Today, Governor McDonnell launched “Virginia Adopts,” an initiative to promote adoption and foster care with the coal of finding 1000 families for children who need placement in permanent families.  Joining him at the ceremony was former first lady Anne Holton, wife of Democrat U.S. Senator Tim Kaine.

But of course, the ACLU and EV are not happy with the idea of finding moms and dads for 1,000 children.  They have to turn it into a political issue, attacking the program because Virginia law (and the state Constitution) prohibits same-sex couples from adopting (homosexual individuals can adopt in Virginia).  Instead of recognizing the right of kids to have both a mother and father, the ACLU and EV focus instead on the personal desire of a handful of adults and turn what should be an area of agreement and a completely non-partisan issue into just another political dispute (oh, and fundraiser no doubt).

And, of course, the Richmond Times Dispatch is more than happy to help.

It is unfortunate that some in our Commonwealth are so bent on getting their own way that they are willing to take a positive, child centered, family focused initiative and attempt to trivialize and politicize it.  There is a word for it – selfish.

What to make of it all and the seven candidate jumble? A lot of organizations and web sites, who otherwise wouldn’t be considered too important, have either made themselves so, or have been granted such status because in a crowded and unpredictable field, where no one can accurately gauge delegate preferences until people actually show up — and who knows who will or even can show up for an entire day and at least some evening? — candidates have to find a way to gain traction. Thus, what has been a generally clean campaign (nothing like the rear-end exam the Left will launch at the nominee starting Sunday) has become something of a He lied, She lied, They’re all playing dirty affair.

The crossfire has been amusing. Candidate 1 criticizes Candidates 4 and 5 through robocalls, and maybe Candidate 3 via mail. Candidate 2 attacks Candidate 1 for that, but goes after Candidate 7. Candidate 6 claims Candidate 4 is attacking him through a front group, while Candidate 5 says certain web sites and blogs are in Candidate 2′s back pocket. But in person, they all seem to get along. That was the case two weeks ago at their last debate, at Benedictine College Prep in Richmond, sponsored by the Richmond City Republican Committee and other Central Virginia GOP units. (It drew, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, 250 people. A Democrat debate several days later, at the completely contrasting Richmond Gay Center, only drew about 150 according to the same source.) In the holding room where they were briefed by the host committee and moderator Scott Lee (of WRVA-AM and Bearing Drift/Score Radio Network), they joked with each other and exchanged campaign anecdotes. The potential fireworks during the debate itself were limited, with each touting him- or herself. Perhaps the “offenses” being felt are coming from over zealous supporters instead?

News was made at the debate, though. For the first time ever, an obscure process issue which punches well above its weight in importance, was addressed. After a warm up question about recently read books, they were asked what reform to bring accountability to the office would they work for. After all, so many of their campaign promises are really desires, because so much of what they want to do has almost nothing to do within the powers of the office of lieutenant governor. It’s a question I’ve put to a few of them individually, though phrased differently. Some had no clue. They all seem to know about it now.

Call it the crucial, but silent, issue, because not many are talking about it and the media isn’t reporting it. It’s about the power of the LG to assign bills to committee, similar to the House Speaker’s power. What good is it to be the presiding officer of a legislative chamber if your have little clout? Decades ago, during the day of one party (i.e., Democrat) rule, the lieutenant governor was a liberal populist named Henry Howell. The majority thought even he was too liberal to have that authority, and stripped it away, giving it to the unelected, unaccountable senate clerk, in cooperation with the majority leader. It’s one of the reasons the Senate has been the graveyard of many good bills and reforms, especially pro-life bills, where Democrat and Republican majorities have sent them to unfavorable committees that do not have a natural connection to the bills. (For example, coercive abortion is always referred to the “Committee of Death,” the Education and Health Committee, rather than the Courts of Justice Committee as it is in the House.) Restoring that power to the Senate’s presiding officer will make for a more responsive and accountable process. After all, what LG isnt’ already running for the top job?

Pete Snyder, Senator Steve Martin, Delegate Scott Lingamfelter and Corey Stewart all brought up bill referral power as a critical reform to governing the split chamber and to advance conservative legislation that many Republican senators would just as soon see fail. Martin, Lingamfelter and Stewart even expounded on the idea and expanded upon it.

