American Forum Op-Ed

VIRGINIA FORUM

By King Salim Khalfani and Stephen A. Northup

According to the most recent polling data, public support for the death penalty is at its lowest level in decades. Four states have ended capital punishment since 2007 and strong abolition efforts are underway in a number of other states.

So where is Virginia in this current national debate?

Virginia has a long and dark history with the death penalty. The first execution in the New World took place here in 1608 when Captain George Kendall was executed in Jamestown for spying. Throughout its history, Virginia has executed more than 1,300 people, more than any other state. Virginia has executed more women and the youngest children of any state. Since the resumption of capital punishment in the late 1970s following a de facto moratorium imposed by the courts, Virginia has executed 109 people, second only to Texas.

The average time between conviction and execution in Virginia is less than eight years, by far the shortest in the nation. Since the 1970s, 140 persons convicted and sentenced to death in the U.S. have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence; the 140 spent an average of 10 years on death row. Many of these victims would have been executed before evidence of their innocence came to light if they had been convicted in Virginia.

Notwithstanding Virginia's rush to judgment in its capital cases, one innocent Virginian -- Earl Washington -- was released from death row in 1994 following his conviction and death sentence. And just last year, a federal judge vacated the conviction and death sentence of another Virginian -- Justin Wolfe -- because of misconduct by prosecutors at his trial. The judge also found that Wolfe was innocent of the murder for hire for which he was convicted. The history of Virginia's use of the death penalty is not something of which Virginians can be proud.

While facts like these should be sufficient to cause any concerned citizen to question why Virginia chooses to persist in its use of capital punishment, we want to focus on one aspect of Virginia's use of the death penalty that is perhaps the most disturbing of all -- the role played by race. Without question it's the single most salient factor in determining who is executed and who is not. For example, between October 1908 and March 1962, of the 236 people executed by Virginia, 201 were black males, 34 were white males, and one, Virginia Christian, was a 17 year-old black female. In February 1951, Virginia executed eight men in a 72 hour period. All eight were black and seven (known as the Martinsville Seven) were executed for the rape of a white woman.

A number of studies have confirmed the significant racial disparity in the application of capital punishment. A 2003 report by Amnesty International entitled "Death by Discrimination -- The Continuing Role of Race in Capital Cases" documented significant racial disparities in the race of persons who have been executed (predominately people of color); the race of victims of crimes for which death sentences are handed down (predominantly white); the race of prosecutors who seek the death penalty (overwhelmingly white); and the race of juries that return death verdicts (mostly white).

A report published in 2000 concluded that although Virginia's capital justice system is not as overtly racist as it was in previous times, "race continues to be a significant factor in capital sentencing" in Virginia. Among the report's conclusions based on an analysis of the 88 post-1976 Virginia executions that had taken place as of 2000 were the following:

It's no coincidence that the states with the heaviest use of capital punishment are located exclusively in the South, with its shameful history of slavery, lynchings and Jim Crow. Fortunately, the worst of these practices are things of the past. Unfortunately, their legacy continues in some present day practices, including the use of the death penalty. It's time for Virginia to bring this shameful history to a close.
------------
Khalfani is executive director of the Virginia State Conference of the NAACP. Northup is executive director of Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.

Copyright (C) 2012 by the Virginia Forum. 3/12

Just a month ago, my six-year old daughter Whitney and I traveled to a nearby state park, where we learned from a nature educator how to build fairy houses.

That’s right – fairy houses.

Using fallen leaves, branches, acorns (picking live plants are not allowed), and a heavy dose of imagination, my daughter, who is a city girl at heart, surprised her parents, becoming a fairy house architect in a matter of hours. And ever since that wonderful day she has loved forests and nature.

Every day we are bombarded with negative messages about our government. CNN has a regular “Broken Government” series. The Pew Research Center recently released polls showing that distrust in government is at an all-time high. But there is one federal program that, for more than 40 years, has strengthened our communities, protected our natural resources, and secured thousands of jobs. In fact, it helped create the state park that is home to my child’s fairy house. That program is the Land Water and Conservation Fund (LWCF).

