General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Weds., May 11, 2011
Gotta move quickly today. On Al’s show at 10 am, WDEL-1150 on your AM dial.
Here’s the entire Session Activity Report from Tuesday. Lotsa stuff going on.
Legislation abolishing ‘fusion’ candidacies passed the Senate and is on its way to the Governor’s office. The bill would allow only members of a political party to seek that party’s nomination for an elected office in a primary or otherwise be nominated for office by that party. Opponents can bring their Rose Mary Woods-like contortions to our comments section, but I like the bill. Either you are a registered member of a party, or you’re not. Only members of political parties are permitted to vote in primaries. It only makes sense that you’d have to be a registered party member to seek the party’s nomination.
The feel good, do next to nothing, Bradley bills discussed yesterday also passed and are headed to the Governor.
John Atkins’ shooting doves in a barrel on Sundays bill passed the Senate, but with 6 ‘no’ votes. However, Gov. Markell is likely to view this as an ‘economic development’ bill, so he’ll probably sign it. I’d like to be surprised, though.
The House passed both bills designed to protect those facing foreclosure, HS1/HB 57(Kowalko) and HS1/HB 58(Keeley), by unanimous vote. Look for these bills to be fast-tracked in the Senate, although I’m not sure they can be worked this week. Nevertheless, they should head to the Governor’s office by the first week in June.
Also, as predicted by Yours Truly, legislation delaying the requirement that incarcerated individuals be counted at their home addresses for redistricting purposes until 2020 passed the House, and will almost certainly pass the Senate under rules suspension this week. That’s especially likely as the Senate is scheduled to release its preliminary redistricting plan this Thursday, and I can’t wait.
SB 41(Hall-Long), which would expand the New Castle County Board of Adjustment to 13 members and would require that each councilmanic district have a member, unanimously passed the House and heads to the Governor. Mark my words: No good will come of this legislation. I predict at least one indictment within five years of the effective date.
Finally, the tragicomic travails of HB 66 continue. Gerald Brady is dancing as fast as he can. Desperate to get something, ANYthing, passed to further his Orwellian purposes, he has placed yet another amendment with the bill. This one places a two-year sunset provision on his latest hidden camera/radar plan. Meaning he doesn’t have the votes to pass the bill, so he’s trying the old “This bill might suck, but it will disappear in two years barring a change of heart as to its suckiness’ trick.
Legislation legalizing medical marijuana for medicinal purposes will likely secure final Senate approval today, and will then head to the Governor’s office. Here is today’s Senate Agenda.
As usual, this is a heavy committee day for both houses. I’ll start with the Senate committee highlights:
*The Senate pieces of the package of foreclosure protection bills will be considered in today’s Senate Banking Committee meeting.
*The Senate Education Committee considers a joint resolution that would create a task force to ‘consider and evaluate options to decrease the number of public school districts in Delaware to not more than five districts.’ Good luck with that, regardless of how much sense it may make.
*Now I know why the Senate Executive Committee kept the nominees secret from the public. Here’s the complete list being considered today. Toby Ryan (didn’t know he was still alive) and Tim Sheldon being reappointed to the Delaware Solid Waste Authority. Didn’t know that you had to actually be solid waste to serve on the DSWA. Yikes!
The Senate Natural Resources & Environmental Control Committee will consider SB 64(McBride), which would ‘authorize(s) the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control to adopt guidance and minimum standards to minimize risk from flooding with the input from a stakeholder advisory group’. Looks like a good bill to me. What sayeth you, Tommywonk?
Speaking of flood waters, these are the items that float my boat. YMMV.
My House Committee highlights include:
*Hopefully, the House Energy Committee will make short work of HB 86(Peterman), which would terminate Delaware’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. This legislation courtesy of the Caesar Rodney Institute and the climate change deniers in the General Assembly.
*Monsignor Lavelle’s latest attempt to curry favor with the Catholic Clergy will be considered in the Health & Human Development Committee today. HB 80 raises the age of parental consent for abortions from 16 to 18. Memo to the Progressive Democrats of Delaware: In 2010, you inexplicably endorsed Gerald Brady for reelection while ignoring far more progressive legislators. His name is prominently featured as one of the prime sponsors of this bill. Congratulations on your comprehensive selection criteria. Only other D’s on this bill? Bob Venables and John Atkins.
*John Kowalko’s legislation requiring a one-year moratorium on lobbying from former General Assembly members will be considered in the House Administration Committee today.