Snyder was assertive, while Stewart was assertive and passionate about ending the Senate’s “graveyard” reputation by assigning bills to their rightful committees. Even though the LG has never had the power to assign members to committees as does the Speaker, Stewart went so far as to say he would use his clout as the tie-breaking vote to influence who sits on what committees (a power left to the party leaders in the Senate). Former Senator Jeanmarie Davis gave a lukewarm “I don’t disagree with it” answer. Susan Stimpson and E.W. Jackson never mentioned it.

There’s an old expression in Virginia politics: If you want to change Virginia, then change the Virginia Senate. Sometimes, it’s not the headline grabbing issues that make the difference, just as it can be a little thing no one suspects that wins a campaign. In this case, the two may have merged. While this just reform may not happen over night, it now is part of the conversation, whereas previously, no one had ever heard of it From now on, Republicans candidates will feel the necessity  to campaign on it until it finally happens.

Ken Cuccinelli blazing own path in Virginia gubernatorial campaign

Cuccinelli stumps for coal, offshore energy, critics pick at abortion, taxes

Convention gives Virginia GOP chance to unite behind Ken Cuccinelli

In race to be his successor, Cuccinelli casts long shadow

GOP attorney general hopefuls tout law backgrounds

Style may trump substance in GOP vote for Virginia lieutenant governor

The Lieutenant Governor Jumble And The Silent, But Crucial, Issue

McAuliffe campaign launches ‘Women for Terry’

Va. seeks adoptive parents

The Pols Are Out And So Are Their Grades: American Conservative Union Releases Virginia General Assembly Scorecard

Did He Or She Pass Or Fail? The 2012-13 Family Foundation General Assembly Report Card

Abortion Center Application In Fairfax City Is Withdrawn

The “Baby Factor”

Responding Where The Left Goes Unchallenged

Delegate Todd Gilbert Named TFF’s Legislator Of The Year

The ACU, founded in 1964 by a coalition of prominent national conservative organizations, is known for its annual Congressional Scorecard, considered the “gold standard” of Congressional ratings. In 2011, it decided to take that success to the state level, with a goal of annual rating all members in each of the 50 state legislatures. That year, it graded five, Virginia being the first of those (this  year it will score 20). Consequently, the General Assembly is the first to be scored three times — more firsts for the Old Dominion.

The ACU Scorecard offers three awards: Defender of Liberty Award, for those who score 100 percent; the ACU Conservative Award for those who score above 80 percent, and the not-so-coveted True Liberal of the Commonwealth Award for those who get a zero — and there are a few of those. However, the number of members in both chambers who scored 80 or higher dropped precipitously, with some who have reputations as conservative stalwarts not even even getting to 80 percent.

The reason? Not only were there several immensely important and substantive votes this year on significant policies with massive ramifications, they were voted on multiple times. For instance, the tax increase bill (HB 2313) was voted on three times (scored twice). An ironic twist is that the House budget, which normally rates as a support because of its pretty tight spending parameters and policy language, was opposed by the ACU when it came out of conference committee with the Senate, specifically because the rejection of the Medicaid expansion was stripped out. That also got a second vote because of a gubernatorial amendment. The Obamacare health insurance exchange also made the list and several conservatives got nicked on that, as well.

The ACU Virginia Scorecard is not only the most comprehensive one of its nature in Virginia — complied annually, with more than 20 floor votes on everything from spending, taxes, education reform, securing voting rights, second amendment rights, religious liberty, right to work, life and marriage, and all else that make up the conservative agenda, it’s one the most comprehensive state scorecard in the country, as many legislatures, especially part-time ones, rarely let so many significant votes get to the floor. The ACU only scores floor votes and does not score unanimous or immensely lopsided votes, nor partisan votes, with the exception of significant policy shifting bills.