LWCF is one of the most successful conservation programs in U.S. history, but most Americans have never heard of it. The program’s impact has been immeasurable. In Virginia alone, LWCF has created or funded more than 600 local and state parks. The Blue Ridge Parkway, Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, George Washington and Jefferson National Forest are just three of the national units that have benefited.

When my daughter drinks a glass of water from the tap, that water is drinkable because our national forests and local forest preserves are protecting the watersheds that naturally cleanse and filter our waters. In fact, according to a study by the American Water Works Association, forest cover in a watershed results in lower water treatment costs. For every 10 percent increase in forest cover in a water source area, treatment and chemical costs decrease 20 percent. LWCF helps increase forest cover.

In a year or two, my daughter might take up her daddy’s passion – soccer. Conceding to wear shorts instead of dresses, cleats instead of heels, she will join a local team. The soccer field she will play on will likely be one of the 700 parks and fields funded by LWCF in Virginia. These open spaces are helping combat childhood obesity, which has tripled since the 1960s.

In a couple of decades, perhaps my daughter will inherit her great grandmother’s love of history and heritage. She could follow in her footsteps and join the Daughters of the American Revolution. In time, she will walk the Overmountain Victory Trail in North Carolina, where the original Tennessee Volunteers, including one of her ancestors, crossed over the mountains; they crossed to support the American patriots in South Carolina in the decisive Southern Revolutionary battle of King’s Mountain. She can relive that brave moment in our family and country’s history because LWCF has saved portions of the trail. But will she be able to experience it? According to the National Park Service, half of the 677 identified sites associated with the Revolutionary War have been destroyed or extremely fragmented.

In coming years, my daughter with her own family probably will follow her parents’ lead and visit the beaches of Virginia, travel the Blue Ridge Parkway, hike the Appalachian Trail, and escape to one of the many historic military parks. She will seek unmarred landscapes and strong communities that cherish their natural resources and make a pretty good living sharing it with others. But it is a race against time. Recent Forest Service studies predict that we will lose 44 million acres of private forest nationwide to development by 2030. LWCF is one program that will help save our special places.

Despite success in garnering bipartisan support in Congress, LWCF has never been funded adequately. In fact, most of the time, it has received only $1 for every $3 it is supposed to receive from Congress. Yet, there are few federal programs that address so many pressing issues at once.

That may be changing. For the first time in a decade, Congress is seriously considering full and permanent funding of the LWCF. The proposal has two powerful allies: the chairmen of the House Natural Resources and Senate Energy Committees. In the coming months, members of the Virginia delegation will be asked to take a position.

Let’s hope they stand on the side of safe drinking water, children’s health, our heritage, special places and yes – fairy houses.

Hard economic times have spurred an explosion in home gardens with more people realizing that food does not begin and end in the supermarket. This increase in food awareness, coupled with recent food recalls, has brought increased attention to issues of food safety and farm policy.

Unfortunately, recent proposals fail to take into account the issues underpinning the food safety problems faced by this country.

Congress is seeking to enhance federal oversight of the production of food, thereby increasing food safety. To that end, all food producers would be subject to the same stringent regulations, regardless of their size. The local farmer and his organic or all-natural tomatoes will be treated with the same suspicion as produce from massive industrial “farms” which grow and process enormous amounts of food at unnaturally high rates, bolstered by synthetic fertilizers and genetically modified seed.

Similarly, small ranches where cattle graze on open fields of grass and are slaughtered one or two at a time in local abattoirs would be subject to the same requirements as the giant meat packing companies whose relentless “protein” production requires that they pump their cattle full of growth hormones and steroids, and dose them with antibiotics to combat the dangerous effects of a grain-based diet on the stomachs of animals designed to eat grasses.

The push for food safety ignores the real and important differences between modes of production. In regulating this way, we stand the very real chance of forcing small, sustainable and responsible food producers out of business. The increased cost in both time and money of complying with unnecessarily stringent regulations would be too great to allow many mom-and-pop operations to continue. The answer to our food safety problems though is not to regulate to the lowest common denominator but to raise the standard to which all our food producers are held.

Furthermore, these new food safety efforts demonstrate the flawed mindset with which we approach our food. We have been raised to fear our food and to suspect that items available at the grocery store may be contaminated with deadly bacteria or toxins. We have been taught to overcook meats, and wash vegetables in specially formulated vegetable wash--available in convenient spray bottles. Sadly, under the current industrial mode of food production, such fear is sometimes warranted. We have come to think of food recalls as a part of modern life. Industrial food producers would like us to think food is something too dangerous to be left to small time growers to produce.

