Editor’s Note: Just as Erica was publishing her national roundup about the assault on women’s rights, news came in at the local level that a Federal District Court Judge in Tacoma ruled against women’s advocates and the state, saying that pharmacists and pharmacies can refuse to fill emergency contraception prescriptions based on religious or moral objections to contraception. We have been covering this case for several years now. Track our coverage here.

As this week’s story about GOP efforts to classify dildos containing certain chemicals as “children’s toys” that could potentially harm as-yet-unconceived fetuses demonstrates loud and clear, the war on women in this nation, and state, is reaching a fever pitch. Here’s a look at some of the latest developments.

• Now that religious Republicans and Catholic bishops have convinced the Obama administration that no company should be required to pay for contraception if they personally object to women’s right to avoid pregnancy (the “compromise” would allow women to get birth control directly from insurance companies in a separate transaction), the anti-contraception forces are going further, arguing that any company should be able, in effect, to force its insurance provider not to provide contraception (or any other service to which the company’s owners have a moral objection). If Taco Bell, for example, objects to birth control, and they contract with Blue Cross, they should be able to veto Blue Cross’s coverage of birth control for every company they cover.

This has obvious implications beyond “just” contraception (a service 99 percent of American women will use in their lifetimes); if a company objects to fertility treatments for lesbian women, or maternity care for single women, or STD treatments for gay men, the religious right’s latest proposal would allow them to veto it for all employees of every company insured by their insurance company.

• Health insurance companies, for what it’s worth, aren’t exactly sold on the idea of footing the bill for every employer who decides to deny their female employees health insurance.

• Meanwhile, US tax law has stacked the system against women who need reproductive services to which the Catholic Church happens to object. (Sorry, but even Antonin Scalia has said there’s no legitimate constitutional argument that contraception mandates violate freedom of conscience).

Because Catholic-run hospitals get special tax-exempt status from the government, they have generally prospered, while for-profit institutions have faltered. One result has been that Catholic hospitals have bought up for-profit institutions, which is exactly what has happened here in Seattle, where (Catholic) Providence merged with (secular) Swedish last year. After the merger, Swedish announced it would no longer provide abortion services. Now that  the ability not to get pregnant, as Sady Doyle pointed out yesterday, has become the new abortion in this country, it’s hard to imagine that other reproductive services, including birth control, aren’t next.

• Good news, for now, from Virginia: After more than 1,000 men and women stood silently outside the Virginia state capitol to protest an anti-abortion law that would require women to get a transvaginal ultrasound (basically, a lengthy vaginal probe with a large dildo-like device) before a woman could get an abortion, Republicans in the legislature delayed a vote on the bill, and could ultimately make the expensive, invasive, and usually medically unnecessary procedure optional, rather than mandatory. (Meanwhile, a similar law remains in place in Texas … and at least one national (CNN) commentator says forced vaginal penetration is A-OK because the women have already been penetrated at least once anyway.

• A new poll confirms what is probably obvious to most Americans: The vast majority of US citizens (67 percent) oppose allowing companies to deny doctor-recommended coverage like birth control based on their personal moral or religious beliefs.

• And in other states: Georgia Democrats facetiously propose limits on vasectomies because they deny the baby’s right to be born; Rick Santorum came out against prenatal screening because ABORTION!; John McCain’s daughter Meghan, who opposes abortion, went on Rachel Maddow to declare herself “horrified” by the Virginia proposal; and the Illinois state house’s farming committee (!!) passed two anti-abortion measures, including an ultrasound mandate, while women protested outside, bearing signs that read “We are not livestock.”

• And if all that isn’t enough for you, conservative religious leaders are now saying that requiring non-religious entities to provide contraceptive coverage will force churches (which, again, are NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE BIRTH CONTROL) to violate the dictates of the Holy Trinity, and that by mandated birth control coverage for non-religious entities, Obama is behaving just like Nazi Germany.

Seattle Times writer Lynne Varner has picked up the story about major Democratic donor Nick Hanauer’s fight with Democrats and the teachers’ union over education reform.

PubliCola first published Hanauer’s email to his fellow Democratic donors last week. We have since published a response to Hanauer—an “Open Letter to PubliCola”—from teachers’ union president Mary Lindquist—and then, yesterday, a response to her response from Hanauer.

Phew! It’s a hefty debate and has generated hundreds of comments. You’ll find it all here.

Varner comes down on Hanauer’s side.

If Lindquist and Democrats mean to shush Hanauer and other critics, they are purposefully ignoring the donkey in the room, which is this: a growing number of Democrats are unhappy with their elected leaders’ refusal to go big on education reforms.

Reformers watched in dismay as Democratic leaders blocked key reforms including exchanging an outdated seniority-based layoff policy for one based on performance and overhauling the billion-dollar health-insurance program for school employees.

Hanauer is the Democrats’ guy. He wants them to win and has long put his money where his mouth is. So what do you do when a friend tells you that you are wrong? You listen.

It is a matter of political life or death. Votes are up for grabs this election year.

Party identity is down. More people consider themselves politically independent these days than a Democrat or a Republican.

A generation ago, the political lines were clearer, particularly on education issues. But Republicans smartly shed right-wing tirades against the federal Department of Education and for vouchers. Democrats meanwhile remain fixated on tight education budgets, which while true, makes them appear stuck in a time warp.

Staking ground on education reform has fallen to a relatively new cadre of Republicans such as state Sens. Joe Fain of Auburn; Andy Hill of Redmond; and Steve Litzow of Mercer Island. By joining with moderate Democrats, including Sen. Rodney Tom, Medina, a key compromise toughening teacher evaluations was revived.

