Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Go Vote Today (Plus Open Thread)

And please, vote for Creigh Deeds - unless you really think that an increase in taxes isn't needed to fix the crumbling transportation infrastructure, that working women and feminists are 'detrimental' to the family, that contraceptives should be made illegal again, and that the state's anti-discrimination laws shouldn't apply to gays and lesbians - he's the guy for you.

EDIT: Well, that's our take. Feel free to sound off in the comments if you think differently. If you have something substantive-yet-pithy to say - in the interests of being fair and balanced, etc. - we'll put it in the main thread. Thanks

Related:
Washington Post Endorsement of Creigh Deeds

59 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for reminding me to vote for Bob McDonnell. I almost forgot.

What a stupid post. A UVa Law student should be bright enough to understand the difference between thinking Connecticut v. Griswold was bad law, and that "contraceptives should be illegal again".

Are you actually dumb enough to think that Bob McDonnell is going ban or attempt to ban contraceptives? He's going to be our next governor - let's see if contraceptives are illegal in Virginia in the next four years. If they are, I'll apologize to you.

Anonymous said...

Agreed! Down with the Dems. McDonnell will win by 15+ points. Liberals are so arrogant they actually think everyone agrees with them.

Anonymous said...

This post is reeking of arrogance:

"Unless you're a complete Neanderthal, vote for my candidate!"

Rule 12 (f) said...

"Are you actually dumb enough to think that Bob McDonnell is going ban or attempted to ban contraceptives?"


McDonnell not only thinks contraceptives are wrong - as evinced by harsh (and bizarre) criticism of the Griswold case, but he has also, in fact, voted to restrict the use of contraceptives throughout his career in government.

Consider what a simple google search for "McDonnell contraceptives" might have netted you before you made your asinine comment:

"1997, McDonnell opposed a bill to prohibit the denial of benefits for prescription contraceptives. Then in 2002, McDonnell voted to pass a bill to expand the state’s ‘conscience clause,’ to health-care professionals who don’t want to dispense “birth-control pill or other medicine for the purpose of performing an abortion.” In 2003, McDonnell voted to pass a bill to allow health care professionals to refuse to dispense birth control pills without fear of disciplinary or legal action."

Hopefully, if McDonell wins, more moderate minds will stymie his efforts to turn back the clock on contraception. But if history is any indication, we can expect McDonnell to give this - and many other ultra-conservative elements in his platform - a shot.

Anonymous said...

"This post is reeking of arrogance:

"Unless you're a complete Neanderthal, vote for my candidate!""

- but that's the point, McDonnell is an ultra-conservative candidate . . .

Anonymous said...

Awesome. This will be the biggest Republican landslide in VA since George Allen, and might even beat that.

But, But, But, Whaahhh. Bob McDonnell is conservative - don't you understand?

Anonymous said...

The ‘conscience clause' and the 2003 bill allow pharmacists at mom & pop pharmacies, who for their own moral reasons don't believe in the morning after pill, to not have to distribute it. That's a far stretch from wanting to ban contraceptives, and probably a position that 70 percent of Virginians would support. You might disagree with his position, but you should disagree in a manner that doesn't A. completely distort McDonnell's position, and B. insinuate that anyone who wouldn't vote for Deeds is a knuckle-dragger.

To say that supporting the 'conscience clause' means that he wants to ban contraceptives is just silly, and a good example at why Creigh Deeds campaign has been such a disaster.

People don't believe that Bob McDonnell hates women and wants to ban all condoms because it's not plausible.

But people DO believe that your candidate, Creigh Deeds, is a bumbling idiot without any plans, save the raising of taxes, because they can watch his debate performances and figure it out for themselves.

That's why the latest SUSA poll has Bob up 19 points in a state that Obama won by 6.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2009/09/fact_check_contraception_for_m.html

Rule 12 (f) said...

