RVA Mag

Richmond, VA Culture & Politics Since 2005

Menu

Democratic Lawmakers Reflect on Historic General Assembly Session

|

Topics: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the first session in over two decades with the governor’s office and both houses under Democratic control, the General Assembly passed extensive legislation affecting everything from LGBTQ rights to gun control and marijuana decriminalization.

Virginia lawmakers passed over 1,200 new laws in two months, a variety of them in the final days of the 2020 session, which expanded into Sunday evening to accommodate the backlog of legislation.

This session has been the first time since 1994 that the Democrats have controlled both chambers of the General Assembly along with the governor’s office. The House passed 746 of 1,732 bills introduced, while the Senate passed 543 of 1,096 bills introduced, excluding resolutions, according to the Legislative Information System. The number of bills sponsored in the House led to long sessions in both chambers and left the Senate grappling with an approaching deadline. 

In eight weeks, starting with a vote to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, Democrats worked to overturn close to 30 years of Republican dominance over issues such as gun control, reproductive rights, and voter rights.

They also passed new measures such as empowering localities with the authority to remove or contextualize war memorials and adding LGBTQ protections from discrimination in housing and employment, as well as a ban on conversion therapy for minors, becoming the first Southern state to pass such legisation. 

Seven out of eight major gun control measures supported by Gov. Ralph Northam are on the way to the governor’s desk for his signature. The legislation includes bills that limit handgun purchases to one per month, a background check on all firearms sales, and extreme risk protection orders, also known as the red flag law. 

House of Delegates begins on Sunday March 8, 2020 after lawmakers agreed to an extension of the session the night before. (Photo by Chip Lauterbach/Capital News Service)

Other legislation that passed in the homestretch included decriminalization of marijuana, but efforts to legalize marijuana were squashed, to the dismay of advocates. The decriminalization bill does away with the criminal penalty for simple marijuana possession, instead instating a $25 civil penalty for a person caught with not more than 1 ounce of marijuana. The Senate amended the bill from the original amount of not more than a half ounce.

“For far too long our approach to cannabis has needlessly saddled Virginians, especially African Americans and people of color, with criminal records,” Attorney General Mark Herring said in a statement. “Those days are over.” 

Herring, who pushed for the legislation, said there were 29,000 marijuana possession arrests in 2018. He also said decriminalization is an important first step toward legal, regulated adult use. 

Lawmakers reached a compromise to increase the minimum wage, with a bill that gradually increases the wage to $9.50 in 2021, $11 in 2022 and up to $12 in 2023. Following these raises, the measure is to be brought before the General Assembly for a future vote that must pass by 2024 in order to guarantee that the wage can reach $15 by 2026.

Democrats also pushed through an amended bill that allows access to collective bargaining for public employees — such as teachers and firefighters — in localities where local governments choose to participate. Sens. Bill DeSteph, R-Virginia Beach, and Amanda Chase, R-Chesterfield, criticized these policies, which they said create hurdles for enterprises. 

“We’ve just crushed the small business atmosphere,” DeSteph said in a video posted on Facebook. “CNBC had us as the No. 1 place to do business. We’re going to be in the 20s after this. It’s a very sad day for the commonwealth.” 

Freshman Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, D-Richmond, who defeated one-term incumbent Glen Sturtevant in November, reflected back on her first session.

“It’s been incredible, I have immersed myself in all the issues and critical pieces of legislation that we have had,” Hashmi said. “We have been able to pass some very important bills this year, for immigrant rights and for education, focusing on teachers and higher education, I’ve really enjoyed the work and am looking forward to coming back next year.”

In the House, Democrats held 55 seats to the Republican’s 45 seats. Democrats ushered changes that Del. Lee Carter, D-Manassas, felt will be instrumental in improving the lives of Virginians.

“With the partisan change in both chambers, the question coming down here was: ‘What kind of majority are we going to be?’” Carter said. “Whether we were going to be the type of majority that stood unequivocally for working people, against corporate interests, and decided to make lives better for the people that desperately needed it, or if we were going to be a majority that was content to merely not be as bad as the Republicans.”

Carter said that he was happiest with the outcome of his bill that capped the price of insulin at $50 for a month’s worth.