For all their talk about vulnerable families and struggling schoolchildren, Democrats in the House were largely silent as their colleague, Rep. Eric Pettigrew, D-Seattle, stepped up with a charter-school bill so unthreatening it could have been used as a trial balloon. Turns out some liberal Democrats are as sick of failing schools as everyone else. Democrats for Education Reform is one of a number of new pro-reform advocacy groups.

Don’t forget that most prominent of Democrats who is leading the public school reform charge: President Obama.

An addendum, though: While Varner mentions Rep. Eric Pettigrew (D-37, S. Seattle) as one house Democrat who has challenged Democratic Party orthodoxy, she leaves out some important history—a cadre of house Democrats, most notably Reps. Reuven Carlyle (D-36), Ross Hunter (D-48), and Pat Sullivan (D-47), who defied the teachers’ union in 2009 to get the ball rolling on reform and lead the fight to pass a bill that redefined basic education.

That bill, HB 2661, in fact, was at the heart of the January 2012 Washington State Supreme Court decision which said the state has to fully fund schools; the ruling said 2661′s reforms provided a blueprint of what needed to be funded. The union fought against that bill.

After a series of recent bad poll results for US Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA, 1), the Democrats’ candidate for governor, a Democratic polling company, Public Policy Polling, finds that Inslee is tied—42-42 (with 16 percent undecided)—with his Republican rival, Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna. The Washington State Democrats point out that the poll had the smallest margin of error in comparison to the other recent polls.

Additionally, the poll found that both candidates had unimpressive “favorable” ratings: 36 percent liked Inslee, 28 percent didn’t, and 36 percent didn’t know. As for McKenna: 39 percent liked him, 29 percent didn’t, and 32 percent didn’t know. I’d expect those kind of vague to middling opinions in other races, but that’s pretty unimpressive for both camps in this high-profile competition.

Here’s the poll  (of 1,264 Washington voters with a margin of error of 2.76 percent) which comes with some other finds:  50 percent of voters would vote to uphold the same-sex marriage law; 49 percent think gay marriage should be legal; 46 percent say of all the options on the issue, such as civil unions or non-recognition, gay marriage is the best; and 47 to 39 were for legalizing pot. A plurality of those polled, 28 percent, described themselves as moderates with only 14 percent describing themselves as “very liberal” and 17 percent as “very conservative.”

Opponents to Washington State’s recently adopted marriage equality law have filed a challenge to the ballot language proposed by Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna, who is running for governor.

The group, Preserve Marriage Washington, which is sponsoring Referendum 74 to overturn the law, argues that McKenna’s language “does not reference the significant and fundamental change in Washington’s law which would render the terms `husband’ and `wife’ as gender-neutral, and which terms appear in more than 300 provisions in the laws of the State of Washington, such that the voters of Washington are not fully apprised of the legal effect(s) of the bill by the Attorney General’s ballot title.”

Last week, marriage-equality proponents objected to the language on the grounds that it included the term “redefine marriage,” a politically charge phrase that does not occur anywhere in the marriage equality bill).

Next Monday is the deadline for ballot challenges.

Caffeinated News & Gossip. Your Daily Morning Fizz.

1. The Puget Sound Business Journal reports that the owners of the Phoenix Coyotes hockey team are close to a deal that would keep the team in the Phoenix area (and out of Seattle). Securing an NHL team is a key part of a proposal unveiled last week to bring a new Sonics NBA team to Seattle and build an arena in SoDo, all—the deal’s backers say—with no net expenditure of public dollars.

The city and potential investor Chris Hansen will now have to approach struggling hockey teams elsewhere for potential relocation to Seattle.

2. Mayor Mike McGinn delivered his annual state of the city address at City Hall yesterday afternoon. Focusing on jobs, potholes, growth in South Lake Union, and the nightlife industry, the speech had few showstoppers and managed to find euphemisms for McGinn agenda items that irk the Seattle Times editorial board (“road safety,” instead of bikes; a “culture of empathy” on the road, for the war on cars).

The only sign of real passion—and only major applause line—came in a section late in the (7,300-word!) speech about crime, when McGinn said decriminalizing marijuana would go a long way toward ending the state’s “biased incarceration policy” that disproportionately impacts young black men.

“I know every one of the city council members sitting to my left and right believe as I do: it’s time for this state to legalize marijuana, and stop the violence, stop the incarceration, stop the erosion of civil liberties, and urge the federal government to stop the failed war on drugs,” McGinn said. “And maybe if we can get sensible about marijuana, we can get sensible about gun laws next.”

Read the whole speech here.

3. The state house and senate transportation committees are both considering versions of a transportation fee proposal that include dramatically different proposals for transit and biking/pedestrian projects.

The house version would spend 16 percent ($10 million) on transit and 4 percent ($3 million) on biking and pedestrian projects. The senate version, in contrast, would slash those amounts to 5 percent ($3.5 million) and 3 percent ($2 million), respectively.

Transit advocates are seeking an amendment that would give transit agencies the ability to fund service with a motor vehicle excise tax, which they argue is more stable than the sales tax, which has declined dramatically during the recession, forcing many transit agencies to cut service.

4. As for the general fund budget, yesterday, state house ways and means committee chair Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48, Medina) released the majority Democrats’ budget proposal to deal with the $1 billion shortfall (including funds needed for a cushion—Hunter’s budget sets aside about $500 million).

Hunter’s budget is much kinder to social services than the GOP proposal; he keeps the Basic Health Plan intact while Republican house budget leader Rep. Gary Alexander (R-20, Olympia) cut it and called it a “lower priority item” that “doesn’t fit into the long-term future of our state”). Hunter certainly makes some cuts, though—there’s about $900 million in “savings” (including $224 million in reductions to health and human services programs.)

Hunter won praise from liberals for going easier on human services than the house Republicans. (They leave more than $600 million in reserve, eliminating both the Basic Health Plan and the Disability Lifeline.)

