More Than You Ever Wanted to Know About Fairfax City Ordinance Covering Women's Health Clinics

Last Wednesday, I did a blog post on the Fairfax City council's last meeting, in which they voted 4-2 to pass a new zoning ordinance that covered, among other things, women's health (including abortion) clinics. Since then, I've been reading commentary (and emails) by a variety of people, including Ben Tribbett ("The Fairfax City Disaster"), Catherine S. Read("Inappropriate Zoning for Women's Health Centers"), Kathy Lund Hackshaw, and Fairfax City council member Dan Drummond ("My Vote on Zoning Amendment"), etc. I also had a chance to chat for almost two hours with Dan Drummond this past weekend. I wish I could tell you that all of this has completely clarified the issue in my mind, but I'm not sure I'd go that far. One thing I would say is that this is an important, complicated issue that almost certainly needs further study and discussion before it proceeds any further. With that, here are some (super-wonky) bullet points regarding the information I've gathered over the past week. Enjoy(?)...if you're a total policy wonk, that is.*The women's health clinic in question here, NOVA Health Clinic, was already closed due to a lawsuit (other tenants were reportedly complaining, supposed nonpayment of rent, etc.), issues related to TRAP, etc. as reported by Tom Jackman of the Washington Post this morning. *The clinic had been looking to move to a location on Main Street in Fairfax City, but their application for a non-residential use permit was  "denied in May because officials decided parking at the building was not adequate." (I also was told that NOVA Health Center withdrew its application, given that it was clear it wouldn't be approved due to parking, etc.) *There was clearly a great deal of opposition by people in the neighborhood to placing the clinic essentially across the street from them. To what extent you feel this opposition was justified - and obviously, most of us care what goes in right across the street from our homes - or that it was "NIMBYism" is an open question; my view is that there were elements of both. *Apparently, it was after the permit denial that the issue came to the attention of the Fairfax City council, resulting in a process that led up to last Tuesday night's 4-2 vote. Note that the vote occurred after numerous pro-choice activists, but no anti-abortion activists for whatever reason, spoke. I DO find it odd that no anti-abortion people spoke at that meeting, especially since I hear they were well aware of this and had spoken up previously; what's up with that exactly? "Strategery?" Hmmm. *Just for comparison, it's interesting to note how Fairfax COUNTY defines "medical care facility". It's an extensive list, but also explicitly states that it shall "not include a physician's office, first aid station for emergency medical or surgical treatment, medical laboratory..." Got that? *One big question is to what extent the public should have input into zoning applications, and to what degree the process should be based on clear, objective criteria (e.g., parking) as opposed to subjective ones. My understanding is that Fairfax City was attempting to figure out a way to facilitate public input while maintaining objective criteria for making zoning decisions. The question is, did they succeed?

lowkell :: More Than You Ever Wanted to Know About Fairfax City Ordinance Covering Women's Health Clinics