The truth is that these problems exist in large part not in spite of the best efforts of industrial food producers, but precisely because of them. Large meat companies race to fatten their cattle for slaughter by feeding them corn, which also encourages the development of a dangerous strain of E. Coli bacteria that sickens those who ingest it.

Similarly, in vegetable production, mono-cropping, the practice of growing large amounts of a single crop in one place, can attract large numbers of pests. Farmers then spray toxic, petroleum-based pesticides, killing not just the pests but all insects in the area. Without beneficial insects, crop pollination and biological pest control becomes much more difficult if not impossible. We become the victims of our own avarice, sickening our animals and our farm fields as well as ourselves in the push for bigger, faster and cheaper supplies of food.

Rather than pushing for stricter oversight of small-scale beef producers, we should eliminate the government corn subsidy, which makes corn-feeding cattle economical. Instead of more testing for pathogens, we need a system by which foodstuffs are raised in a responsible and sustainable way that keeps them free of dangerous pathogens to begin with. When was the last time you heard about a small, organic farmer recalling the produce he sold at the farmer’s market?

Instead of “modernized” regulation and the resulting increased centralization of food production, we need a decentralized, sustainable model of agriculture that emphasizes safe, clean and responsible food production. Rather than a handful of large industrial “farms” producing our nation’s food, we should promote thousands of locally producing small farms. Small, local and sustainable food producers are already supplying many thousands of customers through local farmers markets, co-ops, buying groups or Community Supported Agriculture. Buying food from the person who grew or raised it a few miles down the road assures the freshness and cleanliness that industrially-produced grocery store food will never have, no matter how much government regulation and oversight we impose.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mattera is a sausage-maker and an advocate of local and sustainable food systems.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Virginia Forum. 10/09

By Raymond R. Ratke

Imagine if you could no longer care for your children and that they had to leave your home and be separated from one another.

You would want your kids to be in a safe home, close to school and friends, with plenty of support as they adjust to a new family. But for nearly 7,000 children in Virginia’s foster care system who have been separated from their families, these things have never been guaranteed.

Virginia recently launched the Virginia Children’s Services System Transformation to make the kind of future that all parents want for their children a bit more certain for every child. First Lady Anne Holton’s For Keeps initiative started Virginia’s child welfare practices on the right road, and in December 2007 we began an intensive change in the way we provide effective help for at-risk children and their families.

Alex and Jacob (not their real names), for example, entered foster care in 2006 as infants when both parents were incarcerated. Two years later, the parents were due to be released and everyone was nervous. “When my kids left me, they were babies and I knew how to do babies,” the mother said. “Now they are toddlers and I don’t know how to be their parent anymore.”

The local department of social services worked out a program of intensive in-home services and visits for this family, helping to establish routine and parenting direction. Much-needed services were available around the clock. Alex and Jacob went home last Christmas and everyone is doing well with follow-up care. Individualized plans such as Alex and Jacob’s are an important measure for avoiding more emotionally and financially expensive interventions down the road. Virginia is better equipped and more committed to providing this assistance than we have ever been – and families are staying united because of it.

The Transformation works to assure wherever possible that children are moved into permanent family arrangements; that more kids are placed with relatives and foster parents; and that community-based services are in place to help keep families together. Thirteen pilot localities across the state, including Richmond, Henrico and Chesterfield, were among the first to work toward these goals. A variety of strategies and national best practices are already impacting children and families across Virginia.

These include statewide staff training based on a common set of values; recruiting, developing and supporting families for children like Alex and Jacob; managing by data on the actual families, not by anecdote; giving stronger voices to the children and families themselves; and developing a community-based continuum of care for each child.

Maria (not her real name) came to us as a 15-year-old mother with a new baby and no means of support. She spoke only Spanish, and we had no available Spanish-speaking foster families. It appeared that she would have to be placed in a group home away from her community. Unfortunately, a nurturing family environment often does not come along with the higher price tag of such residential care. Instead, a local social worker recalled a middle school Spanish teacher, living with her mom, who had completed training to become a midwife and was open to being a foster mother. After much hard work and many phone calls the social worker secured an apartment, furniture, food and other necessities while this new family established itself.

