The Influence of an Effective Model of Performance Delivered via Distance Learning on Emotional Intelligence Levels of Students in an Undergraduate Leadership Course
Anyway, Bruce is one smart guy, in addition to being awesome as is. [Not neccesarily for his love of anchovies].
Bruce Roemmelt is running against one of the worst, most backward, ardently radical right-wing delegates in the entire Commonwealth, a scourge to progress everywhere, Delegate Robert G. Marshall.
Here is a sampler of Del. Marshall's "accomplishments" over the past three years.
2005
HB 1807-This bill would have made it a felony to provide contraception to minors if it was speculated that the minor was engaging in sex with someone three or more years older than the minor.
Why three years? Who knows. Anyway, the main fallacy of this bill is that if you know someone is having sex, you are essentially forcing them to become pregnant, because the bill makes it a felony to prevent pregnancy. Ultimately, trying to foster ignorance of contraception is not going to help anyone. I think it's not an illogical leap to say that eliminating contraception will only lead to more abortions, because it has been proven that virginity pledges and abstinence education are rife with errors and are ineffective. Evidence is provided in this Congressional report [213k PDF, 26 pages] for the House Committee on Government Reform, the executive summary of which states:
Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Effectiveness of Contraceptives. Many of the curricula misrepresent the effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. One curriculum says that ?the popular claim that 'condoms help prevent the spread of STDs,' is not supported by the data?; another states that ?[i]n heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV approximately 31% of the time?; and another teaches that a pregnancy occurs one out of every seven times that couples use condoms. These erroneous statements are presented as proven scientific facts.Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Risks of Abortion. One curriculum states that 5% to 10% of women who have legal abortions will become sterile; that ?[p]remature birth, a major cause of mental retardation, is increased following the abortion of a first pregnancy?; and that ?[t]ubal and cervical pregnancies are increased following abortions.? In fact, these risks do not rise after the procedure used in most abortions in the United States.
Abstinence-Only Curricula Blur Religion and Science. Many of the curricula present as scientific fact the religious view that life begins at conception. For example, one lesson states: ?Conception, also known as fertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins.? Another curriculum calls a 43-day-old fetus a ?thinking person.?
Abstinence-Only Curricula Treat Stereotypes about Girls and Boys as Scientific Fact. One curriculum teaches that women need ?financial support,? while men need ?admiration.? Another instructs: ?Women gauge their happiness and judge their success on their relationships.
Men?s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments.?Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain Scientific Errors. In numerous instances, the abstinence-only curricula teach erroneous scientific information. One curriculum incorrectly lists exposure to sweat and tears as risk factors for HIV transmission. Another curriculum states that ?twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual?; the correct number is 23.
Proponents of this hogwash, such as Delegate Marshall, apparently believe that lying to teens is the most effective means of controlling teen pregnancy. That, plus restricting access to contraceptives.
This bill was co-sponsored by Dick Black.
Status: Tabled 22-0 in committee.
While we're on this subject, Marshall also tried to stop the morning after pill from being available on college campuses with HB 1813, regardless to whether the pregnancy was in case of rape. Marshall's backward conservatism flies straight in the face of all logic. His loyalty to medieval beliefs forces rape victims to give birth, with no contraception or abortion allowed. That's right. Been raped? Don't look to Bob Marshall for help.
Status: Tabled 22-0 in committee.
Marshall seems to enjoy sticking his nose into the affairs of the opposite sex. Reading his legislation teaches me many things that were never mentioned in sex ed. For instance, Marshall (who isn't a doctor), tried to make it a felony with HB 1841 to perform a menstrual extraction without first performing a pregnancy test to determine that she is not pregnant
What on earth? What does Bob Marshall know about "menstrual extractions?" What do I know? Let the doctors do their job. Bizarre. Just bizarre.
Status: Tabled 20-0 in committee.
At this point you may be noticing a pattern with Delegate Marshall's harebrained bills.
Bob Marshall apparently cares little or not-at-all about, say, transportation or gangs. Instead, he focuses on issues that neither he, I, nor any of us have any business worrying about. Frankly, I cannot fathom his obsession with such subjects (Being a naive young male, I for one had never heard of a "menstrual extraction" until researching his legislation for this article.).
Let us move on.
2004
Marshall actually does care about something other than the bodily functions of women ("girly problems" as termed by a friend of mine)--he also cares about uprooting the balance of power between the three branches of government with the astonishing HB 727, which provided for the impeachment of a judge who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.
Way to let justice take its course. This blatant violation of the separation of power defies all explanation. The legislature cannot terrorize judges by ramming their opinions down their throats and threatening their positions in order to skew the courts in their favor. Despicable. This is America. Read the Constitution. Try to name all three branches of the government.
The legislature does not interfere with the fairness and impartiality of the judicial system! One ruling--where there was no improper conduct--should not be grounds for impeachment.
Status: Passed By Indefinitely 19-3 in committee
2003
Delegate Marshall, as indicated above, does not believe in much of anything progressive. I am convinced he does not have much faith in science, either. HB 2366 would have banned creating new stem cell lines with language prohibiting "destruction of embryos."
Marshall, like many conservatives, values a bundle of cells over the potential to help millions of Americans suffering from debilitating diseases. Have they no shame? Apparently not, as our backwards conservatives prevent America from taking the lead in research into cures through stem cells, and allow European and Asian countries to bypass us. Shame.