*Council member Dan Drummond pointed out on his Facebook page that one of the council's goals was to "[clarify] language from a 30-year old zoning ordinance, [given that] the nature of these kinds of uses has evolved over time." Drummond added, "I strongly believe City Council and the public needed to have a voice in such important matters as they relate to the City of Fairfax, a locality of 6.3 square miles and 23,000 people." *Drummond strongly argued on his Facebook posting that, although "[t]his issue has been cast as one about abortion," in his view "it is not...[i]nstead it is about giving the community and its Council the opportunity to have another layer of review and input." He also argued that "requiring [a Special Use Permit] is not out of the ordinary," that "[w]e do it for dancing and entertainment licenses, drive through restaurants and in other circumstances." Nor, Drummond adds, "is this ordinance out of keeping with what various other jurisdictions require, although there are variations in how every jurisdiction deals with zoning matters as these." *In stark contrast, I checked with a leading Virginia advocate of women's health care and reproductive freedom, and she argued that "this ordinance was spurred by a very specific action (a women's health clinic attempting to relocate within the city) and a fundamental misunderstanding of the care women's health centers provide." She further argued that "[t]his ordinance makes it MORE difficult for a clinic that provides first trimester abortion care to locate in the city by subjecting them to the same zoning requirements as hospitals, when we know clinics are much more similar to medical offices." And, she concluded: ... the ordinance doesn't clarify or provide structure to the permitting procedure for clinics. Rather than establishing a clear set of criteria, or who they might apply to, the council instead determined that these special use permits (which cost ~ $4800 and can take up to six months to process) are subject to the judgement and approval of the council. I think the council proved last night they have very little grasp of how a women's health center operates or the valuable services it provides to women in the community. Putting the subjective decision in their hands so its even MORE vulnerable to the political process instead of establishing a firm set of criteria and rules was incredibly ill advised. *In her letter to the editor, Catherine S. Read says she was "shocked when the Fairfax City Council voted on Tuesday July 9th to require women's health centers to undergo a new, arbitrary and expensive zoning permit process," arguing that this was "a thinly veiled attempt to keep an abortion clinic from moving into a building on Main Street," and that this will force women's health centers "to jump through hoops to move into or relocate within the city, while the zoning laws relating to other doctors and dentists offices remain unchanged." *Council member Dan Drummond and Mayor Scott Silverthorne definitely don't see it that way. In their view, from what I've gathered on "background," they feel that they are most definitely NOT targeting one type of facility, but were trying to provide transparency and public input in a place where it wasn't previously. *One aspect of this I find fascinating, but also confusing, is how the new, onerous TRAP regulations targeting women's health clinics in Virginia relate to what's happening in Fairfax City. I'd say that at the minimum, the new TRAP regulations have been playing a major role in the NOVA Health clinic's options of where it might move, what it can afford, how much parking it needs, what type of facility is required, etc. TRAP clearly limits all of those options, and of course makes it much more difficult - as clearly was the intention by anti-choice zealots like Ken Cuccinelli - for these clinics to operate at all. You certainly can't blame the Fairfax City council for any of that, but the question is are they making it even MORE difficult for these clinics, at a time when the state has already been harassing them? *Dan Drummond made a great point in our conversation, that the health care delivery system in this country today doesn't align very well with our zoning ordinances. There are lots of gray zones, where it's not clear exactly how to characterize a particular facility for zoning purposes. *One argument I heard from supporters of the Fairfax City council vote was that Fairfax County, which is a pretty progressive county, has a process which is almost identical to the one Fairfax City just passed. If correct, that's a strong argument, IMHO. *Another issue is whether this women's health facility needs to jump through the state TRAP regulation hurdles before it can even get to the local zoning process. That's another layer of confusion, as far as I can determine. *The question now is whether the Fairfax City council will vote to reconsider last week's vote, defer a final vote for further study, more public input, etc. For whatever reason, Dan Drummond's motion to defer was not seconded. Personally, I think that Catherine S. Read makes a fair suggestion, that "Mayor Scott Silverthorne and other members of the City Council [should] reconsider this ordinance at the next city council meeting on July 23rd." The only problem is, I'm not sure that any amount of discussion will resolve this issue so that everyone is satisfied. Also, from talking to opponents of what the council did last week, I'm hearing significant amounts of distrust and skepticism that, in the end, this wasn't about restricting abortion rights. The fact that Eric Cantor's chief of staff had his fingerprints all over this certainly doesn't inspire confidence, that's for sure. It would be fascinating to see the email correspondence he (and others on the council, for that matter) was having with anti-abortion groups/individuals. Anyway, we'll see what happens.UPDATE: Sources close to Rep. Gerry Connolly tell me he is not at all pleased with the Fairfax City council's vote last week.

Virginia Women's Rights Advocates Refute Mark Obenshain's Attempt at Rewriting His Extreme History