This kind of detailed approach is proving effective. Richmond’s Department of Social Services has reduced the number of young people in residential facilities and group homes by 37 percent. Total foster care numbers across the Commonwealth are down 8 percent over the last year. Henrico has lowered the number of young people in residential and group homes by 45 percent, while Chesterfield’s total is down an astonishing 58 percent. The Transformation is growing statewide, with more localities improving outcomes for children and families.

Large system reform requires strong public and private partnerships, time and commitment. Yes, we are still at the beginning stages and there are challenges to overcome. But, through sustained leadership, innovative strategies and continued partnerships, we can ensure that all Virginia children will be safe and have a life with a family that cares for them and be on the road to success as an adult.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond R. Ratke is the special advisor to Secretary of Health and Human Resources Marilyn B. Tavenner for Children’s Services for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Virginia Forum. 6/09

By Lindsey Oliver

When I was 16 I had an abortion. It was both difficult to arrange and pay for. Yet this pivotal event resulted in a lifelong commitment to working towards a world with reproductive justice for everyone. The sad part isn’t that I had an abortion, but that there were so many barriers. Even more disheartening is that I know I am not the only person who lacks access to a safe and legal abortion.

My experience led me to volunteer at one of Richmond’s most targeted abortion clinics. I helped protect patients from the aggressive and sometimes violent harassment they often receive from protestors when entering or exiting the clinic. One day someone walking by gave us $20 and encouraged us all to take ourselves out for pizza. But we had just witnessed several women leaving the clinic without getting their abortions because they couldn't afford the procedure. So we took that $20 and helped one woman. The experience helping just that one woman made me realize how many more need help. So at age 19 I co-founded the Richmond Reproductive Freedom Project. The fund primarily helps women who cannot afford to pay for their abortions, but it also provides education and advocacy in our city. Abortion funds like ours were set up in 41 states in order to ensure that poor women were able to have the same access to reproductive choice as everyone else.

The women we fund are poor -- many lack access to education, good jobs and health care for themselves and their children. Most often they are young, and are already mothers. They are always in a state of desperation. These women need and deserve help the most. I am often asked how these women are allowed to fall through the cracks. One of the many answers to that question is Henry Hyde, the man most directly responsible for denying millions of women’s access to an abortion just because they are poor.

After the Roe v. Wade decision decriminalized abortion in 1973, Medicaid -- the national system that offers financial support for medical care to low-income Americans -- covered abortion care without restriction. But in 1976, Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois introduced and passed an amendment to the federal budget that limited federal funding for abortion care. The Hyde Amendment has been passed with the federal budget every single year since.

Although 15 states use their own funds to cover abortions under many circumstances, Virginia is not one of them. This leaves the Commonwealth’s poorest women without resources to determine the size and shape of their own families. In the absence of public funding, abortion funds pick up what slack they can. Last year, abortion funds across the country, including RRFP, raised and disbursed more than $3 million to assist 21,000 women in paying for their abortions.

However, grassroots abortion funds like ours can only help a fraction of all women who need it. We will never be able to be able to take the place of public funding. That is why we need to restore Medicaid funding for abortion.

The National Network of Abortion Funds, an organization composed of 103 grassroots abortion funds in the U.S., Canada, Mexico and overseas, is now taking on the Hyde Amendment through the “Hyde-30 Years is Enough!” campaign. The 80+ organizational members of the Hyde Campaign are working to repeal the Hyde Amendment and restore dignity to poor women.

For women who are struggling to make ends meet and who do not have insurance that covers abortion care, the legal right to have an abortion does not guarantee access. The restrictions imposed by the Hyde Amendment unfairly jeopardize the health and well-being of low-income women and their families. Women who do not have the ability to pay for abortion services may resort to attempting a self-induced abortion or obtaining unsafe, illegal abortions from untrained practitioners. Even though the Hyde Amendment has exceptions for rape, incest and life endangerment, Medicaid virtually never pays even for abortions that meet those exemptions.