“I introduced the bill with the cap at $30, the Senate put it at $50,” Carter said. “I’m hoping that the governor will put it back down to $30 or even lower, so we can get some relief to those people who have health insurance but their deductibles and copays are too high for them to be able to afford their insulin products.”

Senators entering chambers waiting for Saturday’s session to begin. (Photo by Chip Lauterbach/Capital News Service)

Del. Danica Roem, D-Prince William, looked back on her third session in the General Assembly with pride, joking that she was able to pass 13 bills for the 13th District. Roem was pleased that her bill, HB 1024, which would establish a statewide cold case database, passed the Senate on the final day of this year’s session.

“This will allow reporters, as well the public in general, to look up every missing persons case, unidentified persons case, and every unsolved homicide in the state that is at least five years old,” Roem said. “This is a huge win for government accountability and transparency.”

Some legislation that moved through the House met resistance in the Democrat-majority Senate, where moderate Democrats sided with Republicans. Three moderate Democrats tipped a Senate panel vote to continue HB 961, the assault weapons ban sponsored by Del. Mark Levine (D-Alexandria), until the next session. 

On Saturday, citing concerns of minority profiling, Senate Democrats helped vote down HB 1439, which would have made not wearing a seatbelt in any seat of a vehicle a primary offense. 

Some Republicans also advanced legislative reform. Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Franklin, passed a measure that will remove suspension of a driver’s license for nonpayment of fines. Stanley also supported a bill granting tenants the power to make repairs on their property and deduct the costs from their rent, with conditions.

Speaker of the House Eileen Filler-Corn issued a statement saying that Democrats were celebrating a “historic, legislative session.”

“This General Assembly session has been historic in the extraordinary progress the House of Delegates has made for Virginians in every corner of the Commonwealth,” Filler-Corn said. “In November, voters called for swift, impactful action to make their communities safer and more prosperous. We have delivered on that mandate.” 

Multiple House and Senate Republicans did not respond to a request for comment. 

Written by Chip Lauterbach, Capital News Service. Top Photo by Chip Lauterbach, Capital News Service.

The Truth About Abortion, and Why It Matters

|

Topics: , , , , , , , ,

Protecting reproductive rights requires accurate knowledge, and shows like Shrill help shed light on facts about abortion and contraception that are largely absent from political debates around the issue.

In the first episode of the Hulu comedy series Shrill, writer Annie Easton learns that the morning after contraceptive she took didn’t work, and now she has to decide whether to have an abortion. Ultimately she does, and is seen walking into the clinic freely, with her best friend and roommate by her side as her emotional support.

Shrill, which stars Saturday Night Live’s Aidy Bryant, has been applauded not only for its accurate depiction of abortion but for bringing to light little-known facts about contraceptives and the abortion procedure itself. As it seems like every morning these days starts with news about more restrictive laws being placed on the bodies of women, these little beacons of light in media are like a warm blanket in the cold.

However, with so much inaccurate information about abortion spread around our society, I was curious about how accurate Shrill’s depiction of abortion access really was. Who better to call than the experts themselves?

“I think in the media … we are getting to a place where more shows are wanting to destigmatize abortion and lift it up as it is, which is a normal procedure. One in four women within their lifetimes will have [this procedure],” said Michelle Woods, Communications Director for NARAL Virginia. “We hope that people in the media will portray it as a normal healthcare procedure, that it’s a necessity, and how common it is… I think it’s a slow process in terms of lifting up something we don’t talk about, but it’s a conversation that we need to have.”

The biggest battle that those fighting in the healthcare arena are going to face is at its core the simplest — not just for abortion to be legal, but for it to be seen as a normal, routine procedure. However, if abortion and other forms of contraception are to be seen as normal in our society, we’re going to need to have a more accurate understanding of how they actually work.

Photo by Allyson Riggs/Hulu

An alarming moment in that first episode of Shrill is when Annie’s pharmacist points out to her that one of the reasons why the morning after pill did not work is because she exceeds the recommended weight limit for the medication. Apparently this limitation is very real, despite the fact that it is not taught in sexual education courses. Who knew.