In a statement released today by the ACU, its Chairman Al Cardenas, said:

On behalf of the American Conservative Union, I am pleased to announce the winners of our 2013 State Legislative Ratings for members of the Virginia General Assembly. For 40 years ACU has set the gold standard for Congressional ratings, and we are now able to offer that same level of transparent information to the voters of Old Dominion so they can hold their elected officials accountable at the state level as well. In our third year rating the Commonwealth, we applaud conservatives in the Virginia General Assembly who continue to fight against higher taxes, against Obamacare and for the rights of the unborn.

The ACU’s philosophy in its scorecard system is to track . . .

a wide range of issues before state legislatures to determine which issues and votes serve as a clear litmus test separating those representatives who defend liberty and liberal members who have turned their backs on our founding principles — constitutionally limited government, individual liberty, free markets, a strong national defense and traditional values. The votes selected for our Virginia Legislative Ratings were chosen to create a clear ideological distinction among those casting them.

The Defenders of Liberty Award winners are:

Delegates Rob Bell, Ben Cline, Scott Garrett, Todd Gilbert (TFF Legislator of the Year Award winner), and Margaret Ransone; and Senators Tom Garrett, Jr., Mark Obenshain and Ralph Smith.

ACU Conservative Award winners are Delegates Richard Anderson, Richard Bell, Kathy Byron, Mark Cole, Barbara Comstock, John Cox, Mark Dudenhefer, Matt Fariss, Peter Farrell, Greg Habeeb, Chris Head, Tim Hugo, Sal Iaquinto, Steve Landes, Jim LeMunyon, Scott Lingamfelter, Bob Marshall, Jimmie Massie, Jackson Miller, Randy Minchew, Israel O’Quinn, Brenda Pogge, David Ramadan, Roxann Robinson, Nick Rush, Beverly Sherwood, Lee Ware, Jr., Michael Webert, Tony Wilt, and Tommy Wright, Jr.; and Senators Richard Black, Steve Newman, Richard Stuart, Bryce Reeves, Steve Martin, Bill Stanley, Jr., and Ryan McDougle.

The highest scoring Democrats were Delegates Johnny Joannou and Joe Joe Johnson at 73 and 64 percent, respectively. The both  topped some Republicans, such as Delegate Chris Jones, who scored only 60 percent. Delegate Jones wasn’t alone. Speaker Bill Howell only managed to match Delegate Joannou. Senate Republicans saw similar slippages. For example, Senators Jeff McWaters and Frank Ruff, who had scored at least 80 in the first two scorecards, dropped to the low 60s. Majority Leader Tommy Norment and Senator Harry Blevins, who retired recently in mid-term, scored 60 and 57 percent, respectively. Senator John Watkins rated a dismal 48 percent.

Last year, more than 70 Republicans from both chambers scored 80 percent or higher. This year, only 45 did.

The members who earned the True Liberal of Old Dominion Awards are Delegates Delores McQuinn and Roslyn Tyler; and Senators Kenneth Alexander, Janet Howell and Linda Puller.

Planned Parenthood group to rally at Virginia GOP convention

McDonnell’s approval dips, but voters shrug at gifts

In an all-or-nothing vote on 2013 highways bill, Virginia Free scores Assembly Dems higher than GOP

Opponents targeting Del. Comstock’s record on education

Bolling forms new PAC for moderates in GOP

GOP race for lieutenant governor is wide open

Groups that sought tax-exempt status say IRS dealings were a nightmare

Abortion Center Application In Fairfax City Is Withdrawn

Responding Where The Left Goes Unchallenged

The “Baby Factor”

Thank you to everyone that came out last night to speak against the proposed abortion facility in Fairfax City! Just to keep you all updated about it, as of last night’s meeting we were told by the Mayor that they (NOVA Women’s Health) had rescinded their application at this time. There were close to 40 folks there last night, all pro-life, to speak and many still did, including me. The city council graciously listened to all who wanted to speak. We must remain vigilant, as we expect the abortion facility to re-apply soon! Please like the Virginia Society for Human Life FB page for more updates!

First, it was a Hampton Roads abortion center that announced it was closing. Now this. Good news and good news. Momentum is on the pro-life side. But as Olivia wrote, we must stay vigilant and continue to make the case — legally, morally, logically and medically.