As the Richmond Reproductive Freedom Project celebrates our fifth year as a nonprofit, I feel the urge to take a moment to reflect on the hundreds of women’s lives we have directly impacted. However, the need for the health services we support calls for more action. It’s time to make a full range of reproductive health services available to all Virginia women.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver is the cofounder of Richmond Reproductive Freedom Project. At 25 years old, she is the youngest person on the board of the National Network of Abortion Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Virginia Forum. 5/09

By Page Gardner

As a woman and a Virginian, I was proud to help so many women get registered to vote for the 2008 elections. Women’s Voices. Women Vote, the organization which I founded, registered over 40,000 women in the state of Virginia in the months leading up to the November elections.

These women made the effort to get registered because they believed that change was possible. Then these same women came out in November and voted for change and for hope. Now, we must hold our elected leaders accountable for bringing about that change that we voters have demanded. President Obama’s fiscal year 2010 budget is an important next step in bringing about that change.

Why is President Obama’s budget important to women? Women, and particularly unmarried women, have been disproportionately impacted by the current recession. Unmarried women face a much higher unemployment rate than Americans as a whole, are more likely to be uninsured and are paid substantially less than men. Women need the additional investments in health care, education, and energy reform that are made possible by the proposed budget. These investments will mean tangible improvements in the lives of Virginia women.

Let’s look at healthcare coverage. Our research has shown that healthcare reform is the top public policy issue that unmarried women would like to advocate for, and the dismal statistics help explain why. According to a December 2008 report from the federal Centers for Disease Control, 21 percent of unmarried women aged 25 to 64 lack any health insurance. And, as the economy continues to shed jobs, more and more women are losing their employer-sponsored health coverage and joining the ranks of the uninsured. In fact, a recent report from the Center for American Progress calculates that 330 Virginians are losing their health coverage every day due to job loss. The proposed budget includes $632 billion as a down payment for a system of quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans. Now is the time to fix our health care crisis -- this budget begins that process.

Now let’s take a look at jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unmarried women experienced an unemployment rate of 9.5 percent in February 2009, compared to an unemployment rate of 8.1 percent for all Americans. In Virginia, the unemployment rate went up by a full percentage point between December 2008 and January 2009. It is vital that the federal budget funds specific programs that address this crisis, and the budget proposal does just that. This budget invests additional funds in high quality affordable early childhood programs like Head Start, to enable low-income mothers to have safe, affordable care for their children while they are at work. The budget increases funding for Pell Grants that make college more affordable, which opens doors to higher skilled jobs. Finally, the budget provides additional funds to train workers for the green jobs of the future which means greater job opportunities.

But how will we pay for it? This budget raises revenue for these critical investments by restoring fairness to the tax code after years of giveaways to the very wealthy and the largest corporations. Taxpayers with incomes over $250,000 (couple) or $200,000 (individual) would lose some of the tax breaks enacted in 2001 and 2003. Corporations would lose tax breaks that encourage them to move jobs and profits overseas, and the big oil companies would lose special tax breaks as well.

Unmarried women came out to vote in record numbers last year because of hope for a better tomorrow. That was a first step, but it is not enough. Now it’s time to take the next step. It’s time we agree to a budget that addresses the healthcare crisis, creates jobs, and invests in education, from early childhood through college.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner is the president and CEO of Women’s Voices. Women Vote, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to increasing the involvement of women in the public policy process.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Virginia Forum. 4/09

Listen to Audio PSA

By Paul Fleisher

Imagine an election in which one candidate could threaten your job if you voted for the other side. That candidate could campaign as much, and whenever, they wish, while the opponent was limited to speaking only during coffee breaks or after work. Suppose that candidate could even decide when the election would take place -- calling the vote only after being certain that it would go in their favor?”

Those conditions don’t sound much like a “free and fair” election -- but they are just the situation employees can be subjected to when they choose whether or not to unionize. It’s those sorts of inequities that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is intended to remedy.

Under current law, when a majority of workers indicate they want union representation, management gets to decide when the certification election will take place. Meanwhile, the company can campaign against the union in the workplace by holding workplace meetings, distributing literature, and even meeting privately with employees one-on-one. Such campaigning often includes heavy doses of intimidation and threats of job loss. In fact, employers illegally fire union supporters in 25 percent of organizing campaigns. Meanwhile, union organizers may not enter the workplace; employees can only campaign during breaks, or before and after work. And even if 100 percent of workers indicate by signing authorizations that they wish to be represented by a union, the company is not required to recognize and bargain with it. In short, employers are playing with a stacked deck.