Hunter doesn’t go there. Susan Ward, spokeswoman for the Community Health Network of Washington, said: “The House has accomplished a commendable feat by preserving the health care safety net within the state’s available funds …We applaud the House for prioritizing and funding Basic Health and Disability Lifeline.These programs are fundamental to … protecting the lives of tens of thousands of people struggling in this economy.”

Hunter also didn’t go for the 24-day state employee furlough that the GOP proposed.

However, his plan is getting criticized for its biggest saving: Using a gimmick known as the “25th month,” Hunter “saves” $405 million by delaying K-12 payments until the first month of the next biennium. Hunter’s counterpart Rep. Alexander accused Hunter’s budget of “relying on accounting gimmicks to make the numbers work. To me, their budget continues to kick much of the problem down the road.”

However, both Hunter and the Republicans propose lowering the state contribution to state employees’ health benefits from $850 a month to $800. (They also both kill the controversial big bank loophole—an exemption on interest earned on first mortgage loans—for about $20 million.)

The Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission has released its annual report tallying up the past year’s election contributions and expenditures, and it includes some fascinating stata about who spent the most money, who got the highest average contribution, who spent the most of their own money, and how many contributions were “small”—that is, under $100.

Some highlights:

Bruce Harrell raised the most money overall, with $284,000 in total contributions.

Meanwhile, unsuccessful Jean Godden challenger Maurice Classen spent the most of his own money—$45,000, an amount that’s especially stunning given that it didn’t even get him out of the primary. That number is a bit misleading, however; second-place finisher Bobby Forch still owes his own campaign more than $61,000 in unpaid expenses.

Tom Rasmussen challenger Dale Pusey has the unfortunate distinction of being the only candidate in any race who did not raise a single dollar.

Harrell also had the most individual contributions—1,163, followed closely by Tim Burgess (1,025) and Tom Rasmussen (1,001). Meanwhile, Godden opponent Michael Taylor-Judd raised the largest average contribution ($374), and Burgess opponent David Schraer raised the smallest ($53).

Over the years, the number of contributors to city campaigns has generally risen, but last year, it declined—a factor the report attributes to “continuing weakness in the economy.”

Total contributions to city council races were down, continuing a downward trend that started in 2003 (and contradicting those who claim the influence of money in council races has risen steadily over the years). Meanwhile, expenditures on consultants rose each year since 2005, even as spending on on ads declined.

Meanwhile, independent expenditures “fell off a cliff.” According to the report, “after skyrocketing more than tenfold in the span of four election cycles – from $20,804 in 2003 to $288,197 in 2009 – there were no independent expenditures reported in 2011.”

The top contributors to candidates last year consisted, as usual, of unions, developers, and NUCOR, the steel production company. The top four contributors were Matt Griffin’s Pine Street LLC, who gave $4,200 to six council members; the Pacific NW Regional Council of Carpenters, who gave $4,200 to six council candidates; developer Jim Mueller, who gave $3,950 to seven council candidates; and NUCOR PAC, which gave  $3,900 to seven council candidates.

Yesterday, Washington Education Association president Mary Lindquist wrote an open letter to PubliCola criticizing major Democratic donor Nick Hanauer for denouncing the Democrats’ position on ed reform and announcing that he planned to meet with Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna.

Today, we’ve got Hanauer’s response to teachers’ union president Lindquist.

Dear Mary,

Thank you for your recent open letter to me and PubliCola. It will not surprise you to hear that I disagreed with some of it.

As a lifelong Democrat and committed progressive, I too believe that McKenna’s reflexive Republican positions on social issues, taxation, and the role of government are deeply misguided.

But if McKenna and Republicans are wrong in some areas, it hardly excuses us Democrats from being wrong on school reform. Here at least, McKenna is on the right track, and we are not.

Looking at the student achievement data, it’s absurd to assert that our public school system in Washington is sufficiently innovative or accountable. We may be headed in the right direction, but we aren’t in the right lane.

Other states that have aggressively tackled education reform are closing their achievement gaps. Meanwhile, while we resist meaningful accountability and innovation, our achievement gaps are widening.

It is my belief that the vast majority of Washington’s teachers care deeply about student outcomes, work incredibly hard, and are constantly working to improve their instructional practices. It is not classroom teachers who are afraid of change and innovation—it is their union.

I am not a teacher and would not presume to tell you how to teach. But in my experience as a business leader and entrepreneur, I have observed that all high-performance organizations share elements that are largely missing from our State’s public education system: relentlessly high standards, a culture of excellence, and a systemic commitment to innovation.

We have many great schools and excellent teachers in Washington. But we lack a coherent system that consistently delivers a high-quality education for all of our students—particularly our low-income students and students of color. As a result, signs of excellence are temporary: a consequence of the heroic efforts of individuals rather than the inevitable outcome of an organization built to deliver excellence all the time.

Great organizations recognize and encourage excellence. Those who are either unable or unwilling to do their jobs well are moved out quickly and are replaced by those who do. The alternative is a culture in which outstanding performance is resented or even discouraged, mediocrity is accepted, and low performance is tolerated.

Our educational strategies are fragmented. Our state lurches towards high standards, and then we have to fight back efforts to water them down. Case in point: The WEA supported a bill this session that would have weakened our high school graduation requirements.

No organism or entity can long survive if it cannot adapt to changing circumstances and challenges. Indeed, the hallmark of high performing organizations is a culture where innovation isn’t just tolerated; it is required and rewarded. And any organization that is not constantly changing is dying.

Our schools are the antithesis of this. Where innovation is found, it is the result of heroism, not organizational intent. Where change happens, it is slow if at all, and is fought at every turn, usually by the teacher’s union.