Given the media’s blackout of the trial for its first few weeks and then the trivial coverage it gave once the Mainstream Media had been exposed, it’s difficult to know exactly how many Americans actually know what happened at 3801 Lancaster Street in Philadelphia, how they will respond, or if they actually care.

But if this case has done anything, it’s ripped the cover off an abortion industry that most Americans want to ignore, hide from and pretend doesn’t really exist. To face the reality of abortion exposed by Gosnell, one must face the explicit hypocrisy and illogic of “I’m morally against abortion but I can’t impose my view on someone else.” Worse, the case did indeed present Americans who are paying attention with the “baby factor,” the persistent evidence that there are a growing number of people in our nation who are just as comfortable with the taking the lives of children after they are born as they are with the taking the lives of children in the womb. They, in fact, recognize both as human beings, just not valuable human beings.

First, we had the video of a Planned Parenthood staffer in Florida testifying that such a decision should be left up to a woman and her doctor, and then the multiple videos of abortion center staff members dismissing the killing of already born children. But why not? If life begins at some arbitrary point on a continuum, what are a few hours? Clearly, a baby just outside the birth canal can’t be any more morally defendable than one just inside.

Remember, just three years ago, Virginia had to update its law to ensure that the murder of a baby already born, but still attached to its mother by umbilical cord, is a crime. This after a woman went unprosecuted for letting her baby die while still attached to her.

Most people, my guess is, dismiss those cases as “isolated” and go back into their world of “if I can’t see it I won’t be bothered.” But in all the cases listed above, you can see it. You can look into its eyes. You can see it’s a human being. That is, most of us can.

But not all.

Just last year, in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Experts, two physicians made the case for “after-birth abortion:”

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice “after-birth abortion”, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which “abortions” in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice “after-birth abortion” rather than “euthanasia” because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the foetus and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

This is nothing but the logical outcome of abortion on demand. And this is where America is headed if cases like Gosnell don’t force Americans to face the reality of an abortion industry most would rather ignore.

Within the past few days, I’ve encountered a number of these opportunities.

In an interview with a clearly biased reporter, which she indicated would be about abortion center safety standards, I was asked to respond to the 18 percent drop in the abortion rate over the last five years. Without more specific information, I respond that many common sense abortion laws had been passed in addition to the great work done in the area of foster care and adoption. But this response doesn’t match the reporter’s narrative. The official narrative, her narrative, was that any drop in abortion must relate to contraception.

Basic knowledge of biology says that only a drop in the pregnancy rate, not the abortion rate, can be directly attributed to contraception. For simplicity sake, consider this example: Let’s say 1,000 women got pregnant in 2007 and 25 women chose abortion, but in 2011, 1,000 women got pregnant and only 20 women chose abortion. In this example, the number of conceptions has not changed (still 1,000) and thus tying the decrease in abortion (25 to 20) to contraception is illogical. Rather, it means that five women made alternate choices from abortion regarding their pregnancies.

With this in mind, I found it interesting when the reporter next began to challenge me on contraception but never told me anything about the pregnancy rate or even the “unintended” pregnancy rate during the five year period.

What is known is that even the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the abortion industry, acknowledges:

In six [countries] — Cuba, Denmark, Netherlands, the United States, Singapore and the Republic of Korea — levels of abortion and contraceptive use rose simultaneously.

To get a more accurate picture of what is actually happening in Virginia, one would need the birth rate, abortion rate and the number of children given up for adoption over time. Without that, both sides of this debate can guess at a reporter’s questions and the reporter can angle her story in whatever direction she chooses.

A second opportunity to be a voice of reason took place when I was asked to respond to a Washington Post poll of Virginia voters and their views on various social issues. Prior to the interview, I requested to see the poll. The response from the reporter was “I’m afraid we don’t normally share the poll.” Seriously? I’m supposed to listen to the reporter’s summation of the results and draw conclusions based on her conclusions? Yes, that’s their hope because the assumption is that like dumb sheep, the right can be led into a ditch. The reporter was obviously dismayed that I challenged nearly all of the poll’s assumptions.