I just got off a call with Virginia reproductive rights and progressive organizations (NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, Planned Parenthood Virginia, Progress VA), the purpose of which was to refute Mark Obenshain's attempt to rewrite his extreme anti-women's health record.According to Tarina Keene, Executive Director, NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia: the reason for the call is to dispel a "myth" Obenshain's been pushing the past several weeks, attempting to deny his own past record and pretend to be a moderate. In fact, Obenshain back in 2009 introduced SB 962, a bill which would have required women to report miscarriages to the police within 24 hours or face a Class 1 misdemeanor, which includes a possibility of jail time. Keene said "we can all agree on the callousness of his attempt to criminalize tragic pregnancy complications and intimidate grieving Virginia women with the threat of law enforcement." This is shocking, in Keene's view, and makes one wonder why is Obenshain now denying knowledge of and/or support for his own bill? According to Keene, Obenshain DID introduce the bill, and "to say otherwise otherwise is to blatantly deny the purpose of his own legislation." So, basically, Obenshain either didn't read his own bill before he chose to introduce it, or the candidate for Virginia's top attorney didn't understand what his own bill's implications were. Regardless, in Keene's view, it's time for Obenshain to stop misleading Virginia voters and trying to rewrite history. According to Anna Scholl, Executive Director, Progress VA, Sen. Obenshain has a long record of "disregarding the impact of his right-wing extremism on women's health." Obenshain has a clear, long record of supporting measures to put up barriers to women's access to reproductive care, and imposing hardships on women that he's now claiming to oppose...

lowkell :: Virginia Women's Rights Advocates Refute Mark Obenshain's Attempt at Rewriting His Extreme History

...This is the same guy who tried to block students at JMU from obtaining emergency contraception; who was a co-patron of the infamous"personhood" legislation that would outlaw all abortion and criminalize some forms of contraception; and of course his support for mandatory, trans-vaginal ultrasounds (he called it "common sense"; he also referred to the final, non-invasive version as the "PG version" of the legislation). In Scholl's view, Obenshain apparently thinks he knows more than medical professionals. Clearly, Obenshain "has a long record of thoughtless disregard for the impact of his right-wing ideology on women's health." He has demonstrated that he is "nothing but a right-wing extremist" who will try to rewrite history in hopes that Virginia families won't notice.Finally, according to Cianti Stewart-Reid, Executive Director, Planned Parenthood Virginia PAC, we want and need an Attorney General who won't politicize the office, as Ken Cuccinelli has done. But given Obenshain's record of standing with Cuccinelli on almost every issue, as well as his close ties to Cuccinelli, it's more likely that Obenshain would model himself after the hyper-partisan Cuccinelli. Among other things, Cuccinelli and Obenshain both favor "personhood" legislation, both favor defunding Planned Parenthood, both support restricting access to contraception, both favor the onerous "TRAP" regulations on women's health/abortion clinics in Virginia, etc., etc. Bottom line: it's clear based on what we've seen from Obenshain and Cuccinelli that they are "two peas in a pod."

Del. Surovell Calls on Gov. McDonnell to Resign, Implies Impeachment

Add Del. Scott Surovell to the growing list of Virginia legislators - all Democrats, so far - calling on Bob McDonnell to resign. Del. Surovell goes a bit further, strongly implying that if McDonnell won't resign, then impeachment proceedings (Surovell euphemistically calls them "other measures") would be in order. The legislative branch has a sworn independent responsibility to address corruption and malfeasance when we see them independent of criminal investigations. As Senator Chap Petersen said two weeks ago, silence implies acquiescence, and I cannot continue to stand silently. It's time for Governor Robert McDonnell to resign so the Commonwealth can continue its focus on improving the lives of its citizens, and he can shift his focus to resolving his family's mounting legal problems.  It's also time for other members of the legislature to remember their oath to the Virginians they represent and speak up as well. If he has not resigned by the end of this week, then other measures should be on the table. So now, the question is, how long are Virginia Republicans going to allow this situation to go on? Which prominent Virginia Republican elected official will be the first to say "enough's enough?" From what I'm hearing, they're getting increasingly concerned that Bob McDonnell's large and growing corruption scandal could deep-six the Republican Gov/LG/AG ticket. If that happens, of course, it's likely that Republicans will lose seats in the House of Delegates as well. Clearly, Camp Cuccinelli would like McDonnell gone, but they haven't had the cojones to say so directly. However, with a live-streamed debate scheduled for next Saturday, and with questions about the scandals sure to dominate, it's hard to see how they allow this to go on much longer...