The WEA can usually be counted on to resist change in most forms. Your organization has consistently defended the absurd “Last In First Out” seniority-based layoff policies. The WEA has resisted a requirement that student growth data be used in evaluations. The WEA has resisted including teacher evaluations in management decisions.

Thanks to leadership from Gov. Chris Gregoire, these provisions (that you fought two years ago when we submitted our Race to the Top application) have just been handed to you in the form of SB 5895. In testimony opposing this bill on Feb. 16th, the president of the Seattle Education Association said that students are not equipped to give feedback about teachers because some of them carry guns.

As I write, the new Seattle School Board—which WEA money championed—appears to be in the process of terminating the contract with Teach For America, a nationally acclaimed program that brings a very diverse group of the nation’s most talented college graduates to teach in low performing schools. This sort of behavior is irrational, self-destructive, and it undermines the cause that unions work to further.

12,000 students attend our South Seattle public schools. Where is the outrage about this state of affairs?

•4 out of 10 South Seattle 3rd graders meet reading standards

•2 out of 10 South Seattle black 4th graders meet math standards

•1 out 10 South Seattle black 5th graders meet science standards

•60% of South Seattle’s high school graduates need remediation when they get to community college.

Where standards are high, instruction is consistently great, and the supports are in place, poor kids are fully capable of achieving at high levels. We as a community bear responsibility for our under-performing schools: not only the parents and educators but also the politicians who create the laws that govern how we educate our children. And since in Washington State the majority of those politicians are Democrats, as a Democrat I think it is time for self-reflection. These abysmal results are difficult to frame in any other way other than abject failure. Defending the status quo that produced that failure is shameful.

This is really a moment of truth for education reform among progressives. Public schools are generally the most sustained, intimate experience people have of government, and that experience is way too often poisoned: not by teachers, but by the bureaucracy placed on educators.

Charter Schools

Public charter schools are yet another tool at our disposal for innovation and a way to put pressure on the larger institution to adapt and change. If we had real innovation in our public schools, then there might not be the need and demand for charter schools that exists today.

Business people have long had a name for this: “competing with yourself.” The best organizations do it because they know if they don’t, others will. Public charter schools are one way of doing that.

Public charter schools are not a panacea for fixing public education. But the good charter schools are successfully closing achievement gaps because that is what they are designed to do. These charter schools provide proof points that very poor kids can indeed achieve at extremely high levels. And they are enormously popular with parents.

And while it is true that many charter schools do not deliver better results than comparable public schools, it is also true that high quality charter schools run by experienced and excellent operators, like KIPP, kick the crap out of chronically low performing public schools.

It is also a fact that no urban district in the USA has closed its achievement gaps without public charter schools. Our state’s Democratic party leaders missed the memo that President Barack Obama, President Bill Clinton, the national Democratic party platform, the NEA, and the AFT all support charter schools.

You point out, correctly, that Washington voters have turned down charter schools three times. But please be honest and admit that the WEA spent massive amounts of money and organizing capital to secure these electoral defeats. In fact, in 2004 the Democratically controlled legislature passed a decent charter school bill, but the WEA could not stand that result. So you bankrolled an expensive referendum and vigorous No campaign. In a state where Eyman’s idiotic initiatives regularly garner impressive majorities, it’s clear that smart public policy isn’t always written at the ballot box.

The charter school bill that education reformers pushed this session (that the WEA and the Democratic leadership killed) was one that would have attracted high quality charter schools—the ones with an enviable record with low-income and minority kids. Can you seriously argue that the kids and families in South Seattle don’t deserve better educational opportunities?

My record as a proponent of more funding for our public schools is unassailable. I continue to believe that our public schools are grossly underfunded. But we need to invest in a system that recognizes and encourages excellence.

I have gotten lots of feedback from my recent letter and the overwhelming amount of it has been positive, particularly from public school parents. Many teachers disagree and argue that because I am not a teacher, I just don’t understand. But I have also heard from young, frustrated teachers who want to go further and faster for their students. They want to teach in a system where the needs of students—not adults—are prioritized. They want to move into the fast lane.

Washington public schools are not delivering the kind of results that families in this state deserve and our economy requires. The WEA’s efforts to stop any of the changes needed to transform our system puts you and the politicians who support and enable this intransigence on the wrong side of kids, families and history. I urge you to change course. You can be sure that I and other committed Democrats are urging the elected officials in our party to do so, with or without you.

Wealthy citizens who argue that a successful democracy is possible without them paying their fair share of taxes are self-serving and misguided. You and I will always be on the same side in our fight for equitable taxation and adequate funding for education.

But a teachers union that argues that public schools don’t need to change, that teachers should not be held accountable for student achievement, and that there is no room for competitive pressure in the education system is equally misguided and self-serving.

I hope you will consider that.

Respectfully,

Nick Hanauer

Editor’s note: The bill that Hanauer refers to “that would have weakened our high school graduation requirements” was house bill 2411, a failed attempt to scale back the “core 24″ redefinition of basic education that reformers passed in 2009. The “Core 24″ bill was cited in the recent big deal Washington State Supreme Court Decision as the guideline for adequately funding K-12. The WEA worked against that legislation, but has embraced the court ruling. 

This post has been updated to correct an error in KING-5′s original report. That report said that McGinn was unpopular among younger voters; in fact, his approval rating among voters between 18 and 34 was 39 percent.

As Mayor Mike McGinn prepares to give his annual State of the City speech at City Hall this afternoon, a new KING-5/SurveyUSA poll finds that one in two Seattle voters disapproves of the job he’s been doing as mayor. Just one in three voters approved of the job he’s done, and another 18 percent weren’t sure.

McGinn’s strongest approval ratings were among younger voters: Thirty-nine percent of those between 18 and 34 said he was doing well. Meanwhile, just 27 percent of those above 50 supported the job he’s been doing.

