Democracy for Virginia

HB2921: VA House Attempts to Ban Adoption by Gays and Lesbians

Maura Keaney has done all of us a great service by unearthing numerous pieces of legislation introduced in the current Virginia House and Senate that call for our immediate action.  This entry highlilghts one of particular concern to me as an adoptive parent.

In another example of the extraordinary extremist actions of some of the majority members of our Commonwealth's legislative bodies, last minute legislation has been introduced in the Virginia House to make adoption by gays and lesbians illegal in Virginia.  The text of the bill can be found by following this link:

HB 2921 Prohibits adoptions by homosexuals.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?051+sum+HB2921

This not only applies to adoption applications by couples made jointly, but also by adoptions of new partners of parents that wish to complete their family legally through adoption. 

This should anger all of us, but it is particularly despicable to me as an adoptive parent.  It is absolutely unacceptable to think that I would be able to adopt while other qualified loving adults would not -- for a totally arbitrary reason.  This is outrageous and flies in the face of decency and common sense.  This is a hateful crowd that would rather see children not receive permanent homes than place them with a loving parent that happens to be a gay or lesbian.

We need to unite in expressing our outrage over this legislation.

SB456: A Major Defeat Today for Virginia Women and Families

Terrible news from the Virginia Senate today on SB456, Senator Whipple's Birth Control Protection Act.

The anti-science Devolites-Davis amendment passed the Senate today, 21-17-1, rendering the bill essentially useless as a means for protecting access to all safe methods of contraception for Virginia women and families. 

Senator Whipple's office has confirmed that she will move to withdraw the bill tomorrow rather than allow it to be passed as amended.

UPDATE: Virginia Family Values PAC weighs in and the Hampton Roads Daily Press covers the story.

Legislative Sentry: SB456 - Act TODAY to protect contraception in Virginia

Here's a multiple choice question for you...Which of the following is the best source of information on reproductive medical terminology?

A. Dictionary.com
B. The National Institutes of Health (National Library of Medicine) Medical Encyclopedia
C. The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
D. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Senator Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis (R-Fairfax, wife of Republican Congressman Tom Davis) picked A, Dictionary.com.  Rather than trusting in medically accepted definitions for medical terminology, Devolites-Davis used Dictionary.com as her source of a definition of "contraception" during floor debate this week in an effort to stop Senator Mary Margaret Whipple's (D-Arlington) Birth Control Protection Act (SB456) from passing the Senate as written.

HUH?  Dictionary.com as a source of definitions of medical terminology?  Has the rejection of science and education gone this far?  Read the full story past the jump, and ACT TODAY!

Legislative Sentry: HB1981 - Keep Your Laws Off My Drawers (Or Not?)

Here's a light-hearted one for a dark day.  Delegate Algie Howell Jr. (D-Norfolk) has introduced a bill to give a $50 fine to anyone who exposes his "below-waist undergarments" in an offensive manner.  The bill is an amendment to Virginia's existing indecent exposure law that criminalizes "obscene display" of "body parts", punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Is this Virginia's equivalent to Louisiana's "baggy pants bill"?  That bill became a national embarrassment after passing Louisiana's criminial justice committe and was ultimately defeated, thanks to opposition from the Louisiana chapter of the ACLU, whose representative stood up for free expression rights, including a spirited defense of the rights of Louisiana plumbers who might occasionally expose, well, let's just say, cracks in their professionalism.

Virginia low-rider wearers, beware. Will we see thong-exposers and droopy-drawer-boxer wearing Virginians uniting in grassroots action to oppose this bill?  I can just see them in protest marches now ...paraphrasing Stockard Channing singing in Grease, "Keep your filthy laws off my silky drawers!"

I can see obscene display of body parts as "indecent exposure", but flashing your tighty whities?  I dunno.  Shouldn't it be called "tacky exposure" instead?

HB1677: Further "Miss-Demean-Hers" from Cosgrove

So, yesterday, I gotta admit I celebrated a little about the announcement that Cosgrove would pull 1677, especially when he admitted his own bill's "language was just too confusing".

The good news spread throughout the blogosphere, and many of the women who researched the bill themselves and wrote to Cosgrove celebrated a victory of ordinary people making a difference in the legislative process.  Typical of the hundreds of related comments on blogs, Libby on Chez Marriage wrote in comments:

Talk about feeling empowered!