“In Annie’s case, despite her readily accessible access to emergency contraception — in this case the brand Plan B — it was ineffective due to a lack of critically necessary medical information,” said Galina Varchena, Policy and Communications Director of NARAL Virginia. “[It was] not presented to her. Annie purchases emergency contraception multiple times, and at no point does the pharmacist mention that emergency contraception is only effective for women of a certain weight, under 175 pounds. Plan B and its generic counterparts are the most readily available form of emergency contraception in the country, but they are also the least effective for women with a high body mass index.”

Varchena notes that there should be an increased responsibility amongst pharmacists and drug companies to clearly explain the product’s effectiveness for different users. At this time, there are effective contraceptives available for women with high BMI; however, they are only available with a prescription.

“A common one is called Ella,” said Woods. “It works up to five days after unprotected sex. It works for women with high BMIs, so women who would not necessarily be protected in that event, but it requires a prescription. At Planned Parenthood, if you get a prescription you can go back at any point in the next calendar year and get it from Planned Parenthood, but you cannot get it over the counter at a pharmacy.”

Media absolutely affects the way we not only view the world but how we interpret and think about laws in our area and across the country. Portrayals through film and television create conversations and in some cases offer the only education many people have about certain issues. Conservative media certainly understands this, and has often pushed anti-abortion talking points regardless of whether or not the information presented is entirely accurate.

“Media coverage helps how people think about certain issues so if media coverage is inaccurate you’re going to have a medically inaccurate understanding of an abortion procedure,” said Katie Buie of NARAL Virginia. “I think we’re seeing that far and wide — people covering and speaking about realities of abortion, and spreading misinformation. It’s definitely an intentional campaign to mislead people on abortion, and I think that’s where we see representation of abortion in less than accurate ways [having] a negative effect on policy.”

In 2019, a variety of legislation was proposed with the intent of heavily restricting abortion rights, and some of it passed, including several “heartbeat” bills, which prohibit abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected — generally about six weeks after conception.

“I think the louder we are as a movement, and the louder we are speaking out while amplifying the voices of education and doctors to break ground on culture changing projects the better off we are,” said Buie. “We all need to do a much better job in expressing how severely detrimental these bills are, especially the six-week bans in different states. We need to make sure we are listing off the realities of how these bills are harming women.”

Sen. Jennifer McClellan (Photo via jennifermcclellan.com)

In 2019, Virginia voted a record number of women into the General Assembly, and this is already having positive results for abortion rights in the Commonwealth. Bills currently working their way through the state legislature are intended to roll back a variety of restrictions on abortion in Virginia.

“These laws have been about shaming women, stigmatizing abortion, shutting off access, discouraging doctors from providing this care. And we say, we’ve had enough, the voters in Virginia have had enough, and now we’re going to act on it,” NARAL Virginia Executive Director Tarina Keene said at a press conference last week. For Keene, the current moment offers Virginia a chance to become a “safe haven” for women in surrounding states who face more restrictive laws around abortion.

Reacting to the fact that in March, the US Supreme Court will hear its first major abortion case since President Donald Trump appointed two conservative justices to the court, Sen. Jennifer McClellan said, “If ever there is a time to protect a woman’s bodily autonomy, that time is now.” McClellan is the sponsor of the state Senate bill that would roll back several of Virginia’s restrictions on abortion, including a 24-hour waiting period and an ultrasound requirement.

Earlier this month, Virginia also became the 38th state to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, which puts that amendment over the number of individual states that need to ratify it for it to become part of the Constitution. Since there was a deadline placed on its ratification originally, one that has long passed, the fight to add the ERA to the Constitution will continue. Still, it’s an important step, for Virginia and the United States as a whole.

Meanwhile, coincidentally enough, the second season of Shrill was released Friday, January 24 on Hulu. It’s a reminder that we must continue to tell our stories, because despite positive progress, the battle for women’s rights is far from over.

Top Image via Broadway Video/Hulu

Op-Ed: Gay Men Have a Stake In the Abortion Debate — The Women Who Have Always Supported Us

|

Topics: , , , , ,

Behind every gay man, there is a great woman — or, more accurately, great women. Joe Biden said of Will and Grace that the show “did more to educate the American public than almost anybody’s ever done so far.” And he was absolutely right. The sitcom was indeed groundbreaking, because it normalized gay people to American audiences.

