FamilyFoundationBlog.com

The Sunday before Election Day 2006, a Richmond Times-Dispatch headline screamed that polling showed the Marriage Amendment campaign had tightened. The poll said that the amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman was supported by a slim 49-45 percent margin. That was the closest poll we had ever seen on the issue.

Two days later, the amendment passed by a 14 point margin, 57-43 percent. How could the T-D poll have been so wrong just two days prior to the vote?

Polls taken over the years on the definition of marriage have wavered more than Tim Kaine on gay adoption (remember, running for governor in 2005 he opposed homosexual couples adopting, but now he’s in favor of it). For example, Gallup polling on the issue of homosexual marriage went from 46 percent support in 2007, down to 40 percent in 2008 and 2009, but back up to 44 percent in 2010. So it doesn’t surprise me at all that a Washington Post media poll of 1,000 people has found that, according to the Post, “Virginians are closely split on gay marriage” — and that the rest of the state’s mainstream media ran with it.

But are they really?

The truth is that polls have been overwhelmingly disconnected from reality when it comes to the issue of homosexual marriage. One need look only as far as the 31 states that have had the issue put to the voters, and in every case the traditional definition of marriage has won, including California.

The longer I am involved in politics, the more dismissive I have become of most media polling. Many experts believe that, particularly on the issues of abortion and homosexuality, a lot of people tell a pollster what they think the pollster wants to hear. On the issue of same-sex marriage, while a few media polls indicate that people support it, in the 31 states where it has gone to the ballot the people have overwhelmingly rejected it. One might tell their neighbor they are open to homosexual marriage, but when the reality is in front of them in the voting booth, traditional marriage still resonates instinctively, intuitively, justly . . . morally.

Social issues such as abortion and homosexuality have dynamics at play that I don’t think can be measured with simple media polling. Asking 1,000 people a simple question doesn’t generally get to the core of complex issues. It makes for interesting editorial page fodder, but I doubt too many people take it seriously, except for the so-called “progressives” who will no doubt champion the media poll and bring the issue before the next General Assembly. I suspect some will even attempt to make it a campaign issue (funny, I thought it was all about the economy).

But I also find it interesting that the same “progressives” reject professional (not media) polling that shows an overwhelming number of Virginians support school choice. You see, polling can work both ways, which is why no one should base their beliefs or agenda on it. Sure, professionally done, in depth issue polling can provide insight, but hastily done media polls done over a weekend for the mainstream media isn’t something I want to base any policy decision on. I certainly wouldn’t want to base the future of our children on it.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch’s very opinionated chief political reporter, Jeff Schapiro (who doubles as a columnist and online pundit), must have had a writer’s block problem recently. How else to explain his pulling out the tried-and-true “anti-gay” attack on a social conservative? But seemingly out of nowhere, Mr. Schapiro’s latest video commentary at timesdispatch.com goes after Governor Bob McDonnell for his alleged “gay problem,” reciting votes and actions thoroughly vetted by the voters themselves who have never rejected Mr. McDonnell at the polls. Mr. Schapiro even dredges up the “thesis” and a crude question once asked to the governor when he was a candidate.

The spark that ignited Mr. Schapiro was the recent vote by the Social Services Board that rejected proposed regulations to allow homosexual couples to adopt children, which would have forced private and religious affiliated charitable services to comply with a rule that compromises their consciences and beliefs, or close down. The problem with Mr. Schapiro’s problem with Governor McDonnell is that the governor has no problem. He may want him to have a problem so much that he manufactured one, but no one is paying attention. It’s a right and just policy, popularly supported and, by the way, the law.

In fact, although the board retains a majority appointed to it by liberal former Governor Tim Kaine, it approved standards that omitted the original same-sex couple requirement by a lopsided 7-2 vote. No matter how often certain media (ahem, WRVA* in Richmond) misreported the issue as taking away a right (they never had), it’s no problem for officeholders to defend the sanctity of the traditional family. It may be a problem for Mr. Schapiro to understand that, but a gratuitous attack over a contrived problem on Governor McDonnell is only a problem for Mr. Schapiro to resolve.

* Not only did the station misreport the issue over a 2-day period, a producer chimed in on a locally produced show to call pro-family supporters “bigots.”

One of the most unsightly of all the sausage making that is the legislative process is redistricting. Every 10 years, all 140 General Assembly districts, as well as Virginia’s Congressional districts, must be redrawn to reflect population shifts as accounted for in the census. The districts can get pretty contorted, to say the least, with compactness and communities of interest giving way to snake-like shapes that slither from one end of the state to another (not that Virginia is an exception, either).