Video: RNC Chair Says He's "All In" on Corrupt, Extremist VA GOP Ticket

Republican National Committee chair Reince Preibus came to Chesterfield, Virginia yesterday to open and office and make the case for Ken Cuccinelli. The problems are legion. First, Preibus has no credibility on anything, after his total #FAIL in 2012 (including blabbering about a "war on caterpillars", lying about pretty much everything, etc. Second, as the press release from the DNC (see on the "flip") notes, this is the guy who just 100 days ago (almost exactly) rolled out an "autopsy" of his party's disastrous 2012, the central thesis of which is to broaden the tent, hold primaries instead of conventions to bring more people into the process, and ultimately nominate more moderate and sane candidates. Now, just 100 days later, he's in Virginia celebrating the antithesis of his own autopsy - autopsy hypocrisy, if you will - in the extremist ticket (nominated by a few thousand hard-core right wingers in a convention, not a primary) of Ken Cuccinelli, EW Jackson (note that Preibus is standing right in front of a Jackson sign), and Mark "Criminalize Miscarriages" Obenshain.By the way, note Preibus' Big Lie in this video, in which he claims that President Obama has instituted "European health care in this country." In reality, of course, "Obamacare" doubles down on the PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT health insurance system. Perhaps because it's basically identical to the 1994 Republican alternative to "Hillarycare," as well as to "Romneycare?" Perhaps because it incorporates the conservative idea of an "individual mandate" in it, in order to compel people to purchase private, for-profit health insurance? This is about as far away from "European health care" (motto: "less expensive than America, but much better results!") as can be. But no matter, this is Big Liar in Chief Reince Preibus we're dealing with, so the truth is not even optional, it's an alien concept. And THIS is the clown they've brought in to attest how wonderful the corrupt, extremist Ken Kookinell is? What a farce.

Obenshain Tries to Rewrite His Anti-LGBT Views; Richmond Times-Dispatch Lets Him Get Away with It

It's truly infuriating when the media simply acts as a stenographer for whatever politicians and candidates have to say. Isn't one of the main "value added" aspects to having journalists their willingness to dig a little bit, to uncover and report on discrepancies, to ask tough follow-up questions, and to let their readers know when a politician is snowing them?  Sadly, as Josh Israel of ThinkProgress reports, that was NOT the case with a recent Richmond Times-Dispatch story on several statewide candidates' positions regarding LGBT anti-discrimination policies. 

In a statement, Obenshain told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that he supports Gov. Bob McDonnell’s directive against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in his administration......But Obenshain’s record does not match that claim.  Though a bipartisan super-majority of state Senators and Delegates in 2005 signed statements averring that they would not personally discriminate in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation, he declined to do so. Eight years later, he has still never taken this simple step.
In 2010, and again this year Obenshain voted against bills that would have codified this policy and officially banned discrimination against LGBT people in public employment in Virginia.
Obenshain explained his vote, claiming legal protections against LGBT discrimination would give "an avenue for filing lawsuits and grievances for perceived slights or for no perceived slight at all." He later opined that it is employers who choose to discriminate - rather than their LGBT employees - who need to be protected.

Then, just this past January, Obenshain walked out of the State Senate, rather than vote on the nomination of openly-gay judge Tracy Thorne-Begland.

Does this sounds like a guy who, as he claims, has "been clear that discriminatory employment practices on any irrelevant basis should not be tolerated in Virginia." Or, far more likely, is Mark Obenshain simply saying whatever he thinks will help him get elected? Remember, Virginia is now a state where amajority now support same-sex marriage, and an overwhelming majority supports protections against anti-LGBT bias on the job. But not Mark Obenshain, who continues in his far-outside-the-mainstream views on LGBT equality (and so many other issues), as part of a statewide GOP ticket with two like-minded anti-LGBT running mates. Which means that in November, there's only one thing for us to do: make sure that NONE of these guys gets elected.

P.S. Click on the image above to view two of Mark Obenshain's anti-LGBT votes.