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) currently before Congress would increase penalties for violating workers’ First Amendment right to form a union and to negotiate a first contract and would provide mediation and arbitration to assist management and unions through that negotiation process. Finally, it would allow a majority of employees to establish a union by signing authorization cards. This provides an alternative to the current election process, which is subject to intimidation, firings and other disparities favoring a company’s anti-union campaign.

It is this last provision that some business leaders emphasize in their attempt to defeat EFCA, claiming that under “majority sign-up,” workers would be subjected to intimidation from the union, rather than being protected by the “free choice” of an election. The history of employees’ efforts to band together for better working conditions tells a different story. Time and again, union supporters have been threatened, reassigned to less desirable jobs, or simply fired. No one who has been harassed with a barrage of threats of firing or reassignment unless they oppose unionization is making a genuinely “free choice.”

Majority sign-up already has a proven track record. It has been used successfully at several large firms, including AT&T Wireless. In this case, both the company and the Communications Workers of America agreed to remain neutral during the organizing campaign -- allowing more than 17,000 workers to freely express their preference for union representation.

Remember, the EFCA does not require workers to use majority sign-up. Employees are still free to conduct an election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board if they prefer. But faced with a company determined to deter employees from organizing, EFCA could provide workers with another option to help level the playing field.

Over the past century, organized labor has helped bring prosperity and respect for the dignity of work to our nation. Unions campaigned to end to child labor, enabling America’s children to develop the knowledge and skills that have built our country into an economic powerhouse. They gave us the 40-hour work week and fair compensation when the work load requires overtime, negotiated decent benefits (vacation time, sick pay, pensions, health insurance, etc.), and insisted on workplace safety.

These advances have benefited not just union members, but their families and communities, as well as workers who profit from non-union businesses offering comparable wages and benefits to compete for qualified employees.

Union representation is a hard-won American tradition. It deserves protection and encouragement, especially in times of economic crisis. Union contracts bring fair wages and benefits to those who will rebuild our infrastructure, provide essential products and services, and spend their earnings back in their own communities. By giving a fair shake to organized labor, the Employee Free Choice Act can play an important part in America’s economic revitalization--and that will benefit us all.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleisher is an educator, member of the Virginia Education Association Fitz Turner Commission for Human Relations and Civil Rights and life member of the NEA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Virginia Forum. 3/09

Listen to Audio PSA

By Jessica Bearden

During the recently concluded legislative session, the General Assembly passed a bill to authorize “Choose Life” license plates that now awaits consideration by Governor Kaine. Funds generated from the plates will be distributed to so-called “crisis pregnancy centers.”

There are over 70 crisis pregnancy centers in Virginia, and you’ve most likely seen their advertisements—billboards that read “Pregnant? Scared? We can help.” Many people mistakenly believe that these centers do nothing more than provide materials and support to women who have made the decision to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term.

In reality, they have an extreme anti-choice agenda and often misinform and mislead women about their options. Though they assume the impartial, authoritative trappings of modern healthcare, their function is primarily political—to berate and coerce those women they call “abortion-minded” into carrying the pregnancy to term. A review of the materials produced by crisis pregnancy centers and several investigative reports about them reveal several of the deceptive and coercive tactics most commonly employed by crisis pregnancy centers.

First, crisis pregnancy centers give women medically inaccurate information about abortion, claiming the procedure is dangerous and can cause breast cancer, infertility and extreme mental health problems, such as suicidal tendencies. There is no legitimate scientific evidence to support any of these claims. In fact, first-trimester abortions are among the safest surgical procedures performed in the United States. Less than 0.5 percent of women obtaining abortions experience a complication, and the risk of death associated with abortion is about one-tenth that associated with childbirth. In addition, the medical community has firmly established that no link exists between abortion and the development of breast cancer, and that having an abortion does not affect the psychological well-being of women over time.