McGinn was less popular than: the city council (42 percent approval); school superintendent Susan Enfield (47 percent); the Seattle Fire Department (82 percent); the electric utility (52 percent); Parks (59 percent); and Seattle Public Utilities (45 percent). McGinn did tie with the city department of transportation with 33 percent approval, but SDOT’s disapproval rating, at 33 percent, was much lower than McGinn’s.

What city departments or officials did rank lower than the mayor, you ask? Those would be SPD (27 percent approval); the school board (30 percent); and Police Chief John Diaz (30 percent).

The poll also asked respondents their opinion of last week’s proposal to build a new arena in SoDo and bring two new teams, an NBA team and a hockey team, to Seattle.

Not surprisingly, while a strong majority supported the idea of bringing pro basketball back to Seattle in general (56 percent were either “very” or “somewhat” enthusiastic, similar to the percentage who said they’d attend games regularly), almost no respondents (a measly 10 percent) said taxpayers should have to foot any of the bill.

McGinn said last week that the project would be “self-financing” and that the city would get its money, up to $200 million, back from ticket sales, loan payments from the as-yet-unnamed investors, and possibly a new sports TV station.

And, perhaps confirming gender stereotypes, men were much more likely than women to believe taxpayers should be willing to pitch in for a new stadium, and women were much more likely to feel bad about getting a new NBA franchise if it means stealing another town’s team.

We were able to get a copy of the controversial (and discarded) amendment to state Sen. Sharon Nelson’s (D-34) toxic toys bill.

As we reported in Fizz this morning, state Rep. David Taylor (R-15, Moxee) tried to add an amendment that would have added sex toys to the list of products that couldn’t use toxics known as TRIS.

We asked Nelson what was wrong with Taylor’s amendment—embarrassing as dildos may be to talk about, isn’t women’s safety a legit issue?

Nelson called Taylor’s amendment distracting. “This is a distraction from what I’m trying to do with this bill,” Nelson says, “which is protecting children and babies.” She says Taylor’s amendment is “out of scope” and if he wants to deal with that issue, he should do it with a separate bill.

“I’m dealing with 16 industry lobbyists [against the toxic toys bill] right now,” she says, “and we don’t need this distraction.”

Again, we have a call in to Rep. Taylor.

Nelson also said, “frankly, the language was so graphic that female legislative staffers were having trouble with it.”

Here’s the language:

2SSB 6120 – H COMM AMD ,
By Committee on Environment

On page 2, line 32, after “(b)” insert “”Children’s product” also includes any manual or electronic device or mechanism that is designed to be inserted into the vagina or used to manipulate female genitalia for the purpose of sexual stimulation and that contains a high priority chemical that could harm the normal development of a fetus, cause developmental toxicitv to a fetus, cause Genetic damage to a fetus, or cause reproductive harm to a female.

EFFECT: Specifies that the definition of “children’ s product” also includes-any manual or electronic device or mechanism that is designed to be inserted into the Vagina or used to manipulate external female genitalia for the purpose of sexual stimulation and that contains a high priority chemical that could harm a fetus or cause reproductive harm to a female.

Given all the interest in the fight over education reform and teacher evaluations, I wanted to call Cola readers’ attention to a Sunday editorial in the Tacoma News Tribune that came out in support of the teacher evaluation bill that passed the state senate last week.

The Tribune urges the house to pass the bill as well.

Rep. Sam Hunt

The house education committee  supported the bill 18-1 late last week after it came over from the senate. One committee member, majority floor leader Rep. Sam Hunt (D-22, Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater), a former teacher, came out against the bill.

The Tribune writes:

Senate Bill 5895, which cleared that chamber Tuesday, requires the use of objective student-performance measures in the evaluation of teachers. It also requires that feedback from teachers be used in the evaluation of principals.

Teachers and principals can lose their jobs if they keep flunking the new tests. This turns Washington tradition on its head. In this state, it can take a felony to separate a faculty member from his or her job.

Only the bravest administrators have dared tackle the convoluted, expensive process required to fire the incompetent.

Let’s not get giddy, though. The Senate’s move to tie “student growth data” looks impressive only in terms of the state’s benighted history. SB 5895 is not radical. It would not make Washington a leader in education reform. It would merely help the state catch up to the middle of the pack.

But the 46-3 vote in the Senate is impressive. Most education reform measures are throttled in committee. Once this one reached a floor vote in open daylight, lawmakers embraced it – if only to avoid shame in some cases.

The question now is whether House leaders will let the accountability requirements reach the floor or consign them to some dark corner to die.

Caffeinated News & Gossip. Your Daily Morning Fizz

1. A children’s safetey bill sponsored by state Sen. Sharon Nelson (D-34, Vashon, W. Seattle) and Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson (D-36, Ballard) aimed at banning toxic chemicals known as TRIS from kids’ toys will be spared a controversial amendment.

The bill is being heard in the state house environment committee today and Rep. David Taylor (R-15, Moxee) had prepared an amendment that would have prohibited sex toys from using the same chemicals.

A bipartisan group of female legislators (and a group of mortified female nonpartisan staff)—who saw the  amendment as a non sequitur and as yet more sex-phobic male-sponsored legislation—talked Taylor out of the proposal.

We have a call in to Rep. Taylor.

“He withdrew it already. It is no longer in the [legislative] system,” Rep. Dave Upthegrove (D-33, Des Moines), chair of the environment committee, said today when Fizz asked about the amendment. “The amendment was withdrawn.”

