A Pro-Life Bill, or a Pro-Lawyer Bill?

It appears that some of our professed pro-life friends in Richmond are selling out. They are ready to forfeit crucial, long-term goals of the pro-life movement in the interest of avoiding criticism from abortion supporters. This in the form of supporting Senator Stanley's ill-conceived SB674. Here's what you need to know:

Stanley Bill -SB674 (A Pro-Lawyer Bill)

• Establishes wrongful death cause of action for unborn child after 12 weeks by amending Virginia's existing wrongful death statute to include "a fetus."

• Limited to creating wrongful death cause of action; carries no potential to create foundation for future efforts to limit abortion.

• Does not establish life at conception or recognize the basic humanity of the unborn.

Marshall Bill - HB1 (A Pro-Life Bill)

• Establishes wrongful death cause of action for unborn child at all stages by recognizing that life begins at conception and that unborn children are human beings.

• Creates a general rule of construction that applies to all of Virginia law, thereby laying a strong foundation for every future pro-life effort, including efforts to limit abortion.

So what can we possibly do to confront this back-door effort to undermine our goals? PLENTY!

Please call or e-mail Senator Bill Stanley TODAY and say something like this: "Please withdraw SB 674 and support HB1 instead at crossover. SB 674 will interfere with important, long-term goals of the pro-life movement."

A phone call to (804) 698-7520 is best, and an e-mail to district20@senate.virginia.gov is second-best.

Thank you so much. If we get his phone ringing off the hook, it could absolutely save HB1.

A Problem

I recently learned that Senator Bill Stanley, on the last possible day, filed Senate Bill 674. If it goes forward, SB 674 has the potential to doom our chances of getting HB1 passed.

Stanley's bill creates a civil cause of action for the wrongful death of a "fetus" by simply adding this term to the existing wrongful death law. Recall that the only immediate, practical effect of House Bill 1 is to allow parents to sue for the wrongful death of their unborn baby--but House Bill 1 creates this cause of action by explicitly recognizing that life begins at conception and that unborn children are human beings generally under Virginia law. With this critical language, House Bill 1 creates a strong foundation for future pro-life efforts that go far beyond creating a civil lawsuit. That language, of course, is the real philosophical impetus behind House Bill 1, the reason it is being attacked by the abortion lobby, and the reason it enjoys such galvanized support from the entire pro-life community in Virginia.

Last night I e-mailed Stanley and explained to him that his bill threatens to completely undermine our well-planned, hard-fought efforts at laying this important pro-life foundation in Virginia law. Many moderate Republican legislators who would otherwise support House Bill 1 are likely to choose SB 674 as a more “moderate” alternative. I asked Stanley to withdraw SB 674.

Senator Stanley professes to be a pro-life conservative, so I am hopeful that he will quickly understand that his new bill is BAD for the pro-life cause and agree to withdraw it. If so, we can join forces to effect the wrongful death cause of action AND a strongly pro-life Virginia Code that recognizes the basic humanity of the unborn generally.

And if he refuses? Please stand by, because in that case I will be calling upon each of you to contact Stanley's office and repeat my request that he withdraw the bill. It's time to move beyond "moderate" legislation and recognize, without flinching, the humanity of children in the womb.

Step Onto the Stage

"There was some dignity and much safety in the self-selected role of spectator, but, faced with some abominations, a man had no option but to step onto the stage."

--P.D. James, The Children of Men

In the name of "privacy," our laws permit strong human beings to kill weaker human beings. I ask you: is this the type of abomination that warrants "stepping onto the stage?"

I know that many of you will answer, "yes!" If you are one of these, please just stay tuned. Once HB1 is called up for committee hearings, we may need you to act in a very short timeframe--and all you have to do is make a call or send an e-mail. Thank you for caring, and for paying attention!

"It's All A Big Game."

I've been told, countless times, that I should understand that the world of politics is nothing more than "a big game." At times, I am tempted to believe this. There are many in positions of power in our Commonwealth who make their decisions not based solely on what is right, good, and just, but also based on how the decisions will be perceived by the public.

Of course, we can all understand and relate to this. Who, among us, is immune from the desire to be liked and admired? And for a public official, the continuation of his or her position is determined by how many voters "like" him or her.

But isn't it possible that a certain proportion of voters--particularly in this day and age--is just yearning for representatives with integrity? That we might be able to overlook a decision we may not agree with in the interest of standing behind one who follows the dictates of his or her conscience, or of faith?

I have been told that in this election year, some of the leaders of our Commonwealth may be reluctant to get behind HB1 because it may be perceived by others to suffer from the shortcomings of "personhood" initiatives in other states. This is a valid concern, but only until I offer the evidence of how HB1 differs from those other measures, and how the allegations of opponents are legally unfounded. At that point, it becomes an issue of integrity--of choosing to do what is right, good, and just, and standing against false accusations.

For now, the question is open: will Virginia's highest officials take a stand for Truth by throwing their weight in support of HB1? Or will they, instead, cower to their interests in self-preservation?

Is it all just a "big game?" I don't know, but I do know the one who declares the victor in the end. And self-preservation doesn't score well in his book.