Complicating matters is that whatever the General Assembly and governor agree to must be approved by the Justice Department because Virginia falls under the Voting Rights Act. But there are several rare dynamics at play this year. For one, it’s the first time since Reconstruction that opposite parties control the two chambers during a redistricting year. As each chamber has prerogative over its districts, traditionally they don’t interfere with each other’s plan. However, with Governor Bob McDonnell as a GOP backstop to Senate Democrat mischief, Senate Dems laid down the law: Instead of two bills this year, anything coming from the House would be attached to the Senate’s bill as a way of safeguarding its new districts from the governor’s veto or amendments. If not, Senate Dems promised stalemate on the House plan. Interestingly, in this interview (read transcript) on The Kojo Nnamdi Show on WAMU-FM in March, Majority Leader Dick Saslaw (D-35, Springfield) was asked what the governor’s role was in redistricting and he replied, “sign or amend” the bill. No mention of the veto option.

Here’s more from the senator that day (hear audio), starting partisan, then trying to soften:

Well, if I lose a few seats as a result of redistricting, and I’m in the majority, I’m not doing a very good job. … And I would simply say, well, you know, our goal is to make the Democratic districts, particularly the marginal ones, a little bit better than they are now. I’m not greedy. I’m not trying to put all the Republicans out of business by any stretch. They didn’t do that to us 10 years ago. And we’re not gonna do that to them.

So much for that. Governor McDonnell vetoed the bill sent to him last week anyway, primarily because of the dysfunctional and obscenely drawn Senate districts that drew fire from groups as varied as Prince William County to the NAACP (see Jenifer Buske at the Washington Post Virginia Politics Blog). While the House plan passed with all but 10 Democrat votes, the Senate plan — which could add up to three Democrat seats per the Richmond Times-Dispatch — was divided on party lines, 22-18. No wonder. None of this was a surprise.

More dynamics: While there is time to settle the Congressional districts because those elections are not until next year, all 140 General Assembly seats are up this year. Already, primaries have been pushed back to August to accommodate the readjusted districts. Candidates filing to run still don’t know where they are running. Even if the parties and governor come to an agreement, there’s this: This is the first redistricting since the Voting Rights Act with a Democrat president. Who knows what changes his Justice Department might demand. If all of this can’t be wrapped up by a time certain, the entire process for both chambers gets transferred to judges.

But today there is hope. After he bragged that he wouldn’t change “a dot or a comma,” declared with bravado he wouldn’t “surrender” and dared the governor to issue a second veto (Ros Helderman at the Post) for fear of sending it to the unelected judiciary, Senator Saslaw backed down. Now, Senators Janet Howell (D-32, Fairfax) and Jill Vogel (R-27, Winchester) are leading a bipartisan working group to come up with a new plan (the Post). But is it false hope? Senator Howell echoed Senator Saslaw’s original sentiments: “We won’t negotiate away our majority.” But then Senator Saslaw told the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, “There are some of us who are going to try to . . . get things worked out in an amicable fashion. We’re determined to try to make the process work right.” The whiplash changes in attitude are enough to require psychological testing. More on that in a second.

Senator Howell needs to understand that she doesn’t determine the majority. If she did, there would be no need for elections. Voters determine majorities. One wonders what she and Senator Saslaw fear. Only three years ago, liberals heralded Virginia as blue. The existing Senate districts were good enough to flip a one-time 24-16 GOP majority to 22-18 Democrat. If Senate Democrats are so confident in their ideas and performance the last four years as the majority, what’s with the gerrymandering that has split some localities into as many as eight districts?

Grossed out yet by the sausage making? Then you may or may not want to take this little test based on Senator Howell’s vetoed plan. The districts’ shapes are so contorted one might think they are ink blots on a Rorschach test. Click here to take the Is It Howell Or Rorschach? test. Disclaimer: Score does not correlate to actual state of mental health, but may indicate the insecurity of some Senate Democrats.

Last week, at the Call To Prayer at the state capitol that officially inaugurated the Virginia Legislative Prayer Caucus, we caught on camera another type of caucus: The Virginia Republican Candidates for U.S. Senate Caucus. In particular, we saw Jamie Radtke (see Ben Pershing at the Washington Post Virginia Politics Blog) and Bishop Earl Jackson (see Richmond Times-Dispatch) speaking to each other as the event neared its conclusion.Was this a first debate? After all, there were plenty of mics and cameras nearby. If and when there is a debate, it may have to be outdoors — there may not be a building big enough to hold all the candidates. Still, we have to wonder: What were they discussing? Or were they debating after all? Oh, to be a fly buzzing around that meeting!