2. Be sure to check out yesterday’s Fizz (129 comments and counting) where teachers’ union president Mary Lindquist published an “Open Letter to PubliCola” responding to the controversial email that major Democratic donor Nick Hanauer sent to fellow Democratic donors about his disappointment in the Democrats on education reform (“our party and most of its elected members are stooges for the teachers union”) and talked about his decision to meet with and consider supporting Rob McKenna.

McKenna is running on an ed reform agenda that dovetails with reform groups such as the League of Education Voters (which Hanauer founded) and President Obama, to the chagrin of local Democrats, that pushes for stricter teacher evaluations.

Moderate Democrats and Republicans pushed a bill this session that set guidelines on teacher evaluations (including the use of student achievement data) and connected the evaluations to hiring decisions. They passed it in the senate last week. It’s now in the house where the union is lobbying for “more flexibility” at the district level to formulate teacher evaluations.

3. State house ways and means committee chair, Democratic Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48, Medina) is releasing his budget this morning.

With a drop in caseloads worth $340 million and a slight positive correction in the revenue forecast worth $45 million (plus about $450 million in cuts and savings passed in December), the state is now facing a $1 billion problem (as opposed to the $2 billion problem Gov. Gregoire’s November budget proposal is based on.)

The house Republicans released a budget of their own—with $800 million in cuts (including killing the Basic Health Plan) on Friday  with minimal new revenue, though they did propose cutting the infamous $20 million big bank exemption on interest earned on first mortgage loans.

The Democrats are expected to offer less in cuts.

Though the senate won’t release its budget until next week, Democratic senate budget leader Sen. Ed Murray (D-43, Seattle) has already suggested another $200 million in savings by getting rid of a series of loopholes—including the bank exemption and other preferential business and occupation tax rates.

4. A lot remains unknown about the proposal, announced last week, to bring the NBA (and the NHL) to Seattle. One of Fizz’s biggest outstanding questions: Who are the members of the mysterious “investor group” that will join San Francisco hedge-fund manager Chris Hansen in signing the deal? Turns out, Hansen himself doesn’t know yet: In yet another of the many details about the proposal that remain unknown, Hansen, Fizz confirmed, is still putting the group together.

5. Ty Stobel, a Vancouver businessman who chairs the board of the Seattle-based gay rights group Equal Rights Washington, announced today that he’s running to fill the state senate seat being vacated by Craig Pridemore (D-49). Stobel is the second Democrat to announce for the seat. Annette Cleveland, a Vancouver health care administrator, announced she was running for the seat earlier this month.

Caffeinated News & Gossip. Your daily Morning Fizz

1. Teachers’ union President Mary Lindquist has written an open letter in response to the controversial email that major Democratic Party donor Nick Hanauer sent to his fellow Democratic donors (first published here on PubliCola last week) trashing the Party’s position on ed reform and informing his Democratic comrades of his intention to meet with Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna.

Here’s Lindquist’s response:

Open Letter to PubliCola from Mary Lindquist, WEA President

The publicly released email from Nick Hanauer, in which he threatens to support Rob McKenna for governor, was sad to
read.

I had thought, based on his recent statements, that Hanauer – despite his significant wealth – was championing those of us who are a part of the 99% and not the 1%. He has positioned himself as a progressive with clearly defined positions on tax reform, economic equality, social justice, and the environment.

And yet, in a single email, he has managed to align himself with a politician who is antithetical to all of those progressive values. Rob McKenna opposes the right for workers to negotiate for better worker conditions. McKenna opposes doing more to ensure clean water and clean air for future generations. McKenna opposes closing tax loopholes for the very wealthy. McKenna opposes substantive tax reform which could end the state budget deficit. McKenna opposes basic civil rights with marriage equality for all Washingtonians.

However, Hanauer’s email requires a response on behalf of the tens of thousands of hard working men and women who are the backbone of our state and its economic growth and future. Let me set the record straight. The facts simply do not support Hanauer’s argument.

First, it must be clearly understood that it is the voters of Washington – not the WEA – that have rejected charter schools on three separate occasions in recent years. We agree with the voters that charter schools are not needed in our state. The voters understand that funding for charter schools comes from the same pool of funding for public education. Voters know that for charter schools to be imposed, advocates like Hanauer would need to poach funding from local neighborhood schools and districts.

Substantive research studies – including a 2009 report from Stanford University – that find nearly half of charter schools have results no different from local public schools, over a third – 37% — show learning results significantly inferior to public schools, and that only 17% of charters provide better education opportunities for students. Hanauer may see charter schools as a panacea; we know the real work and dedication that goes into student achievement every single day.

WEA does support, however, the hundreds of innovative schools across our state encouraging every student to live up to his or her potential, to succeed in math, science, the arts, technology and many other disciplines. These public schools are leading examples of what can be done in a robust public education system.

WEA has embraced improved, robust evaluations of educators. We welcome adoption of statewide standards that are both fair and improve the quality of instruction. In the 2010 legislative session, WEA pushed the adoption of SB 6696. Now we are engaged in a collaborative process with districts across the state to pilot new evaluation systems. We see signs this system will make a real difference for students. We look forward to a fair and lasting process that improves instruction and enhances student learning.

On funding, in early January, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state legislature has failed to honor its paramount constitutional duty of “amply funding” public education, a decision. The state legislature has cut $2.5 billion over the past three years from K-12 funding. However, we continue to ask our teachers and school employees to work longer hours, for less pay and lower benefits, in the 3rd most crowded classrooms in the nation.

As a high school teacher, I know that bullying and threatening tactics have no place in our schools or in our political discourse, particularly when addressing large, complex issues. WEA looks forward to working with leaders in both political parties who want to solve problems, fund schools, and improve education for all our students. Let’s focus on what is best for all our students.

2. Speaking of ed reform, Shannon Campion, the Executive Director of Stand for Children, the group that has been on the opposite side of the teachers’ union for the past several years, lobbying in Olympia for more comprehensive graduation requirements, charter schools, and stricter teacher evaluations, and charter schools (winning on two out of the three), announced this weekend that she’s stepping down later this year.