Fertile or infertile, democrat or replublican, mothers or childfree, it does not matter. We are women first and we can unite to make a difference. I hope we don't forget that.

Well, apparently John Cosgrove doesn't think we're empowered.  According to Ema at The Well Timed Period, who posted a copy of an email from Cosgrove to a concerned citizen, he thinks we're misinformed.  Everyone's concerns are based on "false information".  Cosgrove also makes the condescending point that, "those who would blindly accept the rumors of the internet should also be vigilant to discern the truth."

So, Mr. Cosgrove, the people who wrote to you are just blind dupes?  Just - dare I say it? - hysterical women who believed some crazy rumor unfounded in fact?   Some evidence would suggest otherwise, given that nearly half of the blogs who linked to the story on the first day it gained popularity also linked to the General Assembly's bill tracking system to the full text of the bill itself.

It's an easy defense, really.  The evil Internets are telling lies about me!  And they never let me give my side of the story!

Dave Addis of the Virginian-Pilot, whose family suffered four traumatic losses of pregnancy, called HB1677 a "lulu" of a bill in "Good for us, pregnancy bill is nipped in the bud", and gives Cosgrove this advice:

A lot of..bloggers are morons, but a lot are savvy, dedicated, and on target. Just ask Dan Rather. 

My parting advice: Grow scales, Cosgrove, or do a better job of writing your bills, because these people aren’t going away. And good on ’em, too.

(Continue reading by clicking link below...)

BREAKING: Cosgrove will withdraw HB1677!

BREAKING NEWS!  Chris Graham of the Augusta Free Presss has just broken the news that Delegate John Cosgrove will withdraw HB1677 from consideration:

Legislation that would have required mothers who had failed to report fetal deaths to the police within 12 hours of the delivery to face a possible misdemeanor sentence will be withdrawn, its patron said on Monday.

"I've elected to withdraw HB 1677 from consideration by the General Assembly this year. The language is just too confusing," Del. John Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake, told The Augusta Free Press.

Cosgrove's surprise move came after a firestorm of controversy spread across the World Wide Web over the weekend about the possible far-reaching effects of the measure.

A victory for citizen participation in democracy!  Does Delegate Cosgrove agree with that assessment, though?  No.  He's still calling it "misinformation":

Cosgrove, for his part, said opponents of House Bill 1677 were engaging in an active campaign of "misinformation" to get their political points across.

Again, readers are invited to read the bill and read Code of Virginia definition of fetal death and decide for themselves whether the concerns expressed here and, consequently, over a thousand other blogs and discussion boards, were warranted.

Read the whole breaking story here in the Augusta Free Press.  Thanks to Delegate Cosgrove for engaging with concerned readers and for making this decision, and thank to the thousands of other citizen bloggers and letter-writers who earn the credit for this remarkable progress in just a few days!

UPDATE:  The controversy over HB1677 was also featured on a report by Venton Blandin on WCAV TV (CBS-19 Charlottesville), and Christina Nuckols of the Virginian-Pilot writes "Del. Cosgrove pulls bill after Internet fuels fiery protest".  An excerpt:

Del. John A. Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake, was shaken by the speed and volume of the response as word of his bill traveled across the country via the Internet.

“I’ve never been blogged before,” he said. “The tone of the e-mails has been disgusting. It’s, 'You’re a horrible person. You ought to be crucified.’ And those were the nice ones.” ...

Cosgrove said he spent the weekend responding to all 500-plus e-mails he received from people as far away as California and Texas. The original Web site that raised the alarm also posted his response to criticisms.

“They’ve been fairly responsive, but they never talked to me prior to going on the Web,” he said. “I was absolutely mistreated on this.”

I'm sorry you feel mistreated, Delegate Cosgrove. 

Is a citizen is under an obligation to not share concerns about proposed legislation with others if the legislator hasn't had a chance to explain his rationale?  Ultimately, I don't think most people reading this story had a problem with Delegate Cosgrove's rationale.  We all share a desire to promote public policy that protects infants.  The problem was not with what Delegate Cosgrove says he wanted to accomplish with the legislation; the concerns were about the content of the bill.