*J. J. Johnson takes up the torch passed to him by Al and Hazel Plant. His HB 89, which would require employers to show ‘good cause’ when firing employees with more than a year with the employer, will be considered in today’s House Labor Committee meeting. It might get out of committee but, sadly, it’s not going anywhere because (all together now) it would ‘send the wrong message to business’.
I’ve saved the most momentous news for last:
Wednesday, May 11 at 7:00 p.m. – Governor Markell will sign Senate Bill 30, legalizing civil unions. Doors open at 6:30 p.m. World Cafe Live at the Queen, 500 N Market Street, Wilmington.
I hope and trust that those legislators who have been so instrumental in making this a reality will be able to get out of Dover and to the event in time. As critical as I’ve been of Gov. Markell on his unrelenting obsession with trickle-down economics, no one has come close to Markell in placing the prestige of his office behind ensuring equal rights for all Delawareans. It makes a big difference when a Governor lets legislators know that he’s got their back, and that he’ll be an active participant, not just someone who might or might not sign the legislation when it comes to his desk. That’s why none of this took place during Ruth Ann Minner’s time in office.
BTW, is it possible that the End-of-the Worlders got the date wrong? For many of them, it could happen tonight when the Governor affixes his signature to the civil unions bill. Making tonight the first End-Of-The-World After-Party. Party hearty! But watch out for those red light cameras…
RGGI, which an activist with the 9/12 Delaware Patriot called “a threat to freedom and liberty,” currently costs residential customers 38 cents a month. That’s 0.285 percent of residential electric bills.
Unless you think a Tea Party group inspired by Glenn Beck should set the agenda on renewable energy policy in Delaware, you might want to call your representative to urge that HB 86 be defeated. The CRI has been robo-calling on the issue for two weeks. A few calls from supporters of renewable energy would be welcome.
ElS–thanks for the note on HB80. PDD discussed it at our 5/4 monthly meeting and described why we oppose it in the meeting summary that was posted last week on our Yahoo Group. I have personally reached out to ten legislators, voicing my opposition to HB80.
On Brady’s endorsement, I’m certain that there were several more progressive legislators than Brady in 2010, however we are not mind-readers, and need such candidates/legislators to return questionnaires in order to consider them.
On the topic of questionnaires, in his 2010 survey Brady indicated his support for women’s right to choose.
Perhaps you would be interested in joining PDD this year and joining the PDD Endorsement Committee, to both set the process for 2012, and then serve in 2012 to determine the endorsements? We plan to form the committee this September/October. Even if not, you can encourage progressive legislators that you know to submit their completed surveys next year.
For more information on PDD, including to contribute, go to http://www.progressivedemsdelaware.com/
if the 9/12ers want to see a “threat to freedom and liberty” I have a mirror……….
HB80 is nothing more than a back door attack on womens right to choose. It will be curious to see what democrats (especially the women legislators) vote for this bill. I will bet Stephanie Bolden will vote for it. As the woman from Rose and Prayer stated yesterday, “these young girls can always get a judicial waiver” and in the next breath said, “No judge in the US has gone against the woman”…so why are we putting these young women through this. Its a step that is not necessary. Its a backdoor attack on keeping young women and their families from making this difficult issue even more difficult. I can see girls under 15 having parental consent, but above 16 years? None of us know what difficulties these young women are facing at home.
It’s actually an attack on a girl’s right to choose. Women aren’t affected, unless you intend to employ the “slippery slope” argument, which has no more intellectual validity when a liberal uses it than when a conservative does.
Oh, wait. One group of women would be affected — the parents or legal guardians of the girls in question. You know, the ones who are legally liable for what their children do before they turn 18.
If you listened to the woman from Rose and a Prayer on WDEL yesterday, the logic for HB 80 was established by 2009’s SB 90 (which made parental notification necessary for those under 18 to use a tanning bed). This is not to say that SB 90 wasn’t/isn’t a good idea, but when we are talking of “slippery slopes” or “unintended consequences” this one certainly was a doozy. I’m sure Rep. Williams (10th) didn’t intend to give legitimacy to the argument (that the woman from R&aP specifically used) that “if you have to have your parent’s permission to get a tan, the same standard shouldn’t be used.” It may not be a fair comparison (its not), but it makes for a compelling soundbite in favor of today’s HB 80. Legislators need to get some “talking points” that can kill that argument quickly and effectively or else they will be hard pressed to vote against HB 80.
