" of worldwide jokes

Tired of being the butt of below-the-belt jokes about the Virginia House's asinine passage of the "droopy drawers" bill, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee held a brief special session to quickly dispense of the bill on a unanimous vote.  Showing the cracks that had emerged in the previously bipartisan support for the bill, the Chairman of the committee, Senator Kenneth Stolle (R), was quoted saying:

“I think that bill is an embarrassment to Virginia, nationally and internationally...I wanted to stop the embarrassment.”

The exposure this bill received in national and international media led to the measure being dropped.   An editorial in The San Francisco Chronicle had one of the best points to make about the bill:

There is one way to ensure that low-rider pants will stay in fashion  --  and that's for adults in business suits to declare them illegal.

Thanks to the Senate Courts of Justice Committee for clearing the way for low riders to fall out of fashion, the old fashioned way.

(BTW, kudos to the Washington Post editorial page today for coming up with the most cheeky pun of all on this bill.  The Post called it a " a crotchety proposal".  Brilliant.)

Virginia House: Legislative Laughingstock of the Nation

Up here in Connecticut, where I'm taking care of my ailing elderly dad, I don't get to hear much Virginia news on the teevee.  (Thank goodness for the Internets!)

Sadly, I've seen three television reports mentioning the Virginia House of Delegates tonight - one on a New York station, one on a Connecticut station, and just now on ABC World News Tonight. 

Are the television stations reporting on any serious issues, such as the failure of the Virginia House to protect birth control from restrictive abortion laws, or the relentless pursuit of codified hatred of gay and lesbian Virginians by some Virginia delegates?  Nope.  What's drawn their attention is the droopy drawers bill which we discussed as a Legislative Sentry item a few weeks ago.  (Here's a sampling of newspaper coverage on this bill in USA Today and the Virginian-Pilot.)

Astonishingly, the droopy drawers bill passed the House yesterday (60-Y 34-N) with the support of many Democrats.  And so we've made national news as the legislative laughingstock of the nation.

HB1660: Plated Haters Win in House

HB1660, Delegate L. Scott Lingamfelter's bill in support of "Traditional Marriage" license plates, moved one step closer to becoming law, having passed the House today on a vote of 62-35.

Since that number is so close to the partisan split in the house, one might expect it was a party-line vote, but 20 delegates voted opposite to the majority of their parties.  10 Democrats voted with the majority of Republicans supporting the plate, and 10 Republicans joined the majority of Democrats in standing against the plate, which many supporters of equal rights for all Virginians consider a thinly-veiled slogan in opposition to equal rights for gay Virginians. 

More on the vote after the jump.

One interesting twist this week was Delegate Brian Moran's attempt to amend HB1660 to remove the word "traditional".  Until 1967, Virginia's marriage "traditions" included laws preventing interracial marriage.  In this context, a different plate, one commemorating the decision of Loving v. Virginia, which freed Virginians from anti-miscegenation laws, would be far more fitting and appropriate.  More after the jump.

HB2784, Restricting Access to Abortion, Advances in House

Please contact both your Senator and your Delegate today to voice opposition to HB2784, which would further restrict access to safe and legal reproductive health care for Virginia women.

The bill was read for the second time and engrossed today, which means it will likely come up for a full vote in the House tomorrow.  As reported by the AP:

The bill by Henrico County Delegate John "Jack" Reid would require any clinic that performs 25 or more first-trimester abortions a year to be licensed and meet the same standards as ambulatory surgery centers.

The clinics now are treated like doctors' offices and are not routinely inspected by the state. The House has overwhelmingly passed similar legislation two years in a row only to see it killed by a Senate committee. Reid says the intent of the bill is to see that abortions, "are performed in as sterile and as safe an environment as possible."

Fairfax Delegate Vivian Watts says there are dozens of other procedures done at doctors' offices that are as invasive as abortions. She says the intention of the bill, "is to significantly reduce the number of abortions by making them extremely expensive." A final House vote is expected Tuesday.

Ben Greenberg of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia explains in an article in the Lynchburg News & Advance that the burden these new regulations would have on existing reproductive health clinics in Virginia:

“They would either have to build a new facility, which we know can cost between $1.5 million and $2 million, or they would have to completely restructure their current offices to meet those requirements, which would be incredibly costly, or go out of business."

The "go out of business" part is exactly what opponents of access to reproductive health care are seeking.  The Richmond Times-Dispatch also covers the story, with more useful quotes from Delegate Watts and Delegate Sickles:

Del. Vivian E. Watts, D-Fairfax, said if the concern truly were public health, legislators would make sure all plastic surgery, colonoscopy procedures, wisdom-tooth removal and dozens of other invasive medical procedures were subject to similar oversight.

"The fact that this bill is only going after one procedure indicates clearly what it is about," Watts said.

Del. Mark D. Sickles, D-Fairfax, said House members were sending a conflicting message by supporting legislation that permits state licensing of non-nurse midwives who assist in home births, a riskier situation than a first-trimester abortion.

In the Lynchburg article, note that Delegate Dick "Baby Pesticides" Black has broken out his trusty plastic fetus dolls in the House yet again.  Aside from playing with larger dolls this time, he also compares abortion to "what happened during the Holocaust".  (One wonders if Holocaust survivors may have opinions on that one?)  Don't forget, David Poisson is running against "Baby Pesticides" Black in the 32nd and needs our support.

Delegate Vivian Watts (D-Annandale) correctly points out that "Baby Pesticides" Black's fetal pain bill defines a fetus as "a member of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until birth", once again attempting to establish a legislative definition of that would, in effect, classify birth control methods such as oral contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, and IUD's, which may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, as abortion methods.  Like Delegate Devolites-Davis, Dick "Baby Pesticides" Black forgoes established medical definitions in favor of his own ideological ones. 

Please read these bills yourself and make sure your legislators know your opinions on this legislation before it is too late to make a difference.

UPDATE: Matt Hupp from Henrico will be stepping up to run against Jack Reid, who ran unopposed in 2003.  Go Matt!

Letter to Delegates Black and Marshall: Authors of proposed homophobic change to adoption law

Dear Dels. Marshall and Black,

It has come to our attention that you have introduced legislation in the Virginia House to outlaw adoption by gays and lesbians.  As the proud adoptive parents of an eight year old girl my husband and I are frankly astounded at the mean spiritedness of this proposed bill.

Any adoptive parent from the state of Virginia understands that the adoption process as it exists carefully screens applicants for the responsibility of parenthood -- including thorough police background checks and an intensive series of interviews designed to determine the mental and physical qualifications of the applicants.  This process, if performed as designed, eliminates the unqualified -- for whatever reason it may be.  Your legislation suggests that the very state of being homosexual makes someone unqualified to parent.

It is difficult to imagine anyone with such a close minded point of view as yours.  An extremely large number of people in this country are gay.  The odds are that someone you know and respect is, unbeknownst to you, gay.  There is in fact a high likelihood that someone in your own family is gay.  The fact that you would strive to restrict the basic rights of such a huge population is unconscionable.

What possible reason can you have to promote such a hate-filled agenda under the guise of "family values?"  This flies in the face of everything a loving and compassionate Jesus teaches Christians.  I do often wonder what Jesus would say about the so-called Christians who practice hate in his name.  Can it be possible that you would rather see a child floated between foster homes than acquire a permanent loving home with qualified parents?

Rest assured that we will spread the word far and near about this incredibly foul legislation.  You may be certain that adoption groups and other interested people will have something to say about this.

Sincerely,

Julia G. Ide and Nicholas C. Ide
1318 Woodside Drive
McLean, VA 22102