If you are preventing people from getting an important form of emergency contraception (the morning-after pill), you're banning it. In some parts of the state, those pharmacies might be the only ones available, and what McDonnell supported effectively means that those people couldn't have access to contraception, or at least that access would be more difficult.

In any event, it's certainly not a stretch to say making contraceptives more difficult to get is the first step toward getting rid of them.

Deeds will probably lose, no disagreement there - I never claimed otherwise. As for being a "bumbling idiot", Deed's speech impediment and lack of debating skills never struck me as a reason not to support him.

Anonymous said...

If he had a speech impediment, I agree that it would be incredibly rude to attack him over it. But even according to him, he doesn't. He gets nervous when he's called out for flip-flopping.

1. he's never claimed to have a speech impediment before that infamous post-debate performance;

2. no one has ever written about it before that post-debate performance;

3. even the campaign denied that he has a speech impediment;

4. the stuttering ONLY happens when he is asked about taxes or explaining how he wants it both ways on the public option.

Anonymous said...

9:50 here -

Sorry about the tone. I obviously disagree with your take, and think you were being unfair, but I shouldn't have gotten personal and you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

You run a good blog here, and if I could delete (or amend) my earlier comment I would.

Rule 12 (f) said...

9.50: We're straight, homie - no worries.

10.32: I do think he has a speech impediment, and a lot of major media outlets agree - it's a pronounced stutter, and I've heard it at other times too, even when he's discussing something nonpolitical. As for his campaign, maybe they thought admitting to it would make him look weak? Who knows - anyway, it's not something that's likely to be resolved by talking about over a blog; we can both agree that Deeds is a just terrible public speaker, whether it comes from an actual impediment, or just a lack of forensic expertise/experience, or both.

Still, I don't vote based on oratory skills, I vote based on policy and ideas.

Anonymous said...

For the record, George Allen got 58.3% of the vote in 1993.

Anonymous said...

"In some parts of the state, those pharmacies might be the only ones available."

12(f) - I don't know if you are from downstate Virginia. I am, and I daresay that there is not a single place in the state that is
a) less than 30 minutes from a mom and pop, but
b) more than 30 minutes from a drugstore chain.

Extreme Appalachia, which by all measures is the most remote part of the state, is covered with Rite-Aids.

This isn't Wyoming.

Anonymous said...

10:49 AM can't see the forest for the trees...

Anonymous said...

I'm pro-choice, but I'm not comfortable with the State forcing someone to sell something that they find morally objectionable. Someone might have to drive an extra ten-minutes to get to a different pharmacy (I imagine this clause would only apply to a small percentage of pharmacists), but so what? No one is entitled to have a pharmacy next door, and if the area desperately needs that type of pharmacy, then there will be a market for it to open.

Anonymous said...

I'll be glad when you get out of the law school bubble and in to the real world. You'll find that social positions that have little to no affect on your life as opposed to issues like HAVING A JOB.

- married to a very pro-choice Republican who realizes that there's no way Roe V. Wade will ever be overturned, but that the economy is in the crapper.

p.s. doesn't help that Deeds might be the worst gubernatorial candidate in recent history.

Rule 12 (f) said...

"I'll be glad when you get out of the law school bubble and in to the real world. You'll find that social positions that have little to no affect on your life as opposed to issues like HAVING A JOB."

I think that "having a job" concerns current law students quite a bit - as this blog has often chronicled!

Anonymous said...

10:56 AM - 10:49 here.

No I am not missing the forest for the trees. If the argument is that a teenager girl in Appalachia won't be able to use emergency contraception after a bad choice at the prom, then that argument is bogus.

Having verified the ability of anyone to use emergency contraception with, at most, marginal additional inconvenience, the issue becomes whether the law should allow freedom of conscience for pharmacists who have moral objections to dispensing this drug. I say it should.

Yup said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I have a question (I'm honestly not familiar with the subject): would the 'conscience clause' only apply to mom & pop pharmacies, and not to bigger drugstores like Rite-Aid?

Anonymous said...