Second, in an effort to delay a woman’s decision to have an abortion until it is too late to do so under Virginia law, crisis pregnancy centers often tell women that they will probably miscarry anyway, so they should wait to make a decision about what to do. Not only does this effectively prevent women who want to terminate their pregnancy from exercising their constitutionally protected right to do so, it also encourages women who may decide to carry their pregnancy to term to delay seeking critical prenatal medical care.

Further, in their zealotry, crisis pregnancy centers frequently fail to maintain the professional neutrality that is a commonly accepted tenet of counseling. For example, in an investigative report compiled by NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland, crisis pregnancy center staff were documented offering congratulations for a positive pregnancy test, and one crisis pregnancy center staffer became very aggressive with an investigator and yelled at her for making a “terrible decision” when she refused to return to the center. In addition, because crisis pregnancy centers are often staffed by volunteers who are not medical professionals, they sometimes give inaccurate information about basic reproductive health issues, such as the effectiveness of contraception, the difference between emergency contraception (which prevents pregnancy) and RU-486 (which causes a medical abortion), and the prevention of sexually transmitted infections.

Women are entitled to accurate, comprehensive and unbiased medical information with which they can make their own decisions.

If the anti-choice movement really wanted to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country, then they would work with the pro-choice movement to increase access to contraception and comprehensive sexuality education—real solutions that will lower the rate of unintended pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion.

Funding anti-choice centers that manipulate and coerce women does nothing to accomplish this goal—and make no mistake, the license plates have the potential to generate thousands of dollars in revenue for these organizations (Florida’s DMV reports that in that state, the “Choose Life” license plate generates over $65,000 a month for crisis pregnancy centers).

We should support legitimate, comprehensive reproductive healthcare clinics instead of crisis pregnancy centers whose missions have nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with a political agenda. Hopefully, the governor will remember this when the license plate proposal reaches his desk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bearden is political and policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Virginia Forum. 3/09

By Suzanne Petroni

We’re in the waning days of the Bush administration and the ideologues are working furiously to get in their last licks. Women, including the most underprivileged and poor in the world, are their target yet again.

A third of the world's population lives on less than $2 a day. The vast majority are women and children. Many are forced into marriage at 10 or 12 years of age. Many have six to 10 children, because they have no access to education or services, and no authority to decide on sexual matters in their marriages. As a result, more than 500,000 women die each year just because they get pregnant: they gave birth too young, too old, too often, or they live too far away from any trained health care provider. And increasingly, they are becoming infected with HIV/AIDS.

Controlling one’s own reproductive decisions is important for all women, but especially for women in poor families. Birth control is a critical component in ensuring that rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion continue to drop, and that women and their children are able to live healthy lives.

But even as the president and his colleagues prepare to pack up and leave Washington, they’ve continued to find more opportunities to take away these basic women’s rights.

Just recently, the United States Agency for International Development discontinued the provision of contraceptives to Marie Stopes International (MSI), one of the world’s leading family planning organizations. According to MSI, the decision will “seriously disrupt” family planning programs in at least six African countries – Ghana, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe - including one where the organization delivers 25 percent of all family planning services nationally. Women in these countries will be left with few options other than abortion, the majority of which will be unsafe and could very well result in their death or disability.

This is on top of the fact that for the past seven years, President Bush has blocked the congressionally approved U.S. contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). UNFPA works in 140 countries to provide poor women with family planning, maternal and child health, and HIV prevention assistance. This year alone, the U.S. contribution could have helped to prevent up to 2 million unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 unsafe abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, over 77,000 infant and child deaths, and prevented countless women and men from contracting HIV/AIDS.

And of course in one of his first acts as president, Bush restored the Global Gag Rule, severely restricting groups that work in the developing world from providing much-needed family planning assistance. The move forced the closure of health clinics throughout Asia and Africa -- often the only providers of health care in their communities -- leaving millions in need.

But Bush’s apathy towards women isn’t just for those overseas.

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed regulations that would deprive women of the right to make their own informed health care decisions. These regulations would allow doctors, nurses and other health care personnel to refuse to provide services that might offend their conscience. This includes not only the provision of abortion services, from which providers are already exempt under federal law, but could include contraception as well.