Yet, perhaps just as important was how it portrayed the relationships between gay men and their straight female friends. Did Will and Grace slip into low-hanging fruit territory? Of course it did. But beyond tropes and cliches, at its core, it was a decisive and reverent portrayal of the bonds between gay men and straight women. For Will, Grace offered a brand of supportive love that is so familiar to gay men everywhere. The most unconditional, non-judgmental kind of love. A love rooted in compassion and commiseration.

As Pride Month begins, I am reminded of all of the ways straight female allies have supported me throughout my life, and how straight women have fought shoulder to shoulder with the LGBTQ community from the very beginning. They have no skin in the game. No horse in the race. They stood with us out of pure conviction.

So as we celebrate Pride and the legacies of the activists that have stood up for LGBTQ rights, we must remember the role that was played by our straight female allies. As we watch state after state pass legislation that blocks access to reproductive healthcare, we have a moral obligation to sound the alarm, to galvanize, and to fight. We must stand with them as they have always stood with us.

While gay men will never need an abortion, women have everything to lose if Roe is overturned. Their fight is beyond the right to choose — it is a fight for dignity and equality. And that is precisely why I am committed to protecting access to safe and legal abortions. Advocating for women’s reproductive healthcare is a moral imperative for anyone who has ever experienced inequality. The lesson my community should take away from the advocacy of straight women is that we are all in this together. As Martin Luther King Jr said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

To the women in my life, the women of my state and of my country: I stand with you. You are not in this alone. You have always been there for us, and we are here for you now.

Note: Op-Eds are contributions from guest writers and do not reflect GayRVA editorial policy.

Photo courtesy Zachary For Virginia

Trump Plan Grants Doctors Special Religious Rights to Deny Care to Transgender Patients, Women Seeking Abortions

|

Topics: , , , , , ,

As if doctor visits didn’t give us enough reason to worry as it is.

The Trump administration is finalizing details on its plan to grant special religious “rights” to medical professionals who claim a moral objection to providing care to transgender patients, or women seeking an abortion, among others.

The new rules would roll back Obama-era protections, according to a report by Politico.

The Trump administration’s so-called “conscience regulations” would extend far beyond those two scenarios.

The proposal, which would directly impact the Dept. of Health and Human Services, “would give HHS ‘a lot more authority and power’ to effectively remake and enforce existing conscience protections, said Katie Keith, a Georgetown University law professor who’s studied the regulations,” Politico notes.

For instance, a medical school receiving federal funds could not deny admission to applicants who refuse to perform abortions; providers could not require staff to inform patients about services like sterilization procedures or advance directives rejecting end-of-life care; and doctors and nurses would gain further protections to refuse providing services like vaccinations.

The forthcoming HHS nondiscrimination rules are the latest example of President Donald Trump violating a campaign pledge to protect the LGBTQ community, advocates for transgender people say. The administration’s ban on transgender troops took effect just weeks ago, and the health department reportedly tried to effectively eliminate the federal definition of “transgender.”

It’s possible the “conscience regulations” might extend to those who practice harmful “reparative” or “conversion” therapy, a pseudoscientific practice falsely purports to turn LGBTQ straight.

Written by David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement. Image by torbakhopper via Flickr and a CC license

Quick Uproar Leads To Slow Defeat For Abortion-Rights Bill

|

Topics: , , , , ,

Delegate Kathy Tran’s controversial attempt to ease restrictions on late-term abortions in Virginia was defeated in the General Assembly. But President Trump is still campaigning against it.

At one point last month, it seemed like third-trimester abortions, and their legality in Virginia, would be the controversy that dominated the state’s political discourse at the start of 2019. Of course, the tempest initially stirred up by 42nd District Delegate Kathy Tran’s HB 2491, a bill intended to ease some of the regulations the state currently has on second and third-trimester abortions, was quickly overtaken by the uproar over the state’s executive branch.