"Awesome. This will be the biggest Republican landslide in VA since George Allen, and might even beat that."

But with comparable results to election of Jim Gilmore.

Anonymous said...

This silly "Conscience Clause" thing doesn't prevent ole' Mom & Pop from firing the idiot who isn't doing his job by refusing to dispense contraception, does it?

Anonymous said...

I think 10.56's point was that it's a slippery slope, and the "conscience" legislation could be interpreted as the beginning of efforts to more and more restrict access to contraceptives.

It's a sensible argument and response to assertion that Creigh Deed's opposition to Griswold won't come out in practice.

- NOT 10:56

Anonymous said...

3:13, do you mean McDonnell's opposition to Griswold?

I am also somewhat ignorant of the conscience clause business. Does it allow a "mom and pop" to not stock the Plan B pill whatsoever, or for them to make personal judgments about whether they will sell the pill to specific customers that come in to purchase it? I would find the latter much more objectionable...

Anonymous said...

Who cares about poor people?

O wait, that will include 50% of the UVA 2010, 2011, and 2012 classes.

Anonymous said...

The beliefs of a candidate on issues absolutely matter, even if the candidate, should he win, is unlikely to decide directly on those issues.

Elections are about predicting agendas and policy positions in a world of imperfect information-- where candidates aren't exactly showing their hands.

So the issue with McConnell's opposition to Griswold is not that we worry he'll ban contraceptives. It's evidence of the positions he might take on other pressing issues that will undoubtedly form part of the agenda for conservatives in Virginia (like those access-to-contraceptives issues Rule 12(f) cited, and a host of other social policies that are even less tightly related to the issue of contraception).

Similarly, Deeds' fumbling through articulations of his transportation plan is not good evidence that he won't do anything about transportation problems. We know what the transportation debate is in Virginia. We know what the solutions are, largely. And we generally know the candidates' positions on them.

Deeds is open to tax cuts, and watns non-Virginian users to share part of the burden.

McDonnell is opposed to raising sufficient funds to pay for necessary investments. Anything that might be conceived as a tax--even if the burden is shared by non-Virginians-- is off the table for him. His proposed cuts in services and paltry one-time efforts to raise cash (like privatizing VABC) simply won't raise enough money. And if you think he'll cut even more in services to pay for transportation, just look at the rate of increase of spending on state services-- even under Republican governors-- in Virginia and nationwide. Even assuming an unusually aggressive approach to controlling spending and introducing efficiencies into current state programs, it's crazy to think that he will actually cut enough to pay for roads.

Note that we're bracketing the issue of whether those cuts would be desirable in the first place-- the issue here is simply *predicting whether significant investments in transportation will actually happen under a McDonnell administration.*

I mean, maybe you think McDonnell is a smarter guy. But what policy innovation do you think will create roads for free?

Our only hope would be for McDonnell to forsake a future in the Republican Party of Virginia, see the light, transgress his campaign promises not to raise taxes or charge user fees and so on. I think this is a possible scenario-- he would be term limited and certainly has national ambitions-- but is it worth the risk?

Anonymous said...

My problem with the conscience clause is as follows: if we're going to open the door to third parties sticking their noses in the medical advice that treating physicians give to their patients, (a) why privilege pharmacists, and (b) why limit our moral concern to contraception?

(a) Why don't we also allow other people (besides pharmacists) who have some moral objection to a doctor's prescription to refuse to participate in the "chain of contraception"? These people might include the nurses who perform a patient's intake evaluation, the hospital administrator who fills out the paperwork for insurance reimbursement--maybe even the receptionist who schedules a follow-up visit with the patient. Heck, in cases of rape or incest, it might even include the police officer who transports the victim to the hospital for an examination ("I'm sorry ma'am, but another officer will arrive shortly to take you to the hospital--I have a moral objection to contraception, and I fear the doctor may prescribe emergency contraception for you.").