P.P.S. An Equality Virginia pledge Obenshain refused to sign read, "The sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression of an 

Video: Fairfax City Council Approves New Ordinance Covering Women's Health Clinics

A few highlights from last night's controversial meeting of the Fairfax City council. First, though, you might want to check out a detailed discussion of the proposed zoning regulations pertaining to "clinics, hospitals, medical or dental offices, and related uses" in Fairfax City. Also, according to this:

{The} proposed ordinance would place women's health centers into the same category as hospitals, surgical centers and urgent care units, and would require clinics to have an expensive "Special Use Permit" as well as limit the locations they can operate in. Just to apply for a Special Use Permit costs at least $4,800 and can take as long as 6 months -- and city staff is arbitrarily able to deny or approve the application. What's worse, the new ordinance gives the Zoning Administrator power to decide exactly the amount of parking required of each clinic, and therefore gives him/her the ability to block a clinic's approval based on frivolous and arbitrary regulations such as - you guessed it - PARKING SPACES.

Back to the video: 1. Staff discussion (by Zoning Administrator Michelle Coleman) of the proposed amendments starts around 11 minutes in and runs through about 24 minutes. 2. The public hearing begins at about 24:40, with speaker after speaker disagreeing with the proposed amendments and urging that they be voted down. You'll hear words like "duplicitous," "arbitrary," "subjective," "vague," "unfair," "inconsistent," "complex," "finagling," "red tape," "splitting hairs," "ideology," "deeply troubled," "onerous," "medically unnecessary," "disproportionately difficult," and "TRAP regulations." The distinction between "offices" and "clinics" is brought up repeatedly, as well as the fact that these women's health clinics provide a variety of health care services. The public hearing portion ends at 1:08, and the discussion returns to staff and council members. 3. A bit after 1:37, Council member Dan Drummond says he feels Fairfax City is being consistent with other localities, but thinks "the public has raised some valid questions" and this needs some more "fine tuning" and staff work. He says "for that reason, I will not be supporting the motion that's been made." 4. The discussion then turns to an exploration of the options and motives for deferring the vote. At 1:39, Mayor Silverthorne says it's the council's prerogative to defer the vote, but he'd prefer to have a "straight up-or-down vote," unless the idea is "truly" to make the ordinance better. Possible deferred vote dates are batted back and forth, with September 24 as one possibility. 5. At around 1:41:45, Mayor Silverthorne says this isn't "politically correct" to say, but after asserting that he's "one of the more liberal" mayors in "the last 50 years," he says he feels like it makes no sense to have the staff rework this, that the council should have a "straight up-or-down vote," and that "dragging this out for the sake of additional feedback" won't resolve the questions out there about this. 6. At about 1:43, Mayor Silverthrone says he doesn't "appreciate some of the outside groups...NARAL...parachuting into my community" and "spreading some misinformation." 7. At 1:44:30, the council decides not to move ahead with Dan Drummond's motion to delay the vote until September 24. A bit later, at around 1:47, the council proceeds to approve the proposed measures on a 4-2 vote. Members in favor are Steven Stombres (R; Eric Cantor's Chief of Staff), Jeffrey Greenfield (R), Dan Drummond (D), and Michael DeMarco (D). Members against are David Meyer (D) and Eleanor Schmidt (R). Worth noting is that Dan Drummond had said just a few minutes earlier that he'd be voting "no," but ends up voting "yes." I don't get that one at all.

BREAKING: Sen. Barbara Favola Calls for Bob McDonnell to Resign

Previously, only Sen. Chap Petersen had called on Bob McDonnell to resign as governor, and even then ONLY if he refused to "come clean" and repay the taxpayers. Sen. Barbara Favola has now gone even further, if anything. Interesting...