Former Virginia Tea Party chair Jamie Radtke (left, white shirt, turning to greet someone) and Bishop Earl Jackson, former chaplain of The Family Foundation’s Pastors For Family Values (back to camera), both candidates for the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate in 2012, have a friendly discussion at the state capitol last week. Believe me, we had a great shot until the man in the gray jacket stepped forward, and then had to scoot off to lobby for the two pro-life amendments adopted during the General Assembly’s Veto Session.

Speaking of Virginia’s lawsuit against ObamaCare: Remember all the liberal hysteria regarding all the money Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli supposedly is spending on the constitutional challenge to the federal health care law (Richmond Times-Dispatch) — as if government spending has ever been an issue with liberals? Never mind that he is defending Virginia law (the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act), which it is his duty to do.

Where are the howls of disgust by the same people now that the Obama Justice Department refuses to agree (Times-Dispatch) with the Attorney General for an expedited appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Examiner)? Without such an appeal, we’re talking at least two cases in U.S. Courts of Appeals, at least another year or more of legal work and court proceedings, endless briefs and motions, travel from Washington to Richmond and Atlanta, meetings, hundreds of hours of federal government employee time and who knows what else it takes to try a case these days — only this will be two cases simultaneously, not to mention any further cases that are filed in federal district courts by other states or aggrieved parties. It’s no exaggeration to say the cost could be in the millions. That’s a lot more than the $350 it cost the Commonwealth to file its case in Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia . . . but a lot less than the $1.1 billion it will cost Virginia to implement ObamaCare. The pricelessness of the hypocrisy is passed only by the reality of the true costs.

An explosive article on the front page of today’s Norfolk Virginian Pilot rips the cover off a Virginia Beach abortion center owned by a New Jersey doctor under investigation for a host of questionable activities. The article also reveals that doctors associated with the clinic also are on staff at Planned Parenthood centers in Virginia. The story is more evidence of the need for abortion center regulation in Virginia.

The Family Foundation has informed legislators, media and the public about Dr. Steven Brigham’s ties to Virginia for some time now, and reminded lawmakers last month during the General Assembly debate over abortion center regulations, which eventually passed on a historic 21-20 Senate vote. Brigham lost his license to practice medicine in New Jersey recently for beginning second and third trimester abortions in that state and then transporting the patients to his Maryland facility to complete the procedure, but his history of unethical behavior dates back at least to the early-90s.

According to NJ.com:

On Aug. 13 [2010], three women seeking second-trimester abortions followed physician Steven Brigham from his Camden County office to a Maryland clinic he owns, according to claims by the attorney general’s office. They were wracked with contractions as they traveled because Brigham had given them labor-inducing drugs a day or two earlier, the state said. In Maryland, the women met another doctor, who performed their procedures. One of the women, 18, needed emergency surgery at a hospital to treat a lacerated bowel and uterus.

Family Foundation research found that Brigham’s Virginia abortion centers (Virginia Beach and Fairfax) advertised similar options on its websites, stating that they would begin the procedure in the Virginia clinics and then transport the patients to other states “for the completion of the procedure.” Virginia requires second and third trimester abortions to be done in hospitals for the health and safety of the women involved.

Another op-ed on abortion center regulations by Family Foundation President Victoria Cobb, in Tuesday’s Richmond Times-Dispatch, tells some of the story. She also published an op-ed on this issue in the Roanoke Times a few days earlier.

Today’s Pilot article goes deeper, connecting doctors who worked at Brigham’s Virginia Beach facilities with Planned Parenthood. Our research found that one, Dr. David Peters, lists his business address as one of Planned Parenthood’s Richmond abortion centers. In the New Jersey incident, Planned Parenthood attempted to distance itself from Brigham. A spokesperson said it “had nothing to do with” Brigham. In Virginia, nothing could be further from the truth.

Peters defends the Brigham clinic in today’s article, even denying that the clinic does what its website advertises. He does admit, however, that instead of referring women to a hospital for a second or third trimester abortion, as required by law for safety reasons, Brigham’s abortion centers refer them to other states to avoid hospitals. Either way, it’s clear that the health and safety of patients isn’t paramount.

Another doctor the article named as working for Brigham in Virginia has a long history of restrictions on, and suspensions of, his license to practice medicine in Virginia, yet presently holds a current and active Virginia license. The article only touches on the mistakes made by Dr. Craig Cropp, but our research found at least 22 separate incidents since 1998 where he put the life of patients in jeopardy, from breaking instruments and losing pieces inside a woman’s abdominal cavity, to misdiagnosing ectopic pregnancies, to perforating a woman’s uterus (and blaming that one on his bifocals). Incredibly, Dr. Cropp still is licensed to practice medicine here and splits his time between Brigham’s two Virginia abortion centers.