Great point. Thanks for that reporting FMD.
I’m going to sit in the committee meeting for HB80 today. Can’t wait to hear these arguments!
Thanks, AQC. Please report back!
Those who support the anti-fusion bill have yet to offer one argument as to why the people have a compelling interest in the state interferring in the nominating processes of political parties. Making statements like “either you belong to a party or don’t” is to do nothing more than mutter a tautology.
Muttering tautologies is my bread and butter!! I’ll take a stab at an argument though. When a party chooses a candidate through a primary or caucus, they are choosing a person to receive the imprimatur of the membership of that party. Low information voters can use that endorsement as a guide when making a voting decision.
When a fusion candidate graphs themselves onto a second party – they are trying to steal a bit of that imprimatur and/or muddy the water regarding the legitimacy of that endorsement.
This is pretty straightforward to me. Maybe that’s why nobody is going around making the argument.
“they are trying to steal a bit of that imprimatur”
You can’t steal what has been given to you. Candidates don’t “steal” party nominations. They receive them.
I still don’t see why the people have a compelling interest in the state interferring in the nominating processes of political parties.
Is the law interested in interfering with political parties, or does it attempt to limit political parties from interfering with each other?
I’m not real strident on this, but I looked up “political party” on wikipedia to check my thinking and I think this definition supports my argument: “A political party is a political organization that typically seeks to influence government policy, usually by nominating their own candidates and trying to seat them in political office.”
Greg Lavelle is mocking Terry Schooley on the research she presented. He looks petty
I think that the anti-fusion bill would have kept John Atkins off of the ballot in his comeback election. So from that standpoint, it makes me happy.
However, there should be no laws that give priority to organized political parties over individuals. If the Democrats in the 41st wanted John Atkins as their candidate, even if he was still a Republican in the eyes of the Department of Elections, so be it.
The Wikipedia definition is correct in that a political party usually does (and I would add “should”) select their own political candidates. As such, HB 11 banning fusion candidates would normally be a worthwhile bill.
However, if you also consider that Delaware’s primary elections are closed (in that only members of a party can vote in that party’s primary), then it must be said that the party already does select their own political candidates. If we had open primaries, then HB 11 would be necessary.
Closed primaries limits who can vote, this bill limits who can run.
I won’t get into it here, as most of you know where I stand on this anti-fusion BS. This bill concentrates power to the political parties and candidates (ie REAL PEOPLE). I am with Dana on this 100%. The parties have enough power. No need to further concentrate it.
HR3 the federal bill to ban abortion funded with taxpayer dollars passed the House. Of course there are no public or tax payer funds going to pay for abortions, but the repukes had to give something to the right wing thug baggers to keep their seats.
Geezer: That crap from a Rose and a Prayer conversation would be more aptly titled a “wing and a prayer”. Every attack on womens rights is a slippery slope. I looked up every states age limit for consent and the majority is at age 16. And I believe a 17, 18 yr old is a woman. I dont want some silly white guy sitting in a judges chamber deciding my daughters fate. The Rose and Prayer lady stated, “No Judge has ever refused an abortion for a young woman”…if thats true, why would we have young women going before a judge who is going to agree with her. This is a slippery slope, how many young women would be aware they have the judge option. Who will inform them…Rose and Prayer? Delaware’s existing law on age of consent under 16…is just fine the way it is.
the democratic party hates the fusion option. They want to make sure there are only two parties in this state. They want control. Delaware is only one of a few states with fusion options.
HB80 has been tabled.
@anon–
Every attack on womens rights is a slippery slope.
The NRA uses that argument when Gun Control is the topic at hand. It’s a lame argument in both cases.
I looked up every states age limit for consent and the majority is at age 16.
The fact that states allow minors to consent to sex before they are legally “adults” has nothing to do with Delaware’s laws regarding surgical procedures. All procedures except abortion require the patient who grants consent to be 18 or older, OR have consent from a parent or guardian OR be emancipated from his/her parents.
Abortion is a medical procedure. A doctor cannot remove a cyst or a lesion from a minor’s skin w/o parental consent. Why should a much more complicated medical procedure (with potentially devastating psychological and/or medical consequences) such as abortion be held to a lesser standard?
And I believe a 17, 18 yr old is a woman.
