Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple’s (D-Alexandria) bill to narrowly define contraception was an effort to thwart what seems to be a growing movement of the anti-abortionists to outlaw contraception. But an anti-abortionist Senate colleague, Sen. Jeannemarie Devolites Davis (R-Fairfax and wife of “moderate” Congressman Tom Davis), added an amendment that effectively neutered the bill. So Whipple plans to pull it.

Whipple said Monday she had no choice but withdraw her legislation after it was amended during floor debate to expand her tightly drawn definition of contraception.

“In fact, it may be more dangerous to abortion rights now because it would put an inadequate definition into the code,” said Whipple, D-Arlington.

Her bill would legally define contraception as the prevention of the union of sperm and egg or implantation of an egg in the uterine wall.

Commonly prescribed birth-control pills prevent pregnancy through both means. Abortion opponents who contend life begins at conception insist that denying a fertilized egg the opportunity to attach itself to the womb and develop as a fetus is a form of abortion.

Whipple’s bill and a companion measure by Del. Kristin Amundson, D-Fairfax County, would head off anti-abortion groups’ efforts to classify birth control pills as a form of abortion. That could subject obtaining the pills, intrauterine devices and other forms of birth-control to Virginia’s growing list of abortion restrictions, including parental notification and consent for girls under 18.

Anti-abortionists deny the threat.

Victoria Cobb, the executive director of the Family Foundation of Virginia, said Whipple’s bill was an attempt to “replace common sense with politics” and said the suggestion that abortion foes want to deny access to contraception is absurd.

“This bill is an attempt by pro-abortion advocates to divert attention from the public debate over when life begins — a debate they are losing,” Cobb said in a two-paragraph statement.

Devolites-Davis claims she supports contraception, but others wonder.

Sen. Janet Howell said the amendment would make it more difficult _ and in some small towns impossible _ for women to obtain legally prescribed birth control pills.

“If you were to ask people, as I have been doing for the last several days, what’s contraception, what’s interesting is they don’t give you a definition, they give you an example. They tell you, ‘It’s the birth control pill,’ or ‘It’s the IUD,'” said Howell, D-Fairfax County.

The Devolites-Davis amendment opens the way to define those methods as abortion, Howell argued. That could force women in rural areas to drive for miles to get birth control prescriptions filled should local pharmacists who oppose abortion refuse to dispense the pills on grounds that they constitute abortion, she said.

The folks at The Virginia Progressive are following this issue. They point to a bill introduced by Del. Bob Marshall (R-Woodbridge), the nut case, that is summarized thusly:

Creates a Class 6 felony to provide a minor with a contraceptive or contraceptive device if the person knows or has reason to believe that the minor is engaging in sexual relations with a person three or more years older than the minor.

You break the law if you provide contraception to a girl who is being statutorily raped.

Here’s the vote on the Devolites amendment:

YEAS–Bell, Blevins, Bolling, Chichester, Colgan, Cuccinelli, Devolites Davis, Hanger, Hawkins, Martin, Mims, Norment, Obenshain, O’Brien, Rerras, Ruff, Stolle, Stosch, Wagner, Wampler, Watkins–21.

NAYS–Deeds, Edwards, Houck, Howell, Lambert, Locke, Lucas, Marsh, Miller, Potts, Puckett, Puller, Quayle, Reynolds, Saslaw, Ticer, Whipple–17.

RULE 36–Newman–1. (Apparently means an abstention due to a conflict of interest)

NOT VOTING–Williams–1.

Note Dem Sen. Chuck Colgan (Manassas) voted to neuter the bill whereas Republicans Sens. Russ Potts (Winchester) and Fred Quayle (Chesapeake) voted not to. Otherwise, it was a party line vote.

Del. Jeff Frederick (R-Woodbridge) has never struck me as the brightest bulb on the tree so the irony of his reasoning for House Bill 1536 probably never dawned on him. The bill would remove the cap on the car tax that was passed last year.

