I have introduced three bills to address the growing disaster of Obamacare, as regards Medicaid expansion, Obamacare insurance salesmen sign-up organizers called Navigators, and keeping your previous insurance plan. This alert discusses HB 39, to provide healthcare to the indigent without expanding Medicaid.
Medicaid Expansion Will Be Pushed in Virginia
Democrat Governor-elect Terry McAuliffe wants to add 425,000 recipients to the already 1,000,000 recipients on Medicaid arguing that 30,000 jobs will be added to Virginia’s economy. Medicine should be about improving health.
Some businessmen and “moderate” Republican State Senators want to expand Medicaid because they want the promised 100% of federal funding (first three years) and jobs (political patronage?). Federal funding is not free money. It comes from “We the Taxpayers” whose tax burden continues to escalate. They also believe Virginia can exit out of Medicaid expansion if the feds do not pay the 100%. They fail to cite any legal authority in the Obamacare law or published regulations for support to back out after expansion.< During the Governor’s race, Terry McAuliffe twice said he would not vote for a Budget unless Medicaid expansion was included. It is unclear if the Republican Speaker of the House would risk what will be painted in the media as “stingy Republicans” shutting down Virginia’s government over Medicaid expansion, despite such a shutdown being Democrat Governor McAuliffe’s decision. Read more
I have been proud to serve the citizens of the 13th district for the last 22 years and I am so thankful for your support for another term! This was a very tight race and I appreciate so much the hard work of my family, friends and all of my volunteers and supporters.
Over the next two years I will continue to fight for my constituents to improve transportation, keep taxes low, protect our Constitutional rights and family values and stop Federal intrusions into our state government.
Thank you again for your support!
Delegate Bob Marshall
Friends, I will be having Get-Out-the-Vote events this Saturday, November 2nd at 11:00 in Manassas and at 2:30 in Haymarket. Liberals are dumping massive amounts of money into my opponent’s campaign so I need all the help I can get. If you can attend either of these events please RSVP to Claire@delegatebob.com. Thank you for your support!
Manassas Lit Drop
Time: 11:00 AM
Date: Saturday, November 2
Meet Location: Tony’s New York Pizza, 11674 Sudley Manor Dr., Manassas, VA 20109
We will meet back at Tony’s at 1:30 for pizza on me.
Haymarket GOTV Door-Knock
Time: 2:30 PM
Date: Saturday, November 2
Meet Location: Haymarket McDonald’s 6740 Leaberry Way, Haymarket, Virginia (corner of 15 & Washington St.
We will meet at the Penn Station Subs, 6424 Trading Square, Haymarket, VA 20169 (Walmart Shopping Center) at 4:30 for subs on me!
RSVP to Claire@delegatebob.com
My latest ad outlining the misrepresentations my opponent and Terry McAuliffe are putting out about my legislation! The legislation is HB1, the so-called Personhood Bill that State Sen. Charles Colgan (D., Manassas) and I pre-filed in the 2012 session of the Virginia General Assembly so parents could recover ?wrongful death? damages if their pre-born child was killed in an accident. The House of Delegates approved the bill, 66-32, but it died in the State Senate. Please share with your friends!
In both the statewide campaign for Governor and more recently in an ad my opponent put out there have been accusations that a bill I sponsored in 2012, HB 1, would have restricted birth control access. THIS IS NOT TRUE!
HB 1 was based on a Missouri statute which has been on the books for more than 20 years and which was reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to overturn this portion of the law specifically because it did not challenge Roe v. Wade or affect contraception in any way. Again this law has been on the books for 20+ years and it has not affected access to contraception, abortion or assisted conception in Missouri at all.
The language of the bill was designed to recognize the personhood of an unborn child to create a cause of action for a wrongful death suit for a pregnant mother in a case where someone deliberately or accidentally took the life of her unborn child in a situation other than an abortion. At the time Virginia was one of a handful of states that did not have a law on the books to do this.
My opponent and other statewide candidates have been less than truthful about my legislation. I have never made a pretense about my positions on the issues, so if you want a candidate who will be honest and straight forward vote for me, November 5th!
State Del. Bob Marshall (R-13th) filed a complaint in Fairfax County Circuit Court Thursday charging that the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) failed to adhere to state law when it approved for funding a list of more than 30 transit projects last month.
At the crux of the case, Marshall said, is a Virginia statute that requires the authority to demonstrate how the projects will relieve congestion. With many of the recently-greenlit initiatives, the delegate said, that hasn’t been shown.
According to the section of Virginia Code noted in Marshall’s suit, the authority “shall give priority to selecting projects that are expected to provide the greatest congestion reduction relative to the cost of the project and shall document this information for each project selected.”
The question, it seems, is whether “shall give priority to” is a mandate.
In a prepared statement, Marshall said the NVTA “has failed to provide adequate and convincing documentation.”
“Their bond quality I am reliably advised will be low-grade, high-interest,” Marshall said. “Furthermore, projects that are seriously needed have been ignored while projects that will do little to help relieve major traffic congestion will be funded.”
If you know a 13 or 14 year old who might be interested in becoming a House of Delegates page now is the time to apply! Applications for the 2014 House of Delegates Page Program are now being taken by the Speaker’s office and must be received by no later than October 28, 2013. If you or someone you know is interested in this program, please have them check out the website here for more information! For the first time this year applications can be accepted online . You must receive a letter of endorsement from your delegate to apply so if you reside in the 13th district please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Delegate Marshall today sent the letter below to the Chairman of the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and the Chief Operating Officer. At issue is the case of Ms. Elizabeth Daly which has made headlines recently.