Status: Tabled 22-0 in committee
In this trip down memory lane, we revisit yet again Bob Marshall's creepy interest in matters relating to sex, reproduction, and girly problems, with HB 1547. This bill would have made it a felony to perform an abortion on a minor if the parents were not paying for it, with no exception for cases of parental rape. This glaring omission traps victims of parental rape into asking their parents for an abortion, defying any rationality, logic or compassion once again.
Status: Tabled 22-0 in committee
2002
By now it has probably become clear that Delegate Marshall cares little, if at all, about the life or health of women. Instead, al he cares about is banning abortion. Marshall's HB 1154 attempted to ban the so-called "partial birth abortion" without, once again, an adequate exception for the health of a mother. Governor Warner vetoed this bill, stating:
House Bill 1154 would prohibit doctors from performing a certain late term abortion procedure. Although I firmly support the decision in Roe v. Wade and trust the women of Virginia to make responsible choices affecting their lives and their health care, I am opposed to all post-viability abortions except to protect the mother's life or health. I would sign a bill banning the abortion procedure described in HB 1154 if it contained such exceptions as required under the Constitution. HB 1154 does not.The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 Sup. Ct. 2597 (2000), is the law of the land with regard to regulation of late term abortion procedures. HB 1154 fails to satisfy the requirements of Carhart in at least two respects. First, it does not provide an adequate exception to protect the health of the mother in cases of post-viability abortions. The health exception provided in HB 1154 applies "only if, in appropriate medical judgment, [the pregnant woman] suffers from an illness, injury, disease, disorder or other medical condition that so complicates her pregnancy as to necessitate the performance of such a procedure in order to avert her death or avoid a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."
In other words, in some cases, HB 1154 would not allow a doctor to perform the procedure banned by HB 1154 when it would be safer than other procedures. Any health exception consistent with constitutional requirements must permit women to have access to the safest medical procedures. As explained in Carhart, "[m]edical treatments and procedures are often considered appropriate (or inappropriate) in light of estimated comparative health risks (and health benefits) in particular cases." Carhart, 530 U.S. at 937. A federal court in Ohio recently struck down a statute with language similar to HB 1154 precisely because the so-called health exception was drawn too narrowly. As the court explained, "logic dictates that when a physical health problem requires a woman to undergo a post-viability abortion, she must be permitted to use the least risky procedure . . ." Women's Medical Professional Corporation v. Taft, 162 F. Supp.2d. 929, 961 (S.D. Ohio 2001). I agree with that view.
Second, as passed, HB 1154 lacks an appropriate exemption for certain previability, second trimester procedures. It is settled law that a procedure known as a "D&E" may not be constitutionally banned in the early stages of pregnancy. HB 1154 appears to exempt only some D & E procedures. If HB 1154 is signed into law, some physicians may avoid performing otherwise safe D&E procedures due to fear of prosecution. Hence, I believe HB 1154 risks imposing an undue burden on women seeking previability second trimester abortions.
Although the procedure described in HB 1154 is rarely used, it is deeply troubling to me, as it is to many Virginians. I have said I would sign a bill limiting that procedure if the bill appears to be constitutional. I am not persuaded, however, that HB 1154 satisfies the constitutional requirements articulated by our nation's highest court. I believe that allowing HB 1154 to become law would result in a costly and protracted legal challenge, with no ultimate benefit to the citizens of Virginia. I must, therefore, veto this bill.
Status: Veto sustained 24-17
In short, Delegate Bob Marshall is ineffective, and focuses his time on bizarre, regressive bills that fly in the face of the public opinion. 13th District voters should be absolutely horrified, as I am, at the blind loyalty Bob Marshall exhibits to rabid and extremist conservatism.
Voters of the 13th District can do a lot better than Bob Marshall. They can elect an effective leader to the House of Delegates. A firefighter. An educator. A veteran. A man with a doctorate degree.
Bruce Roemmelt for 13th District Delegate.
I recently asked Del. Marshall to explain to me how his proposed private school education "voucher" (i.e. taxpayer subsidy) of $2,200 per child is fair to those taxpayers that cannot afford private school even with such a taxpayer subsidy. His reply, on October 14, was:
"Since it costs the state an average of $13,900 to educate a child in Virginia, those funds could be saved for each child that attends private school while also reducing overcrowded public school populations. The state saves a net $11,700 per student in private school after the voucher of $2,200 is provided."
That is some very creative accounting, since it ignores fixed costs (eg interest pmts on bonds issued to build school, insurance, utilities, maintenance, etc) that do not go away and also does not consider that teacher salaries (a variable cost) will not go down because there is a teacher shortage so no lay-offs would be made by the public school system. And we'd still need school bus drivers, cafeteria staff, security, etc. There is no way that the Commonwealth of VA would "save" $13,900 per student attending private school, to make $2,200 available to those private school attendees.
Del. Marshall also ignores the fact that MANY children in VA already attend private school, so their presence in private school would have no impact on "overcrowded public school populations." But, their parents would receive a subsidy of $2,200 for each child, from state coffers. And police, firefighters, construction workers, even many middle-class income level families would NOT be able to send their kids to private schools with a $2,200 subsidy.
I also find it interesting that Del. Marshall has five children in private school already. I am sure that he would like a taxpayer subsidy of $11,000 per year to educate his five kids in the private sector. That couldn't possibly be the motivation behind his proposal, could it?
This guy has been in office for 7 terms, often running un-opposed. I have never voted for him, even when he was the only choice on the ballot, and i have always hoped that there would be an opponent to Del. Marshall that would be a delegate that focuses on the issues that really matter at the local level. I believe that Bruce Roemmelt is that candidate, and I sincerely hope that 50.1% or more of us in the 13th district believe it as well.
Ineffective? Like a cold knife through concrete.