The cap, Frederick told the [Augusta Free Press], was put in place to prevent revenue triggers included in the original tax-relief legislation that dates to former governor Jim Gilmore’s 1997 gubernatorial campaign from taking the reimbursement from the 70 percent level that it has been stuck at since 2001 all the way to 100 percent.

“I’m calling this like it is. A supermajority of the General Assembly, and the governor, all campaigned on the promise of finishing what was started on the car tax,” Frederick said.

“The cap that is in place now will send us in the other direction. Estimates have it going from 70 percent last year to 63 percent in the current year to 56 percent and on down. Effectively, the car tax, which Virginians voted to have removed eight years ago, is going to go up again,” Frederick said.

“What this does is pass the buck to local governments to come up with other means to raise the revenues that they need to balance their budgets,” Frederick said.

Passing the buck to local governments is what tax-cutters like Frederick do when they slash state support for schools, transportation and a host of other services. It’s no secret that officials in areas with escalating home assessments are taking the heat for increasing local real estate tax bills because local governments have to make up the difference between sometimes what is required by higher levels of government (SOLs and No Child Left Behind requirements) but without appropriate funding.

By the way, another recent example of an “unfunded mandate” is the security costs for Bush’s inaugural.

Del. Dick Black (R-Sterling) who has been strangely quiet this session, nonetheless couldn’t resist remembering the anniversary of Roe v. Wade by likening pro-choice advocates to slavery proponents.

Del. Dick Black, R-Sterling, said one day, people will look back on the start of the 21st century the way they look at slavery today.

“Once it’s gone, you’re never going to be able to explain to your grandchildren how you ever backed it,” he said.

FULL DISCLOSURE:
Given the recent admission by Armstrong Williams that he was paid to comment favorably on the Bush administration’s “No Child Left Behind” policy and the rightful furor it caused in the media, I want to ensure my own full and clear transparency.

I am a liberal, progressive, or wacko bleeding heart, if you prefer. Many will have a definition of those terms and they’re entitled to it. I see it as simply a fondness for benevolent government as a pact among citizens of a country whose signature gift to the world is its form of self-governance. To me, that pact calls for government to actively seek to make life better for its citizens, to protect minority as well as majority rights and to seek a fundamental fairness in the institutions that rule our daily lives.

While my knee may jerk, I support politicians who seek, at the very least, equal rights and fairness. (Many, a rive gauche et rive droite, think too much government is a big problem.) As someone who’s eked out a living as a reporter and public relations guy (also known as “flack” among my previous cohorts), I try at the very least not to trade in blatant untruths.

But this blog, Commonwealth Commonsense, was not started to compete with The New York Times. It was meant all along to be an opinionated forum for my beliefs and those who care to comment. Therefore, without the time and resources to hire an editor, I – and you – are left to my own devices.

But I am also an activist. I support people I like with (very) modest amounts of money and a lot of (mostly unsolicited) advice. Some politicians actually listen, if only politely, to what I advise. A few might pay for it. Whether they do or not, if they or their opponents are mentioned on this blog, I’ll let you know.

For now, be advised that David Poisson, who is planning to challenge Del. Dick Black (R-Sterling) for the right to represent citizens in the 32nd district in the Virginia House of Delegates, is a long-time friend who I pester ad nauseum about how he might win. Thus far, a few dollars have floated — but from me to him, not the other way around – between us, but I am an unabashed supporter of his candidacy. I’ll use this blog to let you know why and to skewer Black when he deserves it. (Yes, I have a license to shoot fish in a barrel, too.)

If that upsets you, well, you heard it from me first.

Cell Phone Ban for Papa Bear and Mama Bear, Too
…says the Roanoke Times.

Look for the worse in Jerry Kilgore’s campaign.

…can get you 10 years. These kinds of stories (here and here) have gotta make you chuckle at how silly the job of lawmaker often is.

More than 50 years his junior.