But on a cheeky note, Delegate Cosgrove -- if you happen to bump in to your friend Delegate Robert Marshall there in Richmond, will you please ask him to reply to my email from last Friday about HB1807?  I have a few questions about his whole idea to charge a person with a Class 6 felony for providing contraceptives under "certain circumstances".  I don't want him to feel mistreated if he gets "blogged", too.

HB1677: Is it all just a "misunderstanding"? You decide.

Delegate Cosgrove has been very polite, and we have exchanged three very respectful emails this weekend.  I appreciate his willingness to engage in dialogue, and I am eager to continue this exchange. I think participatory democracy is a very positive thing, and to the extent to which Mr. Cosgrove is willing to correspond about this bill with concerned citizens during this very busy time in his legislative office, he is to be commended.

But I do have problems with what he is saying to people - that this site is making "allegations" based on a "misunderstanding" of his bill.  Likewise, I know he has a problem with my decision not to remove the original "miscarriage" scenario from this site, even after hearing from him that he did not intend for the bill to apply to miscarriages. 

One problem is this, as reported by "Elizabeth" in comments, just one example of the power of additive research done by others in the blogosphere.

In 2003, Delegate Cosgrove introduced a similar bill titled "Duty to report childbirth."  The summary reads:

Duty to report childbirth. Provides that any woman who gives birth without the assistance of a health care professional after more than 24 weeks have elapsed since the beginning of her last menstrual period and who, though she is reasonably able to do so, fails to report the birth, whether a live birth or stillbirth, within 12 hours of the event, to the local sheriff, police department or fire department is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Why, after crafting a bill that narrowly defines reporting requirements to births and stillbirths past 24 weeks' gestation, would a new bill be introduced this year that includes the much more expansive concept of "fetal death"? 

More additive research by bloggers is bringing additional perspective to the story.  Check out Ema's impressive work at The Well-Timed Period - she has spoken with representatives of the Chesapeake Police Department, and also brings her extensive medical knowledge to her interpretation of Delegate Cosgrove's response in Delegate Cosgrove: Don't Relax Just Yet.

The power of the Internet is that you don't have to rest on my inerpretation, or Ema's, or Delegate Cosgrove's, or any one of the thousands of blogs that have linked to this story and developed their own interpretations.  You have links to the primary sources yourself.  You decide.

HB1677: Television coverage on NBC12 in Richmond

ALERT!  NBC Channel 12 in Richmond will be doing a story tonight on HB1677, the "fetal death reporting" bill, at 6PM and 11PM tonight.

The story will feature interviews with Delegate Cosgrove and a concerned Richmond-area woman who wrote to him about this story.  If you are in the Richmond area and are able to catch this story, please comment here to let us know how it was covered!

UPDATE:  NBC Channel 12's coverage is available here - watch the video yourself.  The report says, "Delegate Cosgrove says it's nothing more than a misunderstanding."

I beg to differ, as do hundreds of readers who have read the primary source materials themselves and come to their own conclusions.  We don't misunderstand what the bill says.  Whether it is what Cosgrove meant to legislate is arguable, but there is nothing in HB1677, as written, about saving live infants from being abandoned.  Nothing about "babies who are newborn that are immediately abandoned to die", as Cosgrove claims.

It's a fair point that the word "miscarriage" is not used, either.  But the legislation is very clearly about "fetal death".  Nobody manufactured out of thin air an interpretation that suggestion it would apply to miscarriages.  The Code of Virginia definition of "fetal death" is here.  It's very clear that this definition includes miscarriages.  It's very clear that this definition does NOT include "babies who are newborn".  Don't take my word for it.  Please.  Read the existing definition yourself.  Read HB1677 yourself. 

Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty: HR1677 - A Reply from Delegate Cosgrove

As of a minute ago, this site has received over 40,000 hits in the past 24 hours, and this story has spread to over 100 blogs and many more hundreds of message boards and email lists.  The story's spread from here and DailyKos to countless infertility/miscarriage blogs, to Fark.com, to Atrios and Air America Radio and beyond.  I have only begun to scratch the surface of reading the discussions that this has spawned in the blogosphere, but I'm grateful for the response and thankful for the attention that this legislation has been given.  Some thoughts:

A few people have written, essentially, "Why make such a big deal out of this?  This bill is SO bad it will surely die in committee, or get voted down, or get vetoed."  Sure, bad bills get introduced in every legislature.  But some of them become law, and sometimes they become law because ordinary citizens weren't aware of them before they became law. 