And speaking of the civil war that’s brewing in the Democratic Party over ed reform: Campion’s announcement follows Lisa Macfarlane’s announcement late last year that she’s leaving her job as senior policy advisor at the League of Education Voters—a compatriot of Stand for Children—and starting  the Washington chapter of a similar education reform group, Democrats for Education Reform, which finds itself in the center of a civil war trying to nudge Democrats out of the union camp.

3. Sally Bagshaw aide, Holly Krejci, a longtime Georgetown neighborhood activist, is running for state Rep. Zack Hudgins’ seat in the 11th District. (Hudgins is running for secretary of state.) Krejci, who hasn’t reported any fundraising yet, has two opponents, James Flynn and Steven Bergquist.

It’s musical chairs in the 11th, which represents South Seattle, Burien, Sea-Tac, Tukwila and the southern part of Renton. Hudgins’ seatmate, Rep. Bob Hasegawa, is running for state senate and port commissioner Rob Holland is running for Hasegawa’s seat—as is Stephanie Bowman. Bobby Virk is runing against Hasegawa for senate.

4.  We detailed some of the cuts proposed by the state house Republicans on Friday (cancel the Basic Health Plan, scale back Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, scale back health care coverage for undocumented children, and stop funding Puget Sound cleanup); the Tacoma News Tribune has some more stark details:

The GOP also wants to kill off 51 different programs – including the Basic Health Plan, a low-income property tax deferral program, a state drug task force, homeless assistance, an IT Academy, the Readiness to Learn program, a State Food Assistance Program, growth management administration and many others.

In another major policy shift, the House Republicans propose to cut welfare subsidies – reducing lifetime benefits from 60 months to 48 months, and reducing benefit amounts.

They also want state employees to take 24 furlough days in the next fiscal year – on top of 3 percent reductions in pay and hours already required by past budgets for the July 2011 to June 2013 period. This could save $91 million, Alexander said.

Over the weekend, The Washington Conservation Voters and the Washington Environmental Council released a joint statement responding to the Republican proposal, which would cut the Department of Ecology by 14 percent as opposed to Governor Gregoire’s proposed 4.4 percent cut.

The House Republicans’ proposed budget takes a slash and burn approach to environmental protection …Their budget proposal cuts the natural resource program four times deeper that the Governor’s all cuts budget. Clean air and clean water protections currently make up less than 1% of the state’s general fund budget — it is not possible to balance the budget on the back of the environment. This is just a bald attempt to roll back environmental safeguards and allow major polluters to profit at all of our expense.

The house Democrats are expected to release their budget proposal early this week.

5. Anti-gay rights activists who put R-71 on the ballot—the failed 2009 effort to repeal the state’s domestic partners’ rights legislation (known as “everything but marriage”)—claimed, in their case to keep their petition signatures shielded from the public, that they would be subject to harassment. They have continually lost that argument in front of the courts.

Pro-gay rights activists, however, are evidently vulnerable to harassment. This weekend, the home of a lesbian couple quoted in the Tacoma News Tribune when the gay marriage bill passed the state senate earlier this year, was vandalized with a swastika and a “fuck you” symbol.

We’ve written a fair amount about the arguments in favor of the Reproductive Parity Act, state legislation that would require any insurance company that covers maternity care to also cover abortion care, exempting any employer or insurance company that has a “moral” objection to abortion.

Yesterday, abortion opponents testified against the legislation. In addition to the usual arguments—abortion kills babies, requiring abortion coverage would violate the state constitutional right to free exercise of religion—there were a few fairly novel arguments, including the argument that contraception coverage “is not health care,” the argument that businesses would stop coming to Washington if companies had to provide abortion care, and that women who want abortion coverage can just ask prospective employers, during a job interview, whether they provide it (and vice versa).

A few sample comments:

Pia de Solenni, a Seattle-based abortion opponent: “According to the [Centers for Disease Control], the top causes of death for women are heart disease and cancer. Neither of these is treated by abortion. In fact, neither fertility nor pregnancy is among the top causes of death for women. Health care should be about helping women live longer, healthier lives. Abortion only helps a woman to live a life without children. …

“At the end of the day, abortion is not an essential part of health care. A woman’s well-being does not have to be seen in opposition to the life of the fetus she is carrying. Approving [the bill] does nothing to improve women’s health. It does, however, support a model of health care that sees fertility as a disease. As a woman, I reject such a model. As a business owner, I am opposed to legislation that would force me to support such a model and I am also opposed to legislation that would further jeopardize the economic stability of the state.”

A representative from Human Life of Washington, an anti-abortion group with chapters throughout the state: “[This bill] will use the power of the state to coerce the people of the state … to violate their conscience by participating in insurance plans that provide abortion … [The bill] would mean the state would also force private business owners who oppose abortion on moral grounds their right to direct their own businesses according to their conscience. …  This bill mandates no choice to thousands of Washington citizens.”

Seattle Catholic Church Archdiocese representative Paul Robertson:

“I can’t see in any way how this is going to attract employers or encourage an entrepreneur to start a business, when you introduce legislation that compels an employer to do something they find morally repugnant. … Women have the opportunity now to purchase an abortion if they want, or to work with a company that provides those services.”

Everyone knows where I stand on abortion and contraception coverage (I support it, on both economic and civil-liberties grounds), so I’ll just offer one editorial comment. Those who argue against reproductive parity are making two equally problematic cases. First, they’re arguing that any employer who opposes abortion on religious grounds should be able to choose employees based on whether they share that religious view. This seems to me like a clear example of discrimination on religious grounds, which is barred under both the Washington and US Constitutions.