Your beliefs are irrelevant. 70% of Delawareans agree w/ this, as does the current law where all other medical procedures are concerned.
I dont want some silly white guy sitting in a judges chamber deciding my daughters fate.
Nor do I. Let Calvin Scott hear all such cases. (hint–he’s not white!)
FYI, HB 86 did not make it out of committee.
Geezer embraces the anti-choice meme?
Do you have a refutation of what I wrote? Because I’d be glad to hear a good reason why I’m legally liable for my child until the age of majority — a responsibility the law forces upon me — but I won’t be notified if that child wants to undergo a medical procedure? Does the state have a compelling reason to take this right — one equal to the responsibility — away from me?
@John Manifold–
Were you listening to the radio this morning? If you were, you’d have a very clear idea of Geezer’s thoughts on this topic.
Hard to “refute” anti-choice zealots, especially here. H.B. 80 is their attempt to restrict access to choice.
There’s nothing wrong or unconstitutional about restricting the rights of MINORS. Hell, we restrict the rights of ADULTS to legally consume alcohol!
Is your real name Alan Alda?
“H.B. 80 is their attempt to restrict access to choice.”
For 16- and 17-year-olds. The “slippery slope” is the only argument you’ve got? Because that’s as weak as arguments get. Calling me a “zealot” over that point is, as you’re aware, an ad hominem attack that’s supposed to intimidate me because, oh dear, I might not be progressive enough for you.
If that’s your argument, you prove my point. You got nothin.
Let’s require parental notification for abortion and totally ignore the fact the fact that the need for some abortions arises out of family sexual abuse. That sounds like a good idea if you don’t give a shit about girls getting raped by their fathers, brothers, uncles, etc.
Never mind the parents who are just pro-life assholes and would willingly ruin their kid’s life by forcing them to give birth. I had an abortion when I was fifteen. If I had been required to tell my parents, I’d be the mother of a 12-year-old now, and probably living on the street.
But hey, who cares about a woman’s opinion here when this issue affects you men so much…
I didn’t say anything about “slippery slope.” Geezer invoked that cliché. This legislation is part of a nationwide attack on women’s reproductive rights. It’s happening next door http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/121689839.html. HB 80 is the Delaware version. It attacks a nonexistent problem, and would cause severe harm in real situations. It ends a young woman’s ability to speak to a mental health professional in lieu of parental notification. It will compound the harm faced by victims of abuse.
“That sounds like a good idea if you don’t give a shit about girls getting raped by their fathers, brothers, uncles, etc.
The law has provisions for such cases. But beyond that, how many of these cases actually exist? I hear about them all the time, but I suspect they’re as rare in real life as the scare scenarios the anti-abortion people love to spout.
I’m not in favor of this law; I think it addresses a non-problem. My point is that you cannot cite a logically consistent reason why it takes parental consent to do just about everything but get an abortion.
Abortion providers got special treatment on inspection of clinics, too. That led pretty directly to Mr., formerly Dr., Kermit Gosnell.
Melissa, I’m sorry about your personal situation. But when you’re talking about what my daughter does at 16 or 17, it does affect a man who’s the child’s parent. That’s the law. Sorry you don’t like it; neither do I.
Getting one’s ears pierced has negligible lifetime effect. A parent deciding to force their child to be a parent creates a life long irreversible effect on the child/parent. That is just wrong.
“Getting one’s ears pierced has negligible lifetime effect.”
Exactly. Yet a 17-year-old can’t have it done without consent.
I would also note that, for logical consistency, a 17-year-old dependent on her parents (this excludes those who are married) should require parental consent to give birth, too. Because the reality is that just as often parents insist on an abortion when the girl wants to keep the baby.
The only thing this bill will accomplish is sending scared, pregnant teens into places like Dr. Gosnell’s dirty death pit clinic to get abortions that they can no longer get in safer, cleaner, law abiding clinics.
This is a bad bill and should not be passed.
There is nothing logical about our regulation of minors. Look at the ages we set for drinking, driving, military service, and voting. Abortion is a special case because parents are often irrational about it. And the parents who are most irrational are exactly the ones who should not be notified. For parents who are rational and supportive, their children will tell them anyway.
“The only thing this bill will accomplish is sending scared, pregnant teens into places like Dr. Gosnell’s dirty death pit clinic to get abortions that they can no longer get in safer, cleaner, law abiding clinics.”