One commenter wrote, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." 

Unfortunately, this recent vigilance has kept me awake for far more than 24 hours straight, and I need to drive my parents to a family function many hours away tomorrow, so I'm not going to be able to do justice to this update right now.  I didn't want to wait to post this update, though, because it is so important.

I am delighted to report that Delegate Cosgrove has contacted me directly about HB1677.  Delegate Cosgrove has been inundated with calls and emails today in response to the viral spread of this story via the internet, and he is doing his best to respond to them. 

He has asked me to share his email with you here, and I do so with thanks to him for his time and thought in composing it (emphasis mine):

Dear Maura:

I am Delegate Cosgrove and I wish to respond to your website and the allegations that have been made by those who have emailed and called my office. The intent of House Bill 1677 is to require the notification of authorities of a delivery of a baby that is dead and the mother has not been attended by a medical professional. This bill was requested by the Chesapeake Police Department in its legislative package due to instances of full term babies who were abandoned shortly after birth. These poor children died horrible deaths. If a coroner could not determine if the child was born alive, the person responsible for abandoning the child could only be charged with is the improper disposal of a human body.

The requirement for the twelve hour notification timeframe comes from the method that a coroner would use to determine if the child had been born alive or dead. After twelve hours, it becomes next to impossible to determine if the child was alive due to decomposition gasses that build up in the body.

My bill in no way intends that a woman who suffers a miscarriage should be charged for not notifying authorities. The bill in no way mentions miscarriages, only deliveries.  However, after discussing the bill again with our legislative services lawyers, I have decided to include language that will define the bill to apply only to those babies that are claimed to have been stillborn and that are abandoned as stated above.

I would never inflict the type of emotional torture on a woman who has suffered such a traumatic event as a miscarriage by making her notify authorities of her loss. I would also never impose criminal sanctions on a woman who has gone through this loss. And I am confident that the General Assembly of Virginia would also not pass such a terrible imposition on a woman. My mother experienced several miscarriages and I have other friends who have been devastated by losing their children through miscarriages.

On a final note, your website advocates the use of emailing comments to my office. As for the emails that I have received, I have answered a few and will forward a similar explanation to those who sent them.  I always seek to receive emails that express a point of view either in support or in opposition to an issue. The majority of emails I have received from this site, however, have been extremely abusive, condescending, and mean-spirited. That is never the way to communicate with another person and I hope that civil discourse would be your desire as well.

I hope that you will post this explanation on your website and understand the original intent of this bill. If you feel the need to discuss this matter more fully, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

John A. Cosgrove

I have sent him an initial reply thanking him for his thoughtful response, and I plan to spend some time tomorrow night or Sunday in composing a more substantive post which addresses the information he provides here and asks him questions about the revisions he plans. 

For now, Delegate Cosgrove, if you're reading, the most important thing I want to say is thank you for listening to the concerns of so many people, even those who expressed their concern angrily or even abusively.  I am heartened to hear that you plan narrow the scope of HB1677 to more closely fit your stated intent.

If you'd like to continue this dialogue with Delegate Cosgrove, please consider sharing your questions or concerns in comments.  This issue has brought together so many people in a positive way today - Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, pro-choice, and pro-life commenters found much common ground in objection to the original format of the bill.  I think that's a Good Thing, as is Delegate Cosgrove's outreach to us here. 

If you all could continue the eternal vigilance while I sleep now, I'd appreciate it.  :-)

Lesgislative Sentry: Updates on HB1677...yes, it IS that bad + links galore

I have been overwhelmed and heartened by the response to yesterday's alert about HB1677.  The most heartfelt, impassioned, and determined reactions to this bill have come from the blogging community of women who have experienced infertility and/or miscarriages, thanks to an incredible post at Chez Miscarriage, one of the best blogs I've ever read.