As an example of the problem opining without data causes, the reporter asked me if the Republican Party ought to change its position to attract more voters as a result of the alleged shift on same-sex marriage. This question required me to presume the rest of her poll that I had not seen. I mentioned that if this poll matched any other poll on this matter, then the reporter would know that minorities support traditional marriage. She seemed surprised that I would draw this distinction but fully acknowledged that my point was well taken, was supported by the details of the poll and that changing a position on same-sex marriage wasn’t going to attract the minorities the Republican Party is desperate to reach. (Oh, and shockingly, no questions about the Kermit Gosnell trial or the nearly 300 health and safety violations in Virginia’s abortion centers. Then again, why ask about what you refuse to report?)

This interview leads me to the final difficulty of trying to present reason in a world where narratives are predetermined. Two days ago, I received a call at home from Quinnipiac asking me to take a political survey. I readily agreed but discovered just what I feared. When asked my top issue for determining how I vote, I was given approximately 10 choices, none of which were values issues. Similarly, I was asked about the Star Scientific situation regarding both Governor Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli but was never asked about Terry McAuliffe’s false claims regarding green technology and jobs. Zero questions about the abysmal conditions found in Virginia’s abortion centers. Even funnier, I was asked if I consider myself “Born Again,” “Evangelical” or “None of the above.” I’d love to meet someone who is “Evangelical” but not “Born Again.” When the questions are this biased and misinformed, it’s hard, if not impossible, for a polling company to get a clear sense of the electorate.

But then again, if the purpose of the poll is to reinforce a predetermined narrative, the pollsters, nor the media, are interested in the sense of the electorate. They are trying to steer the electorate. Which is one reason why, despite not knowing all the details, I do these interviews. If there isn’t a voice of reason included in the story, the media wins without a fight.

This year, Delegate Gilbert was the House patron for one of our most consequential legislative priorities, legislation that protects the freedom of association and freedom of religion rights of student groups on public college campuses. This followed his leadership last year on legislation that protects the rights of faith-based child placement agencies to operate according to their religious beliefs. Both bills protecting our liberty have become models for the rest of the nation. About receiving the award, Delegate Gilbert said:

I was surprised and honored to be named The Family Foundation’s Legislator of the Year. The Family Foundation and I have teamed up in the last few years to do some amazing work protecting religious liberty and traditional moral values, and together we have accomplished some great things for Virginia.

Delegate Gilbert’s solid pro-life, pro-family voting record is complemented only by his leadership in his caucus, in committee, and on the floor of the House, where he is more than willing to stand — no doubt much to the chagrin of some around him — to defend life, marriage and religious liberty, and to take on those legislators who seek to undermine our values and principles.

Delegate Todd Gilbert (L) receives The Family Foundation Legislator of the Year Award and congratulations from TFF Vice President for Policy and Communications Chris Freund.

Delegate Gilbert’s leadership has made him the target of the secular left, and in particular Equality Virginia. The state’s largest homosexual organization has targeted Delegate Gilbert because of his strong stance on religious liberty and his opposition to adding protection for sexual behavior to the state’s non-discrimination law. In an environment of hostility, where the very phrase “social issues” or “values issues” causes some of our elected officials to reflexively run for cover, the media hysteria over anything pro-life or pro-family, and the secular left’s endless rhetorical assault on conservative legislators — plus a clear cultural shift away from Godly principles and a too often silent church — few legislators are willing to lead like Delegate Gilbert.

It is always an honor to present an award to legislators of conviction who put principle before politics to advance our shared values. Congratulations to Delegate Gilbert for winning this year’s Legislator of the Year award. We look forward to continuing to work with him on protecting and advancing our values.

* Virginia Abortions Drop 18 Percent as New Pro-Life Laws Passed

Poll: McDonnell approval rating lowest in 2 years

Ken Cuccinelli touts jobs plan while Dems hit him on women’s issues

Educators endorse Democrats Northam, Herring

Washington County leaders vote unanimously in support of Ten Commandments

Kermit Gosnell and the Logic of “Pro-Choice”

Delegate Todd Gilbert Named Family Foundation’s Legislator Of The Year

This Just About Sums Up The Media These Days