McDonnell Corruption Scandal Keeps Getting Worse

Just when you thought Grifter Governor Bob's corruption scandal(s) couldn't get any worse...they do. A prominent political donor gave $70,000 to a corporation owned by Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell and his sister last year, and the governor did not disclose the money as a gift or loan, according to people with knowledge of the payments.The donor, wealthy businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr., also gave a previously unknown $50,000 check to the governor's wife, Maureen, in 2011, the people said. The money to the corporation and Maureen McDonnell brings to $145,000 the amount Williams gave to assist the McDonnell family in 2011 and 2012 - funds that are now at the center of federal and state investigations. Needless to say, a slimeball like Jonnie Williams wasn't giving this money to the McDonnells because he's a nice guy, or out of altruism, or whatever. The only question is, what was the quid pro quo exactly? I mean, we're talking a LOT of money here! My theory? I think Paul Goldman was on to something with this post, "Insider Trading in Star Scientific Stock?"P.S. Oh, and just to make Grifter Bob's day even worse, his son was arrested for public intoxication. UPDATE: CNN's Peter Hamby tweets - "text from top GOPer just now on latest McDonnell revelation: 'that's not survivable.'" Hello, Governor Bolling?!? UPDATE #2: Sen. Chap Petersen writes, "This Story is Going to Another Level." UPDATE #3: @LarrySabato just tweeted, "Look for Cuccinelli to break openly & sharply with McDonnell very soon." The problem, as many people are pointing out, is that Cuccinelli is also tied to Jonnie Williams - took undisclosed gifts/donations from him (5 digits), bought stock in his company, is close "friends" with him, etc. Plus, what did the Attorney General's office know, and when did it know it, about the Governor's Mansion/Chefgate scandals, and what did the Attorney General's office DO about it? (answer: nothing) Finally, was Cuccinelli really "walled off" from all this by his staff, as he claims, and if so how is that acceptable or even possible?!?  WTF? Inquiring minds want to know...

Video: Cuccinelli Says League of Women Voters/AARP Debate a "left wing, stacked" Forum!!!

So...Ken Cuccinelli is nuts AND corrupt AND extreme AND a coward. Check this out: Ken Cuccinelli Monday dismissed a proposed AARP Virginia and League of Women Voters gubernatorial debate as a "left wing, stacked" affair, one week after he missed a deadline to sign on as a participant in the forum.Responding to a reporter's question about why he declined the invitation, the attorney general and Republican nominee for governor offered that assessment while campaigning in Norfolk. "Oh, the left wing, stacked debate," Cuccinelli said. "Well, you've got MSNBC as the proposed folks running it." That debate had been tentatively scheduled for Oct. 14. It was to be moderated by CBS This Morning host Norah O'Donnell, a former MSNBC host, and  broadcast by Richmond area CBS affiliate and a local public television station, with the option for other broadcasters to pick up the feed. The jointly-sponsored event has been a traditional debate during statewide races in Virginia: Tim Kaine and George Allen participated last year, while Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds faced-off in that forum four years ago. So, this debate - which is NOT run by MSNBC, nor are AARP and the League of Women Voters "left wing" - was good enough for George Allen and Bob McDonnell, but not for Ken Cuccinelli? That really says it all about Cooch, huh?P.S. You've also gotta love Cuccinelli's claim that the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce is somehow neutral. In fact, according to VPAP, the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce has given 65% of its donations to Republicans, 24% to "Other," and a miniscule 9% to Democrats since 2001. That includes$5,000 to Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), $2,250 to House Speaker Bill Howell (R-ALEC), etc. But this organization is fair and balanced in Cuccinelli's (warped) mind? Of course, he also probably thinks Faux "News" (aka, 24/7 GOP Propaganda Channel) is really "fair and balanced."  Heh. P.P.S. According to VPAP, the AARP has given 52% to Virginia Republicans, 48% to Virginia Democrats.

Sen. Chap Petersen Calls on Bob McDonnell: "Come clean," Return gifts...or Resign as Governor

I'm very happy to see this letter from Sen. Chap Petersen. Among other things, it's good to see someone in the Virginia Democratic Party establishment who's willing to call for our corrupt, grifter Governor to come clean on his burgeoning corruption scandals or step down. What's ironic is that it took one of the most moderate/conservative Democrats in the Virginia General Assembly to do this. Where's everyone else on this? I mean, it's not like this story is hard to understand - Bob McDonnell's corrupt, and Ken Cuccinelli is both corrupt AND covering up for McDonnell - and both of them need to resign, immediately. I'm amazed that leading Virginia Democrats (e.g., the "Progressive Caucus") haven't done what Chap just did, but thanks to Chap for having the cojones to do what's right. Not that our Grifter Governor will give a rat's hindquarters...