I've now read hundreds of comments and trackbacks and emails about this original post, and I wanted to write a brief follow-up because some comments have reflected misunderstandings about the details of the bill.  The average reader probably doesn't have time to wade through all the details and links I included in my first post, so here are some clarifications:

• Not all miscarriages in Virginia would have to be reported to the police if Delegate Cogrove's bill becomes law. Current Virginia law mandates that any "fetal deaths" that occur under the care of a physican be reported.  So if you have a miscarriage in the hospital, your doctor already reports this.  Law enforcement agencies are not involved - it's mandated statistical reporting from doctors to a Registrar of births and deaths.
• Delegate Cosgrove's bill only applies "when fetal death occurs without medical attendance".
• "Miscarriage" is my word, not Delegate Cosgrove's.  He uses the term "fetal death".  My illustrative scenario of a miscarriage at 8 weeks' gestation does not involve a fetus (using the medical definition of a fetus) but it does involve a "fetal death" using the Code of Virginia definition of "fetal death", which refers to "a product of human conception, regardless of the duration of pregnancy".  I interpret this to include a pregnancy of 8 weeks' gestation.
• Delegate Cosgrove has reportedly written an email reply to a blogger who asked him what his rationale for the bill could be.  According to her, Delegate Cosgrove says that the bill is intended to "reduce the number of "trashcan" babies that are born and then abandoned in trashcans, toilets, or elsewhere to die from exposure or worse."  I have not myself heard from him in response to my original email four days ago.  Based on the responses I've read all over the blogosphere, I imagine his email box is now full of impassioned missives from women who've miscarried, so I don't know whether I'll ever hear back directly.
• I want to believe that Delegate Cosgrove honestly has the good intentions of wanting to save abandoned babies. He talked about the Golden Rule in his response, so I'll try to do unto him in assuming good intentions. But regardless of his intentions, this bill has nothing to do with saving infants from being abandoned in dumpsters.
• This bill has to do with fetal death. When a fetal death occurs, the pregnancy has already ended.  There is no live infant to save. Mandating reporting of fetal death by a grieving mother to cops within 12 hours doesn't save anyone.  It just causes pain. And indignity.
• Delegate Cosgrove, in this bill, is not the one who defined fetal death in Virginia, so don't blame him.  Maybe he meant for the bill to apply only to fetuses of 20 or 24 weeks' gestation or more. But that's not what he wrote. What he wrote relies on existing Code of Virginia definitions of "fetal death", which are markedly different than medical definitions of fetal death. And whether Delegate Cosgrove intended it or not, his bill, as written, would apply to women experiencing spontaneous losses of very early pregnancies.
• For statistical purposes, the CDC's National Center on Health Statistics says "A death that occurs at 20 or more weeks of gestation constitutes a fetal death, and after 28 weeks it is considered a late fetal death."  If this is what Delegate Cosgrove meant by "fetal death" in the bill, he needs to add that language.  There is nothing in the bill to re-define fetal death differently than the Code of Virginia defines it.
  
• Delegate Cosgrove is also not directly responsible for the long list of data fields that are included in the Report of Fetal Death, Commonwealth of Virginia.  This is defined in the Virginia Administrative Code.  Perhaps he was not aware of what data fields are required in the form when he wrote his bill. 
• Your state also has laws regarding reporting of fetal deaths.  The CDC publishes "State Definitions and Reporting Requirements for Live Births, Fetal Deaths, and Induced Terminations of Prenancy" (PDF).
• Most states use a form that is based on the U.S. Standard Report of Fetal Death form (PDF).  If you really want to get into detail, here's a 207-page report from the National Center on Health Statistics (PDF) that may either satisfy your wonkish addiction to detail, or scare the Big Brother-fearing life out of you. 
• And here is a handy worksheet the NCHS has provided for you to fill out after you experience miscarriage in the hospital (PDF).  I call it the Homework Assignment from Hell.  That sympathetic disclaimer in the beginning is nice, but...what a difficult thing to have to do.
  

Some commenters in the blogosphere have suggested that this is a firestorm about nothing, since this bill is so unenforceable, burdensome, etc., that no legislature would ever pass it.  That may be true, but I believe strongly that shining light on legislation like this can only be a good thing.  If it causes Delegate Cosgrove's office great inconvenience of sorting through lots of concerned emails...well, I also think that's a good thing.  Not the inconvenience, but the input from concerned citizens.  It's democracy in action.  And just as I'm trying to ascribe good intentions to Delegate Cosgrove, I hope he'll ascribe the same to me.