While we have made laudable progress in funding the fight against HIV/AIDS abroad, this progress has not been matched at home, where AIDS is now the number one killer of black women between the ages of 25 and 34. It’s not helpful that the federal government forces schools to teach programs that preach abstinence-only-until-marriage and bans discussing condoms, except to exaggerate their failure rates. Over 20 states, including Virginia, have now rejected federal abstinence-only programs, which have proven not only a complete waste of taxpayer funds, but have likely also caused harm to the students who are taught inaccurate information.

In these last few weeks of election season, Virginians should ask candidates for federal office where they stand regarding the health and welfare of vulnerable women.

Do they support the Bush policies of denying women access to contraception and providing young people with dangerous abstinence-only-until-marriage education? Or would they give women and youth the opportunity to live healthy lives and to be free to make their own educated decisions regarding their health?

The women of the world deserve better than what the Bush administration has provided, and the American people deserve wiser, more generous policies in our name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroni worked on health and women's issues at the U.S. Department of State from 1997 until 2001. She lives in Northern Virginia and manages a program at a foundation in Washington, DC, supporting comprehensive health programs for women and youth in the developing world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright (C) 2008 by the Virginia Forum. 10/08

By Jamilla Penarete

I am my mother’s American dream. I was born in Fairfax Inova Hospital. I grew up in Fairfax County Public Schools, recited the pledge of allegiance well over 1,000 times, made honor roll in high school, received my driver’s license at 16, registered to vote at 18, and eagerly awaited the moment when I could walk across constitution hall to receive my diploma, throw my cap into the air and begin a highly anticipated chapter in one’s life: College. That was easier said than done.

My going to college was never a question. It was expected and in mine and my mother’s minds a certainty. Education could not have been stressed enough in my home; she was the drive that helped me succeed in high school and the reason that I was determined to strive for nothing but success in college. I carried with me her struggles of a difficult life in Colombia where many a times she walked miles with no shoes to attend a small school in a far off town. She knew education was the key to a success that would take me to heights that she never had the opportunity of reaching.

As a senior in high school I had applied to various colleges. Although the idea of going far off on my own was appealing, I was in no financial position to attend an expensive out-of-state school, so I looked to more affordable state schools. In the spring of 2006 I was euphoric after finding out I was accepted to George Mason University. Although I wanted to live on campus and experience the full-range of college life, because I would be paying for school on my own, I knew it was a wiser financial decision to live at home and try to get involved in extracurricular activities instead.

After registering for classes I glanced at the final cost of tuition and was confused to see that I was being charged over $9,000 which was three times as much as what I expected. Stunned, I figured it was a mistake. It made no sense that for five classes I was being charged over $9,000 to commute to a school less than 9 miles away in a state that I had been had been born and raised in. So I went to the Registrar’s Office at school and they told me to reapply for instate and to my disbelief I received out-of-state rates again. Afterwards, I spoke to an assistant at the Registrar’s Office and to my dismay began to realize just how big of an unexpected role my parents’ legal status would play in my chances for an education. I was told that because I had applied to school as a dependent student of an illegal immigrant I could not receive instate rates; the fact I, and my parents, paid taxes was apparently irrelevant.

I received sympathy from those at the Domicile and Registrar’s Office but no help. I was told that they were not allowed to advise me in what steps I should take to better my situation. Reapplying as an independent student was the best advice they could give me. I appealed as an independent student with little if any hope. Nothing worked out and my options, I felt, had been exhausted.

Because of my parents' situation I didn’t feel comfortable about continuing to push my case. I wasn’t sure what would happen to them if I continued to make more noise. So feeling that I had no choice, I paid the full out-of-state tuition in the hopes that as time went by other options would open up for me.

It was all ridiculous but I felt there was nothing I could do. I slashed my plans for after school activities and substituted it with work. With tuition and other expenses I ended up paying nearly $20,000 for my one year of school. It was too much and I couldn’t go back the next year. So instead I planned on working for the year to save up for school and perhaps try to receive instate by proving myself an independent student. The astonishment and disbelief had been replaced with frustration and reality had settled in with the sad truth that, I and perhaps other American students, were being forced to attend school at unfair rates simply because of our parents legal status.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penarete is a 19-year-old US-born American citizen who lives in Northern Virginia. She was recently informed by George Mason that she is being reclassified as an in-state student, and plans on attending this fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Virginia Forum. 6/08