However, the quick progression of the news cycle meant that the first impressions around Tran’s bill were the ones that stuck. The fact that most of those were created by negative right-wing backlash is sure to impact reproductive rights in Virginia over the coming years. And as a closer look at Tran’s bill, and the events and discourse that surrounded it, shows us, there’s a lot about this controversial issue that is still not well understood.

Here’s what happened. At the beginning of this year’s General Assembly session, Delegate Kathy Tran introduced HB 2491, a bill designed to “eliminate certain requirements” around abortions in Virginia. It wasn’t until a couple of weeks later that the internet erupted, after a widely-circulated video showed Tran responding affirmatively to a question from a Republican delegate asking if women would be able to receive an abortion while they were in labor.

The video quickly sparked debate at the national level.

“Democrats have reached a new and disgusting low,” a press release from the National Republican Congressional Committee read. “They have a presented a bill that would allow killing a baby AFTER he or she is born.”

President Trump similarly criticized the bill – and similar legislation in New York – during his State of the Union address. Trump’s criticisms addressed comments made during an interview about the bill by Governor Ralph Northam, comments that only further inflamed anti-abortion activists.

“Then we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he basically stated he would execute a baby after birth,” Trump said. “To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb.”

Regardless of the controversy, the facts indicate that late term abortion is incredibly rare.

There have only been two third-trimester abortions in Virginia since 2000, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported. Additionally, a new poll from The Washington Post reports that about 6 in 10 adult Virginians support third trimester abortion in cases where the mother’s health is at risk.

The furor over the bill has led to charges that the bill “would legalize abortion up to birth,” and even that it would legalize infanticide. However, when one reads the language present in the bill, it becomes clear that it does none of those things.

Here’s what HB 2491 would do:

  • Remove the requirement that second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital.
  • Reduce the required number of physicians to sign off on a third-trimester abortion from three to one.
  • Eliminate language that requires for the health of a woman to be “substantially and irremediably” impacted for her to receive an abortion.

If the bill were passed, the provision in the Code of Virginia would allow for a third-trimester abortion, provided that, among other conditions, “the physician certifies and so enters in the hospital record of the woman, that in the physician’s medical opinion… the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman, or impair the mental or physical health of the woman.”

This last provision has been a bone of contention in right-wing circles, with many criticizing the fact that Tran’s bill would allow for women’s mental health to be a determining factor in the decision to allow an abortion. Many of the criticisms mirrored a line John McCain used in a 2008 debate with then-Senator Barack Obama.

Responding to Obama saying that any late-term abortion ban would have to include an exemption for situations in which the life or health of the mother was included, McCain responded, “Health of the mother… that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything.”

Similar phrasing showed up in the discussion of Tran’s bill by multiple conservative outlets. Using a Master And Commander analogy, Madeleine Kearns wrote in the National Review, “Saying late-term abortion is okay when there’s risk of ‘the death of the woman’ or if the birth would ‘impair the mental or physical health of the woman’ is kind of like saying that cutting the man on the mast loose is okay if they’ll all drown or if he’ll contribute to the depletion of sea biscuits.”

On the same subject, RedState contributor streiff wrote, “Subsequent decisions have specified that ‘health’ includes mental health and that is a totally subjective judgment and, as far as I can tell, there has yet to be a case where an abortionist failed to collect their check due to one of them deciding that the woman’s life or health would not be damaged. It just doesn’t happen.”

Here’s what HB 2491 would not do:

  • Advocate for infanticide — which is covered by a different section of the Code Of Virginia than the ones HB 2491 would address, and remains a Class 4 felony regardless of whether HB 2491 passes or not.

Tran has since asserted that she misspoke in the video that went viral, and that a live birth, not an abortion, would happen during labor. “I wish that I was quicker on my feet and I wish that I was able to be more agile in that moment,” she told the Washington Post. “And I misspoke, and I really regret that.”

Tran said in a video statement posted to her Facebook page after the furor erupted that she knew and had heard from women who were faced with the decision of whether to have an abortion.

“That’s why I introduced a bill to repeal the medically unnecessary and unduly burdensome barriers that Virginia women face when they’re accessing this healthcare service in consultation with their doctor,” Tran said.

