Stevens has a blog!

Read about his thoughts on Boehner's visit to Loudoun!

EXCLUSIVE!!! Interview with Jeff Barnett: Pro-choice Edition

Jeff, thank you so much for taking the time to answer some questions for my blog. So let's start with the big one: where do you stand on Choice?



Thank you, Liz, for the invitation. The question you ask is a very important one to me, and it's something I've felt strongly about for much of my life. In a modern democracy - one that prides itself on being a free society - few things could be more important than a woman's right to control her own body. The decision to have a child should be made by a woman in consultation with her family, her doctor, and her god. The government has no place in that conversation.

What did you think of Cuccinelli's opinion on abortion providers in Virginia?




I disagree strongly with Mr. Cuccinelli's opinion. Singling out abortion providers for significantly stricter oversight is not so much an attempt to protect our health as an attempt to discriminate against certain outpatient centers and shut down clinics that perform abortions. I will discourage the Attorney General's office from using the people's tax dollars to crusade against constitutionally permissible and medically accepted treatment.

Would you be in favor of repealing the Stupak amendment [no insurance plan that uses Federal funds can cover abortion]?



The health care reform legislation was a monumental achievement, and we drew support from a wide variety of legislators to get it done. I won't do anything to jeopardize our commitment to providing medical care to millions of previously uninsured Americans.

If I have the chance to repeal the anti-choice provisions of the health care reform without damaging the law's broader goals, I will seize the opportunity. Realistically, however, I don't know how likely that is to happen right away. We got the much-needed votes to pass health care reform legislation from a lot of people who oppose choice, and we got them because the President gave his word that certain things would happen. The President isn't a man who takes his promises lightly, and I'm not a man who asks him to break them. Making sure these health care plans cover abortion is important. This is a battle that we're going to win, but not within the next few months.

The Stupak Amendment makes it all the more important, then, that we make sure that the other means of securing the procedure are available and fully funded. There are many private channels that we must reinforce in order to make sure that this procedure isn't only available to the wealthy. In the absence of public funding, we have an obligation as leaders to make sure women are aware of the full range of contraceptive, preventive, and emergency options available to them.

Do you agree that medically required abortions (ones where the fetus is already deceased, for example) should not be treated differently from other medical procedures and shouldn't require special insurance?


Yes, I agree. I understand why the issue of choice is, in many circumstances, contentious. People of good conscience can have powerful differences on these fundamental issues. But the idea that health insurance would not cover treatment that is medically necessary to save a woman's life is unacceptable.

Do you think that oral contraceptives should be available without a prescription?



Yes, I do: you shouldn't need a doctor's permission to take control of your own body. Nevertheless, I think that opponents of this practice have some important concerns that we should address as we move towards making a range of contraceptives more readily available. Oral contraceptives, like many drugs, affect the way the body works in significant ways, and they aren't without side effects, however rare. Furthermore, reliance on birth control that isn't being properly used can lead to some pretty significant consequences. For those two reasons, it's helpful to have guidance when beginning a significant new medical regimen of any kind, birth control or otherwise.

The way to fight the side effects of oral contraceptives and to make sure they aren't misused isn't with prohibition and restriction: it's with information and education. I believe that oral contraceptives should be available without a prescription, but I also think that it's important that, when possible, we continue to consult our doctors before making significant medical decisions.

Do you think that pharmacists should be required to provide legally prescribed medication to their customers and patients?



Yes. Freedom of choice and freedom over your body don't mean much if you can't access the medication you need.



Thank you again, Jeff, for taking the time to answer my questions.

Back to School Nights!

The weather outside is delightful. Sunsets, balmy breezes, that slight rustle from leaves preparing to change. And that happy refrain, "Hi! I'm Liz Miller! My friend Jeff Barnett is running for Congress!"

"He's Feisty!"

Stevens was on the WMAL talk radio show, the Grandy Group, today. His segment starts at 1:14 and ends at 1:25 (with a comment from a caller). My favorite part may be the caller's comment!

Here's WMAL's write up on his segment.

The Grandy Group is generally a right-leaning show, but I think that Stevens and the hosts got along pretty well.

From the Inbox

A Worst Case Scenario: It Could Happen Here

Dear Liz,

Using lawn care standards to limit access to reproductive health care? They’ve done it before.

In recent years, anti-choice lawmakers in states such as South Carolina have used strategic laws to attack abortion providers and restrict women’s abortion access. These laws include everything from mandates that facilities have hallways wide enough for two gurneys to pass side-by-side (something not required of similar outpatient doctor’s offices) to regulations on the type of grass that can be out front of a clinic!

Now Virginia is poised to follow.

We can’t let the Cuccinelli-McDonnell anti-choice team close down abortion providers in our state. Call on the governor to oppose this move.

Last week, we told you that Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli declared that the state’s Board of Health has the authority to impose strict and medically unnecessary regulations on abortion providers that could potentially force the majority of our state’s providers to close their doors.

Rather than standing up for women’s health, Governor McDonnell supports Cuccinelli’s position.

We must keep the pressure on the governor. So far, nearly 700 of you asked Governor McDonnell not to allow the Board of Health to issue the same kind of restrictions on abortion providers that the legislature has refused to approve for the past eight years.

Help us reach our goal of 1,000 emails by Friday. If you haven’t yet contacted the governor, please email him today to make your voice heard. If you have, forward this message to your friends and family.

A recent article in The Virginian-Pilot reported that the kinds of anti-choice restrictions on abortion providers called for by Cuccinelli are similar to the laws in states such as South Carolina.

After failing to pass these types of attacks on abortion providers through the General Assembly in the past, the McDonnell-Cuccinelli team is sidestepping the legislature and is pushing this anti-choice and anti-woman agenda through the state Board of Health.

The consequences could be serious. After the measure took place in South Carolina, several providers were forced to close their doors. In Virginia, 17 of our 21 providers could be forced to close, leaving women without access to reproductive care.

We need to keep the pressure up and let the governor and attorney general know that Virginians won’t stand for their use of the Board of Health to play politics with women’s rights and health.

For choice,

Tarina Keene
Executive Director

I've sent a letter asking Governor McDonnell not to put barriers in the way of women seeking needed healthcare that he would not put in the way of anyone seeking a colonoscopy.