(b) Why not allow pharmacists to exercise their moral judgment on *any* kind of medical treatment? Maybe the pharmacist is a Scientologist, and believes that psychiatry is evil (for instance, if Tom Cruise ran a pharmacy). The pharmacist should be able to refuse to dispense antipsychotic drugs to the schizophrenic, or sedatives to the PTSD veteran. Perhaps the pharmacist should be able to refuse to dispense drugs for diabetes, high cholesterol, or heart disease, out of a conviction that only fat and lazy people need these kinds of drugs, and that they should try a good diet and exercise instead.

This isn't a slippery slope argument--I don't have the slightest suspicion that advocates of the conscience clause would seriously advocate (a) or (b). But I think this all suggests that the arguments used in favor of the conscience clause are fundamentally dishonest--since the rationale traditionally cited cuts much farther than anyone would think reasonable. Let's me honest: conscience clause advocates are really just upset about the availability of contraception, and the conscience clause is nothing more than a fig leaf to make contraception harder to get.

Anonymous said...

We are far afield from the Governor's race, but this became a federal issue when Bush expanded a federal conscience clause on 1/20/09

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/18/AR2008121801556.html

Followed by Obama repealing it a month later.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/conscience.rollback/index.html

Anonymous said...

Here here, 4:32!

Anonymous said...

Could we get an updated poll post on 2L job offers? I need to know how many brethren I have in the world of the unemployed.

Anonymous said...

Better run out and stock up on birth control!! I'm SURE the new Governor will outlaw it in the next few months.

Anonymous said...

4.32: If a pharmacist refuses to disburse any drug and there is a high enough demand for those drugs, someone else will come in, offer it, and take over the market. Is it that hard to understand how someone could morally object to the morning after pill. Why should a mom and pop pharmacy have to facilitate the dumb decisions of stupid teenagers. If they put themselves in the predicament of having unprotected sex, they should be responsible for searching out someone who is willing to give them a drug that many people find objectionable. The slippery slope argument works both ways. Are we going to force doctors to commit abortions just because they are doctors?

Anonymous said...

58.64% - Damn It Feels Good To Be A Gangsta

Anonymous said...

Let's see if the liberals will go buy futures in Virginian contraceptives. After all, with the supply about to crash, prices should shoot up.

Or maybe the whole "Bob McDonnell will ban your birth-control" was just a dishonest campaign slogan?

(I'm fully aware that you cannot buy futures in contraceptives)

Anonymous said...

The previous 4 posters are the same person.

Anonymous said...

Not to mention that it appears most of these posters are guys who have no idea what birth control, or the morning after pill, are and how they work. Newsflash: Morning after pill does not equal abortion! At all! In any way! Whatsoever!

Anonymous said...

Yay! The good guys won!

Anonymous said...

this election came down to Wake Forest Law vs. Regent Law. Regent won.

Anonymous said...

10.09: Some would disagree with you. Some would agree that it is not technically abortion, but is still morally questionable. Planned parenthood even admits that it could prevent a fertilized egg from maturing:

"The hormones also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus."

Can't we just agree that people disagree with the morality of the drug and allow people the freedom to follow their belief (it seems like we have some kind of law that protects that ... maybe the first amendment or something), rather than having someone force you to distribute something you think is morally wrong?

J. Crew Model said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I like how Deeds' advertisements touted the fact that he was going to regulate the market, and criticized a McDonnell as a deregulator. Who doesn't want more government intervention in the market? I know I hate freedom!

Anonymous said...

8:14 - 4:32 here. Just to clear the air, allow me to quote from myself: "This isn't a slippery slope argument. But I think this all suggests that the arguments used in favor of the conscience clause are fundamentally dishonest..."