The Armstrong Williams flap over his accepting nearly a quarter of a million dollars from the Bush administration to tout the No Child Left Behind Act while posing as a dispassionate pundit has led one conservative media critic to accuse the press of racial bigotry. Tim Graham of the Media Research Center thinks it’s much ado about nothing.

I’ve argued often that the preponderance of media bias is against liberals, not for them. It’s just that the right has been much more effective in raising that old canard to keep the mainstream press on the defensive, ever eager to bend over backwards to prove they are not liberal elitists.

But here’s a case of bias that sullies all journalism. Apparently, small town newspapers are upset with Wal-Mart for not using them for advertising. So their association writes an open letter to Wal-Mart that, in effect, tells the big-box retailer: if you want us to cover stories about you, you better advertise with us. That may not be the intent, but that sure is a valid interpretation, and one that debunks that old saw newspapers want to perpetuate that there is a “Chinese wall” between advertising and news.

Looks like the patchwork, band-aid approach to transportation is the best we can expect this year, as the Senate majority Leader John Chichester threw up his hands and declared that the long-awaited Senate plan will be much like the House’s and the Governor’s. But wait ‘til next year.

Chichester yesterday proposed returning to the transportation trust fund revenues from an existing tax on automobile insurance premiums, beginning July 2006. He said that would annually generate at least $106 million, money lawmakers have used for other purposes.

…Several years ago, legislators passed a law stating that an estimated one-third of total insurance-premium taxes would go to the transportation fund.

Since then, lawmakers have actually transferred the money only once.

…However, Chichester and other Senate Republican leaders are urging an off-season investigation of increasing transportation needs, largely focusing on how to pay for them. It would fall to the 2006 General Assembly to enact a remedy.

Chichester, Senate Republican Majority Leader Walter A. Stosch of Henrico and Sen. Charles R. Hawkins, R-Pittsylvania, head of the finance subcommittee on transportation, did not specifically rule out higher taxes.

“I’m not saying no new taxes or increase them,” said Hawkins, arguing against another “quick fix, rabbit out of the hat.”

… Chichester’s tactics in this year’s transportation debate are changing as suddenly as the weather. Before the session he said the Senate would largely react to programs advanced by delegates and Warner; last week, he said the Senate would have a plan of its own.

The latest about-face, Chichester said, reflects divisions among senators on how to proceed and that “I was in bed for four days” — a reference to his bout with flu.

At the core of the Senate’s latest position: cleaning up the highway department’s books; preventing the use of road dollars for other purposes or commandeering for transportation general-fund revenues that support education, human services and law enforcement.

While many have advocated protecting the Transportation Trust Fund from raids by lawmakers to fund other budget items, Chichester wants to prohibit using general funds for transportation.

House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, repeated he has no problem using general funds for roads: “The general fund is general. To say you can’t use it for other purposes defies the purpose of the fund.”

The Chichester approach may help the other party, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch report.

The approach outlined by Senate Republicans generally reflects that of the likely Democratic nominee for governor, Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine. The presumed Republican nominee, Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore, opposes new taxes for transportation.

So, here are the three proposals:

Senate: Sen. John H. Chichester (R-Stafford) proposes creating a permanent funding source for transportation by using taxes on auto insurance premiums, for about $106 million a year. A law passed in 2000 shifted those taxes to transportation, but tight budgets have since led lawmakers to spend the money on education, health care and other needs.

Gov. Mark R. Warner: The Democratic governor proposes spending $824 million on roads, transit and matching funds to encourage public-private partnership. Most of this is one-time-only spending.

House: Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) proposes spending $938 million. Like Warner’s plan, it’s mostly a one-time infusion of money, but it also includes about $100 million a year collected by increasing fines for drivers who speed and break other road rules. Howell’s plan also would divert the tax on auto insurance premiums this year to transportation projects, but he has made no guarantees that he would do so in the future.

Let the games begin while the traffic stalls.

Update: I neglected originally to add two op-eds on transportation matters. One complains about the mess but offers no solutions; the other, by Del. Vivian Watts (D-Fairfax), lays out the issue with cogent facts.