Second, they argue that employees should be able to choose employers who “share their values” — that is, employers whose health care plans do not cover abortions. That, of course, is an employee’s prerogative, but it seems insanely impractical and unrealistic (particularly in an era of 9-percent unemployment) to suggest that prospective employees should ask prospective employers, in the context of a job interview, whether their health-care plan pays for abortions—or to refuse a job offer if, after being hired, they discover that their health care plan does pay for abortion care.

In reality, I don’t think the anti-abortion side is really making the case for either point: They want abortion banned, period, for all women. But it’s interesting to see the kind of pretzels they tie themselves into in an effort to make themselves sound like reasonable people just trying to protect the Constitution.

State House Rep. Gary Alexander (R-20, Olympia), the ranking Republican on the house ways and means committee, has offered, he says, a “contrast” budget proposal in anticipation of what the Democrats will propose next week.

Alexander says he had “great respect” for ways and means committee chair Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48, Medina), but adds: “Our approaches and our desired outcomes were too far apart. Today’s budget is to provide a contrast—a different set of priorities—so the public can see a different way to handle the problem.”

The “problem,” of course, is an approximately $1 billion shortfall. (Initially, after the dour September revenue forecast, the state was looking at a $1.4 billion shortfall for its $32 billion 2011-13 budget passed just four months earlier. And actually, that $1.4 billion hole was a $2 billion problem–because everyone agreed that the state needed to keep about $500 to $600 million in reserve.)

After the the legislature passed about $450 million in cuts and savings and transfers during December’s special session; and after caseloads dropped, saving  $340 million; and after the latest revenue forecast put $45 million back into state coffers: The $2 billion got scaled back to about $1 billion.

Alexander’s $1.6 billion plan proposes about $840 million in cuts (leaving $650 million in reserve) plus other savings including fund transfers and repealing some tax exemptions to fill the gap that existed after the special session (their budget had already anticipated reductions in caseloads).

Alexander and the house Republicans are the first of the four caucuses to come out with a budget plan since Gov. Chris Gregoire released her $2 billion all-cuts plan in November.

The big difference between Alexander’s proposal and Gregoire’s is that the house GOP fully funds K-12 education, budgeting $580 million more than the governor. (Gregoire had proposed cutting $334 million, including reducing state levy equalization money to poorer school districts by $150 million.)

In order to spend more on K-12, Alexander’s proposal reduces the Department of Ecology by 14 percent and eliminates all general fund dollars for the Puget Sound General Partnership, reduces the state contribution to state employee benefits from $850 to $800 a month (the governor proposed lowering it to $825), ends funding for the Basic Health Plan (health insurance for the poor), and reduces health care eligibility for children of undocumented parents from 200 percent of the federal poverty level to 133 percent. The proposal would also reduce the funding to the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program (TANF).

Of course, Gregoire’s budget proposal also decimated social services, including eliminating the Basic Health Plan. But she proposed buying $42 million in services back with a temporary sales tax increase. The Republican plan does not propose a sales tax increase.

And here’s a surprise: Like the governor (Austin Jenkins broke the news earlier this week), the Republicans also proposed repealing the $20 million tax exemption for big banks on interest earned on first mortgage loans. The Joint Audit Legislative Review Committee (JLARC)—the committee tasked with assessing tax breaks—had raised serious questions about the bank loophole and the Democrats have been denouncing the exemption for years. Alexander’s budget also follows some other JLARC recommendations, such as doing away with a tax break for renewable energy and a loophole for companies that try to register out of state to avoid B&O taxes.

In another surprise, at least to conservatives at the Washington Policy Center,  Alexander’s plan would fully fund I-1163, the Service Employee International Union’s 2011 initiative to upgrade health care worker training. Republican opponents (and the governor herself) had complained that it was an unfunded mandate. The governor, though, also funded it in her budget.

Alexander’s counterpart, Democratic Rep. Hunter, was reluctant to comment on Alexander’s budget, saying “let him have his press today.” However, he added: “Putting out a budget involves more than just making a political statement about what you think is important, it involves getting 50 votes. Well, he doesn’t have 50 votes. I don’t think he even has 40. And that’s not going to pass. I have to get to 50.”

Hunter says he will be glad to offer his critique of Alexander’s budget next week when he unveils his budget. “I’ll be happy to talk about how mine is different then,” he says.

Following up on her fiery floor speech supporting women’s access to birth control this morning, US Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) went on Andrea Mitchell’s show on MSNBC this afternoon to respond to two outrageous Republican actions this week: An all-male, all-anti-contraception panel that testified on birth control coverage in the House, and a statement by Rick Santorum’s biggest financial backer to the effect that back in his day, “gals” who didn’t want to get pregnant just kept their legs closed.

Saying she felt like she woke up yesterday on the set of “Mad Men,” Murray called Santorum backer Foster Friess’ comment “insulting to women” if they were a joke, “frightening” if not.

“The policies they are putting forward here are frightening to women and their health care choices,” Murray said. “We are not going to be silent. We are taking them on.”

As for the house’s all-male, all anti-birth control panel on contraception, Murray said, “As a chairman, your responsibility is to make sure that you have voices at the table that reflect the views of the people in this country so that you can take their testimony and make good decisions. When you have an all-male panel and you deny [testimony from] a young woman with personal experience on the issue, that is not fair, it’s not what America thinks a democracy is about, and it’s insulting to women.”

The woman who had hoped to testify, Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke, had hoped to talk about her friend who lost an ovary because her health-care plan didn’t cover birth control, which helps prevent ovarian cancer. Fluke told MSNBC yesterday, “I was so stunned when Chairman Issa made the decision to not allow me to speak…and to say that I was not an appropriate witness and that those women’s stories were not appropriate for this committee.”