President Trump campaigns in El Paso on February 11; his discussion of Northam’s comments about Tran’s bill triggered furious booing from his supporters. (Image via YouTube)

Tran has been lauded as a champion women’s rights by a variety pro-choice organizations.

“Delegate Tran introduced a bill to repeal medically unnecessary barriers to reproductive healthcare in Virginia, and she should be applauded for her leadership,” Heidi Sieck said in a statement from Vote Pro-Choice. “Let’s be real: the overly-funded, outsized voice of the anti-choice movement is generating a vicious and misleading smear campaign against pro-choice legislation that is medically sound and aligned with the values of the country.”

Regardless, Tran’s bill was ultimately tabled on February 5 by the House of Delegates’ Committee For The Courts of Justice. And even as Virginians have ceased, for the most part, to discuss the issue, Trump continues to bring it up at campaign rallies, saying in El Paso on February 11, “The governor stated that he would even allow a newborn baby to come out into the world, and wrap the baby, and make the baby comfortable, and then talk to the mother and talk to the father and then execute the baby. Execute the baby!”

Rest assured, we haven’t heard the last of this issue. Hopefully next time it’s raised, it will be discussed in a fact-based manner, rather than destroyed by an uproar around a sensationalist sound bite.

Written by Marilyn Drew Necci and Kate Seltzer. Top Image via YouTube

Roe V. Wade: Uncertain Under Kavanaugh

|

Topics: , , ,

Through a lifetime appointment, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has the potential to affect U.S. law for decades to come. With Kavanaugh’s confirmation and diving into his third week as a Supreme Court Justice, questions have been raised about what this could mean for the future of reproductive rights.

Kavanaugh has replaced conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired from the court this past summer. Kennedy was a swing vote in favor of Roe v. Wade, a landmark case that legalized abortion on a federal level.

Dr. Betha Coston is a Virginia Commonwealth University professor for the Department of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies. In an email, Dr. Coston stated that Kavanaugh’s identification as a political conservative will have a profound effect on his future opinions as a Supreme Court Justice.

“Every Supreme Court judge has impacted the balance of power in some way,” Dr. Coston said. “Although they are required to be impartial while serving, they are still human beings who have been socialized into their belief systems prior to the Supreme Court.”

Dr. Coston said Kavanaugh’s confirmation has beget “legitimate and real fears about the future of reproductive rights.”

In 2017, Kavanaugh defended a dissenting opinion when the D.C. Circuit court ruled in favor of a minor attempting to obtain an abortion.

In this case, a 17-year-old minor illegally entered the U.S., unaccompanied. Upon arrival, she was held in a federal detention center. While detained, she elected to end her pregnancy, but her request was vetoed by the federal government.

Kavanaugh stated that the majority opinion to grant the abortion was “radically inconsistent” with precedent, and maintained the government has “permissible interest in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and not facilitating abortion.”

In addition, Kavanaugh voiced his concern that the court’s decision would precipitate “a new right for unlawful immigrant minors” to “obtain immediate abortion on demand.”

Within his dissenting opinion, Kavanaugh characterized Roe v. Wade as precedent, which must be followed.

In a 2003 memo, Kavanaugh stated that although Roe v. Wade was “important,” the Supreme Court “can always overrule its precedent.”

In a CNN article, Clare Foran and Joan Biskupic wrote that Kavanaugh’s past writings indicates he may permit the government to place greater restrictions on contraception and abortion access.

“Overall, his testimony reinforced his past writings suggesting he would permit the government to more strictly regulate abortion,” Foran and Biskupic wrote. “For example, with additional requirements that could delay the procedure, or stiffer rules for physicians who would perform it.”

The Supreme Court has had a historically profound effect on the advancement or retrogression of civil rights law.

Coston urges individuals to remember that it would be “naïve” to depend on the Supreme Court to uphold the rights of marginalized society members.

“Those rights only come alive when we organize, protest, demonstrate, strike, boycott, rebel and violate the law in order to uphold and restore justice,” Dr. Coston stated. “In this way, Kavanaugh’s confirmation is a direct call to action; a call to turn our despair into radical, critical, intersectional social change.”