You couldn’t be further from correct. “Dr.” Gosnell’s clinic were, as far as authorities knew, abiding by the laws regarding abortions. If he accepted underage girls without parental consent, it would be because he wasn’t abiding by that law either. You have no facts, so you must rely on the creation of sympathic but mostly fictional young women to give your argument some heft. Sorry, but until you can produce some stats on these cases, I can’t see the wisdom of denying parental rights to thousands to supposedly benefit a tiny number of people.
When you require parental consent for abortions, the teens determined to have those abortions end up at clinics like Gosnell’s specifically because he preforms illegal abortions.
Does anyone think that drs who do illegal, late term abortions like Gosnell would abide by the parental consent law?
This law will result in desperate teenage girls crossing state lines for abortions, trying to abort their fetuses with herbal concoctions you find on the internet, going to clinics like Gosnell’s or worse, or other desperate actions.
Desperate people do desperate things.
This is a bad bill. If it passes the legislature I will pray that Governor Markell vetoes it.
For teens, the problem is more that they will resort to self-abortions using methods that are both silly and grotesque if they don’t have any other options for choosing not to give birth. Giving teens the option to choose an abortion without a parent’s consent pretty much gives the young woman whose family unit isn’t exactly working well a chance to make her choice without that dysfunctional family. Unfortunately, this society is rigged so that women are the ones responsible for pregnancies and doubly so if they are pregnant while very young or single. This bill will make sure that some young women are forced into giving birth, but these same responsible parents aren’t going to be forced to support her or the baby.
These forced birth bills will only make sense when:
1. Parents are also forced to support young woman and baby for some period
2. Men who are the fathers of these babies (and *their* parents, if he is underage) are forced to hand over financial support for the baby.
If this is about parental accountability, let’s make sure that *everyone* with some accountability (including parents) in this thing has to live with the draconian (and state enforced) consequences.
Cassandra, could you move this excellent comment to my new post. I thought this topic deserved its own platform. Yet again… great minds! 😉
“When you require parental consent for abortions, the teens determined to have those abortions end up at clinics like Gosnell’s specifically because he preforms illegal abortions.”
Evidence, please.
“Does anyone think that drs who do illegal, late term abortions like Gosnell would abide by the parental consent law?”
So, by your logic, we should not enact any laws, because criminals will simply ignore them. That’s a circular argument, not logic.
“This law will result in desperate teenage girls crossing state lines for abortions”
Ironically, many of the girls who got abortions at Gosnell’s clinic were from out of state, brought here by advertising about our lenient parental notification laws. So the reality is exactly the opposite of what you describe — the clinics that employed Gosnell thrived specifically because of Delaware’s laws.
Cass: This is not about parental accountability. It’s about a parent’s legal rights. And I will repeat: The irresponsibility exhibited by some parents is not a logical or justifiable excuse for taking rights away from other parents.
There are methods for removing children from the kinds of homes you folks keep describing. Are you in favor of doing so only once the girls get pregnant?
It’s about a parent’s legal rights.
Um, a parent’s legal rights are determined by law – which is what we are talking about her, making laws. Unless you are making some kind of a “natural law” argument?
Yes, of course we are. I’m asking why a parent’s rights and responsibilities extend to age 18 for everything except abortion. It’s a question you still can’t answer in a logical way. Which is why you answered a point I directed at Cass instead of the questions I directed at you.
I have answered every question anyone has put to me on this subject. You could at least extend the same courtesy.
When you require parental consent for abortions, the teens determined to have those abortions end up at clinics like Gosnell’s specifically because he preforms illegal abortions.”
Evidence, please.
The evidence is historical, when abortion was illegal, desperate women braved unsanitary and dangerous conditions to get abortions. Or are we going to pretend that no one had an abortion before Roe v. Wade?
You are arguing from a position with no evidence. As I have pointed out, the exact opposite is true: Such girls ended up at Gosnell’s under current law.
While I think that parents should be able to make decisions regarding the health of their children (except where their decision will likely result in the death or disability of their child), I do not think that they should have the right to tell their teenage daughters to not get an abortion. The problem w/ those who think that parents should have that right is that they assume that the ramifications of that decision only extend to the health of their child, but clearly it does not. By telling their daughters not to have an abortion, they are committing their child to a lifelong relationship that will extend even into their daughter’s adult years. I can no more support a parent’s right to do that than I could support a parent’s “right” to commit their daugters to relationships in arranged marriages.