And So It Begins...

The 2012 session of the General Assembly hasn't even started yet, and already House Bill 1 (yes! We are House Bill 1 this year!) is under attack. In fact, ours was the only bill specifically mentioned in a recent op-ed called "Planned Parenthood's Wish List." Their wish, of course, is that House Bill 1 not be considered.

To read my response to the attacks already being leveled, follow this link to my own op-ed, which was published in Sunday's edition of the Richmond Times Dispatch.


http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/oped/2012/jan/08/tdopin02-dunaway-controversial-bill-wont-affect-ab-ar-1593400/

A Proposal to Raise the Bar

I think our standards are way too low. Many are claiming "victory" after the passage of a Virginia pro-life amendment that opts out of funding Obamacare insurance coverage for abortions EXCEPT where the mother's life is in danger or where the child was conceived through an "alleged" rape or incest. I would call it a partial victory. Is a human being created in the image of God any less of a human being because of the mother's medical condition or the circumstances of its conception? With regard to the "life of the mother" exception, keep in mind that we are talking about taxpayer funding for the intentional killing of the child. Medical procedures intended to merely save the mother's life (but not performed for the purpose of killing the child) would not be considered "abortion" even if the child died as a result of the procedure. They would still be covered even without this exception. I've been digging around a little bit, trying to figure out if there is any legal reason behind the exception to the abortion opt-out. The exception tracks the language of the federal Hyde Amendment, but why aren't the states at least trying for a complete opt-out that does not include the exceptions? The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require the government to fund the exercise of a woman's "right to choose." Here is the language from Harris v. McRae: "Although the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause affords protection against unwarranted government interference with freedom of choice in the context of certain personal decisions, it does not confer an entitlement to such funds as may be necessary to realize all the advantages of that freedom. To hold otherwise would mark a drastic change in our understanding of the Constitution. It cannot be that because government may not prohibit the use of contraceptives, ... or prevent parents from sending their child to a private school, ... government, therefore, has an affirmative constitutional obligation to ensure that all persons have the financial resources to obtain contraceptives or send their children to private schools. To translate the limitation on governmental power implicit in the Due Process Clause into an affirmative funding obligation would require Congress to subsidize the medically necessary abortion of an indigent woman even if Congress had not enacted a Medicaid program to subsidize other medically necessary services. Nothing in the Due Process Clause supports such an extraordinary result. Whether freedom of choice that is constitutionally protected warrants federal subsidization is a question for Congress to answer, not a matter of constitutional entitlement." By this logic, the Constitution does not require state governments to fund abortion even where the mother's life is in danger or the child was conceived through rape or incest. We're not even talking about outlawing abortions under these circumstances--we're only talking about not forcing taxpayers to fund them. If the decision to include the exceptions in Virginia's opt-out was politically based, I would like to know if anyone even tried to push for a stronger opt-out, or did we just assume that it wasn't feasible? Who is steering this ship? I know that the "best" can sometimes by the enemy of the "good," but there are other times when the "good" is just plain old "settling." Let's raise the bar, Virginia.

Defeated? Yes...and No!

By a straight, party-line vote (10-5), the Senate Education and Health Committee voted to "pass by indefinitely" House Bill 1440. That means that the bill will go no further this year, and will not be called for a vote by the full Senate.

This was completely expected. In fact, today was just another "Black Thursday," so named because every single year in recent history, this Committee kills all of the pro-life legislation that managed to make it through the House of Delegates.

Today, for instance, the Senate Education and Health Committee killed not only this bill on which I have been working, but also the much-needed abortion clinic safety bill, the bill that would prevent insurance plans in Virginia's health insurance exchange from providing abortion coverage, and the bill that would keep HPV vaccines for young girls from being considered "mandatory."

I was proud of Delegate Bob Marshall, the chief patron of my bill, as he introduced the legislation by making it absolutely clear that it should not have even been heard in the Ed & Health Committee, but rather in the Courts Committee! But this assignment was no mere oversight--it is part of a plan.

Despite Senate Rules requirements that each standing committee reflect the overall composition of the entire Senate (22 Democrats, 18 Republicans), this Committee is comprised of 10 Democrats and 5 Republicans. I'm no mathemetician, but those ratios don't pan out as far as I'm concerned.

Moreover, the 10 Democrats on the Committee are not just any Democrats; a review of their voting records reveals them as the most hardened pro-abortion legislators in the Senate.

My experience this year has convinced me that Virginians need to know that these games are being played by their government.

Am I discouraged? No. It has been an honor to do this work. I am inspired by William Wilberforce, who didn't just take a stab at ending slavery once or twice, but who devoted his career to it. Isn't this cause just as important?

Finally, the Weltys (always my encouragers in this endeavor), reminded me this morning of a passage from Ephesians:

Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. (Ephesians 6:11-13)

Friends, we stood firm today.

If you want to know the truth about what I'm feeling tonight, it's simply this: relief for a break in the battle, satisfaction that we have done all we could do, gratitude for the privilege of carrying His banner, comfort in your prayers and support, hope in His sovereign plan, and confidence in His ultimate victory.

Thank you again for all of your prayers and encouragement.