Unfortunately, the Commonwealth of Virginia cannot revoke Dr. Brigham’s license to practice medicine in Virginia because he doesn’t have a medical license in Virginia. In fact, without the New Jersey story and subsequent research by The Family Foundation, it is unlikely anyone would know about Dr. Brigham’s Virginia abortion centers because the Commonwealth does not currently regulate or inspect abortion centers. Today’s Virginian-Pilot article is the first investigative piece in the Virginia media since the New Jersey story broke in the fall.

The abortion industry claims abortion is a safe procedure in no need of oversight. Today’s story about Dr. Brigham and his abortion centers is just one example of why abortion center safety regulations are desperately needed in Virginia. While Planned Parenthood, NARAL and their allies in the legislature claimed during debate that their centers are safe, they knew that Dr. Brigham was operating in Virginia. Your head has to be buried pretty deep in the sand to believe anything Planned Parenthood has to say about the safety of abortion after today’s shocking article.

According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, two of the 20 reasons why this year’s General Assembly mattered were the abortion center safety bill and the proposed constitutional amendment to protect property rights. Both, at numbers one and nine, respectively, were Family Foundation priorities.

So, it’s with no small reason that we emphasised those pieces of legislation and that we revisit one of them today — property rights (see Washington Post article on our influence on the legislation). That’s because one senator who voted for the property rights resolution (HJ 693) is very much on record as being against constitutional protections from eminent domain. He made that very clear in 2007, when he helped kill a similar resolution. See for yourself:

As the video explicitly shows, Senator Dick Saslaw (D-35, Springfield), now the majority leader, not only pronounced his opposition to protecting citizens from government seizing their land, but said it twice — on succeeding days. No slip of the tongue there. What a difference four years and this November’s upcoming-tough-battle-to-keep-his-majority makes. Although he was most assuredly working behind the scenes to stop this year’s amendment as well, once the train left the station, and not willing to leave his caucus exposed on a popular campaign issue, Senator Saslaw (D-37, Springfield) decided to vote for the resolution.

Not only that, and perhaps to even things out from four years ago, Senator Saslaw voted for it not once, but twice — on the original vote (here) and on a reconsideration vote (here), when some senators finally figured out that property rights really do belong in the constitution and wanted to upgrade from nay to yea before their constituents found out. It required a double take to believe he did not vote no when given the second chance, but despite what people think, miracles and conversions (of the election year kind) do happen, and happen often at the General Assembly.

Last week, President Barack Obama directed the U.S. Department of Justice to relinquish defending the Defense of Marriage Act, a law passed by Congress in 1996 defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  The positive I find in this announcement is that finally the Obama administration is being honest about its hostility toward DOMA — no more halfhearted statements. The negatives, however, are overwhelming. 
 
As I told the Richmond Times-Dispatch last week, the president is responsible for defending the laws duly enacted by Congress. It’s disappointing that President Obama would unilaterally make a decision to abdicate that duty. The job of the executive branch is to enforce and defend the nation’s laws, not to selectively pick and choose. Thirty-one states have marriage amendments on the books defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Clearly, voters believe that the content of DOMA is a reasonable measure. This administration has been clear on its position on homosexual rights, but they stand outside the majority of Americans.
 
President Obama’s directive could have far reaching consequences. This decision could potentially impact every yet-to-be-decided case related to marriage (including California’s Proposition 8 appeal). Essentially, the fully compensated defense attorney is failing to show up for his defendant’s court date, an action where the judge would sanction the attorney. In what other area of the law would this be tolerated? 
 
With the president ordering the Justice Department to abandon its duties, the only course of action to defend DOMA is for Congress to intervene. According to Politico, House Speaker John Boehner and the Republican majority on Friday will announce a course of legal action to defend DOMA, perhaps directing the House’s legal counsel to defend DOMA in court. (On a side note, this situation perfectly illustrates the importance of elections. Had Nancy Pelosi retained her position as House Speaker, it is highly unlikely that she would even consider defending DOMA in the Justice Department’s stead and the fate of marriage would be doomed.)
 
A breakdown of DOMA ties to a breakdown of American families. There is a litany of statistics showing that a one-man, one-woman marriage is the best institution in which to raise children and to lower the potential for poverty, illiteracy and crime. Even if the president refuses to order the defense of the laws of the land, we must continue to push for the defense of a law that is good for our families, our churches and our communities.