Let me amend that statement, since it appears that there are also some serious misconceptions at work in your argument. Please understand that we're talking about *contraception*, not abortion. As 10:09 points out, the morning after pill is emergency *contraception*--as in, prevents pregnancy from occurring. It's the functional equivalent of a condom. And please consult 10:01's comments up top: "In 2003, McDonnell voted to pass a bill to allow health care professionals to refuse to dispense birth control pills without fear of disciplinary or legal action." Birth control pills. As in *contraception*. So let me amend my statement: arguments in favor of the conscience clause are either fundamentally dishonest *or* based on ignorance of scientific fact.

Now if you're not dishonest and you're not an ignoramus, please explain why the logic of the conscience clause should not apply to (a) anybody else besides pharmacists, or (b) any moral concerns about medical treatment besides contraception.

I'm saying that the real issue here is whether you should have the power to make it harder for other people, besides yourself, to have access to contraception. If you have a moral objection to contraception being available to other people, then that's a debate we should have in the open--and not cloaked in misleading rhetoric. I'd just be very surprised to find any sexually active law student who has an *honest* moral objection to contraception.

Anonymous said...

If UVA law students would stop being drunken whores, maybe they wouldn't be so wrapped up about the new Governor's position on abortion, etc.

Anonymous said...

10:52 AM says: "I'm saying that the real issue here is whether you should have the power to make it harder for other people, besides yourself, to have access to contraception."

With respect, that's not the real issue at all. A little background might help. In some other states, Pharmacy Boards or legislatures passed or were contemplating passing "must fill" regs. Pharmacists would have to fill all legally written prescriptions as a condition of continued operation.

The [proposed] Virginia bill would have stated, as a matter of law, that nothing in the Virginia Code shall "prohibit any physician, pharmacist, or other medical or health care professional from exercising conscientious refusal in dispensing or administering any medication prescribed for the purpose of performing or causing an abortion."

Isn't that the essence of a diverse, pluralistic position. If you want to buy and use Plan B, fine. Just go to a MD who will prescribe it and a pharmacist who will fill the prescription. But don't make an agreement to fill the prescription a condition of licensure or operation.

Anonymous said...

This may be a little too basic on my part in terms of reasoning, but what entitles a pharmacist to have the power to derail the physician-client relationship and effectively prevent a woman from exercising her constitutional right to control her own medical treatment? Maybe VA doesn't (arguably) present any problems w/finding an alternative retailer, but there sure as hell are plenty of states in the Midwest that would. And like the other poster has said, there seems to be no rumbling about moral objections to dispensing abusable drugs (e.g., codeine), just contraception. Seems like a bunch of BS to me. Just more underhanded attempts to prevent women from exercising control over their own bodies.

Anonymous said...

11:57 - I thought we were talking about Virgnia's governor and his vote in Virginia. What does that have to do with Midwestern states? Even if you are correct in saying it would be a problem there (which I don't think you can substantiate), that has nothing to do with Virginia.

Also, why should a mom and pop pharmacy have the duty to allow a woman to do something with her body that they believe is morally objectionable? The so called "conscience clause" does nothing to prevent a woman from doing whatever she wants to her body. It just says that other people don't have a duty to facilitate what she wants to do.

Anonymous said...

Wow, apparently 3:35PM lacks any understanding of how "precedent" works in the real world... VA doesn't live in a political and judicial bubble, dude. Believe it or not, it does matter what happens in other states.

Anonymous said...

"duty to allow a woman to do something with her body that they believe is morally objectionable"

Duty to *allow* a woman.... think about what you're saying. Repeat it a couple times. Real. Slow.

Anonymous said...

7:06 -- It matters, but it shouldn't in this election. Makes no sense to say, "This proposed law, which doesn't present a problem in the state in which it is proposed, should not be passed because it might be a problem in another state that this legislature/gov don't control." In this "real world" of yours, does Kansas blindly enact every statute Virginia adopts without confirming that it won't present problems there that it didn't here?

7:07 -- No idea why that guy said "duty to allow a woman," which certainly sounds (and is) terrible. But rephrase it as it should have been -- "why should a pharmacy have the obligation to provide chemicals that will be used to do something they object to" -- and I think the "live and let live" side comes out the other way.

