A TALE OF TWO GOVERNORS

By NRLC State Legislation Department

With most of the 1999-2000 state legislative sessions coming to a close, one thing is certain: the abortion issue was highly visible. The manner in which two governors handled the always contentious issue illustrates the crucial importance of having a sympathetic man or woman in the governor's mansion.

In Virginia, the year 2000 will be remembered as the year its governor, James Gilmore, showed his mettle. He demonstrated that he cared about the women of Virginia when he made a point of including a Woman's Right to Know bill in his State of the Commonwealth Address. But Gilmore went further when he also made a valiant attempt to revive the bill after it was suddenly killed in the Senate Education and Health Committee when two legislators unexpectedly switched their votes.

The first reversal was less of a shocker. State Sen. Benjamin Lambert (D-Richmond) had a long history of voting pro-abortion. Yet, he voted in favor of the Woman's Right to Know bill when the bill came before this committee last year. Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, Lambert changed from supporting the bill in 1999 to opposing it in 2000.

But a much greater surprise was the behavior of the new chairman of the Senate Education and Health Committee, Warren Barry (R- Fairfax). Barry had consistently supported this same legislation in the past. His vote against the Woman's Right to Know bill killed the measure in committee.

But why? At the conclusion of the committee hearing in March, Barry justified his vote by saying he was concerned about turning a civil matter into a criminal offense. This left observers utterly perplexed, since there were no criminal penalties in the Virginia bill.

But Gov. Gilmore refused to give in without a fight. He tried to revive the bill by reconstituting it to address the jurisdiction of the courts, while still including all of the provisions protecting a woman's right to be informed.

Gilmore's new bill could then have been assigned to the Senate Courts of Justice Committee, which would more likely favorably report the bill to the Senate floor where it was expected to pass. Although this was a perfectly acceptable parliamentary move, Senate Clerk Susan Clarke Schaar ruled that the new bill still belonged in the Education and Health Committee. Given a second try, it was again narrowly killed by the same 8-7 vote.

With the continued support of Gov. Gilmore, Virginia Society for Human Life is already gearing up for the 2001 Virginia General Assembly. At the top of its agenda will be the Woman's Right to Know legislation.

By contrast, in Minnesota, the 2000 legislative session will certainly be remembered as the year in which by vetoing the Woman's Right to Know bill Governor Jesse Ventura reneged on his promise and ignored the will of the people.

The bill would have required a woman considering an abortion to be given an opportunity to learn important information about the medical risks of both abortion and childbirth and the medical assistance benefits available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care, and also be offered information on alternatives to abortion and on scientifically accurate medical facts about the development of her unborn child. The proposal also provided a 24-hour reflection period to allow consideration of this vital information.

After negotiating through his staff with legislators for language his staff indicated Ventura required an order to sign the Woman's Right to Know bill, Ventura reneged and doublecrossed both legislative leaders and the women of Minnesota when he vetoed the bill. Feeling utterly betrayed, leaders in the state legislature were fuming.

House Speaker Steve Sviggum (R-Kenyon) and House Majority Leader Tim Pawlenty (R-Eagan) had every reason to believe the measure would become law. They had skillfully pursued the agreement with Ventura and his staff during the weeks leading up to the veto.

Together, they fashioned a compromise that fit "the governor's principle" and contained language Ventura had indicated he would accept. "This agreement had been worked out with the governor and his staff," Rep. Sviggum told reporters after the veto, "and to dishonor the agreement brings forward real questions of honor and trust."

According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, pro-abortion feminist Gloria Steinem and pro-abortion actresses Marisa Tomei, Blythe Danner, and Sally Kellerman urged Ventura (who himself had acted in several movies) to veto the bill. On local radio talk shows, some speculated that the governor was told by his Hollywood connections that he would never work in movies again if he signed the bill.

And Ventura clearly knew the proposed law had solid public support. Ventura's staffers told newspaper reporters that pro- life communications outnumbered pro-abortion communications by more than two to one. "Perhaps Hollywood means more to Ventura than Minnesota," observed Jackie Schwietz, director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life's Political Action Committee.

Furious over Ventura's veto of the Woman's Right to Know bill, a proposal to build a statute to Roe v. Wade architect Harry Blackman (which was defeated), and the overt attempts of the abortion industry to secure more government funding, pro-lifers are looking forward to the upcoming elections. Every seat in the Minnesota House and Senate is up for grabs.

New pro-life victories in just a handful of districts in both chambers could secure veto-proof pro-life majorities.