Ms. Daly was approached in a dark parking lot by plain clothes ABC officers in Charlottesville after coming out of a grocery store with food for a charity benefit including some sparkling water. The ABC officers did not initially identify themselves and Ms. Daly was concerned for her safety so she got in her car. Her vehicle was then surrounded by 5 other plain clothes officers who shouted at her to roll down her window or get out of the vehicle. In order to roll down her windows she had to start her vehicle which caused one officer to jump on her hood and others to shout other directions. Ms. Daly decided to leave the area to go to a police station and dialed 911 as she left the parking lot. In the process of leaving she grazed two officers with her vehicle. As a result of her actions she was charged with eluding police and assaulting two officers.
Ms. Daly should never have been stopped because the ABC officers had no probable cause and she certainly shouldn’t have been stopped in a dark parking lot by plain clothes officers. The ABC needs to review its procedures and do further training of its officers. Read more
Delegate Bob Marshall has requested legislation be drawn up to significantly strengthen the reporting requirement for gifts to Virginia public officials and state employees.
The changes to state law which he has proposed include:
Reporting any gift of $100 or more from a company or individual with business before the state of Virginia to any adult family member of an elected official or covered state employee, their spouse or legal dependent as well as a person cohabiting with a family member of an elected official or covered employee;
A gift not required to be initially reported because it was not made by someone with business before the state, would be required to be reported later if the donor subsequently had business before the state of Virginia where the gift was received within twelve months of such individual or company having business before the state;
Any gift received by a member during the regular session of the General Assembly exceeding $100 would have to be reported within five working days of receipt the gift.
“Virginia’s present law covering such gifts is vague and does not currently require that gifts to family members be reported by elected officials. The recent media disclosures regarding the extent, the number and the size of such gifts made available to family members of elected officials now requires a thorough revaluation of the present law,” Marshall said.
Marshall added, “We need a starting point for serious and prudent discussion that allows the legislature and other state officials to discharge their duties without causing any public concern that decisions or policies adopted by the legislature or actions taken by the Executive are made for any reason other than securing the common good.”
Delegate Marshall previously authored HJR 31 (2002) a Conflicts of Interest Study for state & local government which produced recommendations for legislation later adopted providing for stricter conflict of interest standards for officials & zoning boards (HB 1546, 2003). Del. Marshall has authored other laws tightening disclosure requirements and prohibitions of participation in land use decisions which did not pass.
Manassas, VA – Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13), the Virginia House of Delegates author of the 2006 voter-approved Marriage Amendment to Virginia’s Constitution, called the Supreme Court’s decision today striking down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) benefiting persons in a traditional marriage an exercise in moral arrogance and a stepping stone to striking down all laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Marshall also called on Congress to withhold funding from federal courts and the Obama Administration not to hear any court challenges to state laws upholding one man one woman marriage.
Marshall said, “Justice Kennedy and his majority assume powers of clairvoyance when they claim DOMA supporters acted with malice “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples; that they wanted to “demean,” homosexual couples, and “impose inequality,” on them and to “impose . . . a stigma,” to deny “equal dignity,” and to render homosexuals as “unworthy,” and to “humiliate” their children.”
But these DOMA tax and other federal benefits which applied only to persons in a traditional marriage did not apply to single persons. Did DOMA therefore demean, humiliate, and deny dignity to those single people? No, of course not!
Justice Kennedy and his majority rely on the Fifth Amendment to reach their twisted conclusion. “… the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold … that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”
Marshall noted that at the time of the adoption of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights in 1791 all thirteen states made sodomy illegal. There is no constitutional history from the Convention of 1789 nor in the official records of any Amendment adopted since then which required the Court to reach their conclusion, which fails to even define marriage.
Marshall pointed to Federal district court judge Vaughn Walker who struck down California Proposition 8 limiting marriage to one man and one woman who acknowledged after his decision that he was in a same sex relationship which should have caused Walker to recuse himself from the case, but he did not. “I have to question whether one or more of the majority justices are pushing a personal agenda with this decision because there in nothing in the Constitution that substantiates it,” said Marshall.
Delegate Marshall stated that “The alleged DOMA created liabilities experienced by same sex “married” couples will be the very reasons same sex marriage proponents will use to bring other cases before the Supreme Court to declare traditional one man, one woman marriage laws in the 38 states that define marriage as between one man and one woman unconstitutional.”
Marshall noted, “This decision will have far-reaching adverse and coercive consequences for children, church adoption agencies, the tax status of churches which decline marriage ceremonies to same sex couples, employers, school classroom courses and other areas of American life.”
The Supreme Court ruling did not determine whether states may continue to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Its DOMA decision has left considerable uncertainty with respect to state tax and welfare laws.
For example, will Medicaid benefits which are joint Federally/state funded be required to be offered to same-sex “married” couples and their families in Virginia even though our Constitution prohibits same-sex marriage? What happens now when a same-sex couple “married” in another state applies for Medicaid in Virginia as a married couple?
Additionally, what happens when a same sex couple “married” in another state moves to Virginia and files their taxes as “married filing jointly”. Traditionally, there’s has been reciprocity between the Federal and state tax codes. This sets up a prescident for a suit against Virginia.
Marshall added, “Federal Judges are supposed to expound the Constitution, not rationalize preferred personal sexual behavior and under the shadow of sleight of hand legalize it as the ‘law of the land.’ It is vanity to think that the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God may be overturned by the constitutional pretense of the majority Justices.”