For what it's worth -- I'm a man, I'm extremely in favor of widespread, easily-available birth control (including emergency contraception)... and I also think no business should be forced by the state to sell products that its owners or employees find especially objectionable.

Anonymous said...

There's an easy solution for the person who has a moral objection to selling certain kinds of medication to certain people: it's called "Don't Become a Pharmacist." There are plenty of other ways to make a living. But if you choose to enter a profession that will place you in what you consider to be morally ambiguous situations (future lawyers take note!), then you should be prepared to live with the economic consequences of the decisions you make.

If I'm a vegan and I choose to get a job in a slaughterhouse, I'm going to face some difficult choices. I may refuse to take part in killing the cute little animals, and that's certainly my prerogative--but it's also my employer's prerogative to fire me and hire someone who can actually do the job.

If the legislature awards me with a conscience clause, though, I can keep my job, collect my paycheck, and skip out on part of my duties--and the slaughterhouse will be legally prohibited from firing or disciplining me. Somehow that sounds a little more coercive than all the "live and let live" rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

9:47 PM makes a great point, and I'm surprised it has not really been brought up yet. The pharmacist essentially acts as a middleman for the doctor and patient. Although pharmacists as individuals require technical training, the business itself is essentially the role of retailer. If you can't handle the demands of the market, find another profession. I think it's far more objectionable to impose your personal beliefs on (yes yes, "possibly") stranded patients than to have to opt for a different profession. A person with enough intelligence to own a business can probably find another job. A woman facing an unwanted pregnancy because she was refused contraception properly prescribed by her doctor cannot simply find a different future.

Anonymous said...

10:51 said:

I like how Deeds' advertisements touted the fact that he was going to regulate the market, and criticized a McDonnell as a deregulator. Who doesn't want more government intervention in the market? I know I hate freedom!

-----------

what a sophisticated argument you have here.

Anonymous said...

FYI, Plan B doesn't require a prescription. So you're getting between a woman and... what she wants. Not a good idea, but her doctor isn't necessarily involved.

Also, I think 9:47 and I have a different view of the conscience clause. My understanding was that it prevents the state from yanking a pharmacist's license for refusal to dispense a certain medication. NOT that it prevents CVS from firing a rogue pharmacist for not following company policy. If I'm wrong, I'd welcome a citation, because I'd change my mind on this issue.

That said, while I support the conscience clause as I understand it, I would think exercising it is actually more likely to cause an abortion than to change sexual behavior. So I would hope pro-life pharmacists realize what Plan B is and isn't, and choose to dispense it, even if they don't have to.

Anonymous said...

Deeds got crushed, you hipster.

Anonymous said...

FYI, birth control DOES require a prescription. Douche.

Anonymous said...

8:31 -- Birth control, yes. Plan B, no. Douche.

Of course, if you tend to mostly purchase it for girls under 18, I can see how you might be mistaken.

See http://www.walgreens.com/marketing/library/ask/aap/birthcontrol/birthcontrol_planbprescription.jsp

Anonymous said...

LOL @ the editor of this blog trying to be all "progressive" and s***. Being progressive doesn't stop people from thinking you're ugly and annoying.

Anonymous said...

Wow... great to see people are so argumentative that they must reduce themselves to citing Walgreens websites. Like, srsly dude? Get the fuck off this blog and go knock one out, because you certainly need better things to do with your time. Pretty obvious the commenter was pointing out to you that the issue is bigger than just handing out Plan B. But you've used Walgreens as authority, so I guess you win, right? Great job, there.

As an apparent side note (and the reason why I even clicked to comment) Deeds basically handed the election to the Repubs, so I wouldn't go chest-beating and yelling "AMERICA!" tooooo fast. Will be very interested to see what recent political developments will do for the upcoming Senate vote on healthcare reform...

- 4L

Anonymous said...

This just in: health care bill doesn't have a 3L's chance at OGI of passing the Senate.