The day after last week’s historic pro-life victory in the General Assembly (see Richmond Times-Dispatch), Planned Parenthood and its abortion industry allies rallied in Richmond to decry the government’s “attack on women.” Those senators who voted in favor of abortion center safety regulations, and Lt. Governor Bill Bolling who broke the tie in the Virginia Senate, now are likely targets of their action.

We need to make sure that those who stood for life and safety receive the thanks they deserve. So please contact Lt. Governor Bolling and the senators who voted in favor of improving the health and safety standards at Virginia’s abortion centers (SB 924) and thank them for their vote (see below)! These elected officials deserve our gratitude for their action and political courage for voting to regulate abortion centers after years of stiff resistance and pressure by liberal and pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL. 

Before too long, after more than two decades of hiding behind a veil of secrecy, Virginia’s abortion centers will have to meet basic sanitary and safety standards. While the media is framing the legislation as “forcing abortion clinics to become hospitals,” the facts are entirely different. Virginia has several categories of hospitals (inpatient, psychiatric, rehabilitation, outpatient surgical, etc.). These categories of hospitals are subject to different regulations. They are not required to meet the standards of general hospitals. Instead, they are regulated according to their specialty. Likewise, abortion centers now will be categorized as a type of hospital and the Board of Health will create regulations that are appropriate.

We hope that you are savoring last week’s victory. At our weekly General Assembly session devotion Friday, we were reminded that God is sovereign and directs those in power. While we know that a lot of hard work went into this legislative victory, and many legislators and elected officials took a brave stand, we are well aware that our God is deserving of all the praise for this historic vote!

We also acknowledge our good friends at the Virginia Catholic Conference and the Virginia Assembly of Independent Baptists for their help in getting this legislation passed. Both organizations worked tirelessly on this and a host of other issues this session. Their partnership is vital to our, and the pro-life movement’s, success.

To thank your senator who voted for SB 924 and Lt. Governor Bill Bolling for breaking the tie vote, click here!

Just beginning to explain the twists and turns of what is happening in the Virginia Senate over property rights would rival War and Peace. Forget about the whole story. So much to say, so much to keep confidential. Maybe a book, one day, is in the offing, or a screenplay. Okay, maybe an op-ed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. You have to have goals.

Suffice it to say, the situation is fluid. I would hazard a guess that no one will know the outcome until Lt. Governor Bill Bolling announces the words, “The clerk will open the rolls. The senators will vote. …” I think some will hesitate and see what it going to happen, who is voting which way and what the count is. On the other hand, maybe a deal will be struck ahead of time. I’ve learned, when dealing with issues like this, as much of a cliche as it is, anything can — and usually — does happen. Nothing will surprise me. It is, after all, an election year.

Right now it’s close. By the vote, maybe not — in either direction. (In 2007, the House and Senate versions of eminent domain statutory reform barely escaped each chamber, but the conference report, which had the House’s tougher language, blasted through both chambers!) One thing that’s not good: A tie vote kills the resolution. A constitutional amendment must receive at least 21 votes of senators. The LG cannot break the tie. Another note: There’s a good chance the vote will be put off until Friday. But leave nothing to chance: Contact your senator now!

Here’s the breakdown: There’s slightly less than the 21 needed for the tougher language. There is probably enough for less strong, but very good language. Here’s the problem: There may be a few, who don’t get the version they want, who may scuttle the other, leaving us with neither version! Then, there are the out-and-out liberals who don’t believe in property right and are going to aid and abet which ever side it needs to accommodate that scuttle.

Does the extra day help or hurt one side or the other? It may slow down the momentum from yesterday’s dramatic doubleheader sub- and committee sweep (see Disrupt The Narrative). Yet, it may give the grassroots more time to pound senators’ offices. The utilities don’t need that kind of time. They just need the army of lobbyists they can deploy to cajole and, shall we say, persuade. It doesn’t take a lot of time to do that with the personnel and money they have at their disposal.

We, the people, the grassroots, the ones whose rights are affected by these special-interest laden decisions, have a say. It’s not too late by any stretch. Things change on a dime here at Mr. Jefferson’s capitol. Do your part!

Contact your senator and urge him or her to vote for HJ 693, (Delegate Johnny Joannou, D-Portsmouth) to support your property protections from big government and big corporations: by e-mail; by General Assemby office phone. Limiting government’s power of eminent domain limits government growth and intrusiveness, and secures our liberties. Don’t know your senator? Look him or her up here.