The school board offered Lanigan much less, just $60,000 and a condition he not sue any school officials, The Washington Post's The State of NoVa blog reported Tuesday. He is suing the school board for a no-strings-attached $107,838, the most he can be reimbursed for in his case under county policy after acquittal for an employment-related criminal charge. The police bungled the case, but the school district followed along by not getting Lanigan's side of the story before contacting the authorities or before police confronted and accused him.
Although a jury acquitted Lanigan after just 47 minutes of deliberation because of a lack of evidence and blatant deceit on the part of accusers and witnesses, he talked to the Post in May about his ordeal. He was transferred twice, suspended without pay, had his face plastered all over the media and Internet, spent time in a protective wing in jail, and was pushed by prosecutors to plead guilty to misdemeanor assault.
After his acquittal, the school district waited three months to reinstate him, burdened his family by transferring him, and gave him a part-time position. When he did return to teaching full time, the district reprimanded him with demeaning guidelines, such as: "Avoid placing yourself in close physical proximity to any student, particularly in a manner that could be interpreted as sexual. ... Do not be alone in your office or other rooms with a student unless the door is open and you and the student are visible from outside the room."
Well no wonder the school district isn't paying Lanigan back – they still think he's culpable.
After the General Assembly passed a law in February that reclassified abortion clinics as hospitals, the state Department of Health laid out new guidelines to regulate them as such, which would be one of the strictest, if not the strictest, in the country. The state Board of Health must approve the regulations this month, and Gov. Bob McDonnell must sign off on them before year's end.
Although supporters claim the new policies are about health, many have little or nothing to do with patient well-being (exam rooms must be 80 square feet, public corridors must be 5 feet wide, ceilings must be 7 feet, 10 inches tall), and the state's abortion providers are worried that they will have to close because they cannot afford to bring the clinics up to code.
The Virginia Catholic Conference has supported the changes, but a line was crossed in a press release on Wednesday authored by Caruso:
"Abortion is not health care because it ends lives rather than healing them. The existence of the abortion industry under the guise of 'health care' is, however, a sad and tragic reality in our Commonwealth and our country. ... These items and so many others contained in the proposal deserve strong support from those who consider themselves pro-life and those who consider themselves pro-choice. Indeed, it is hard to imagine why groups that say they are concerned about women's health would oppose these standards."Mr. Caruso should apologize to all women who had to have abortions because of serious health risks. The Catholic Church – which still opposes contraception – its entities, and its followers can believe and argue what they want on the morality of abortion. But this argument about health care, and that a health exception for legal abortions is meaningless because any woman or physician can claim a health risk, is personally offensive.
My friend's boyfriend impregnated her a few years ago, but because she already had kids, she was going to put this one up for adoption. Unfortunately, her blood pressure soared, creating a tangible health risk, and she got an abortion even though she normally would not have. If there was only a life-threatening exception for legal abortions, then she might've had to suffer or risk suffering a debilitating stroke or heart attack before being treated.
In general, health reasons for abortions have included gestational diabetes, cancer, and cystic fibrosis. Hospitals often refer women to outpatient or other inpatient treatment locations for abortions, or women have to find clinics elsewhere on their own. In a few sample cases, one Nebraska woman conceived after undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer, risking complications of the disease and birth defects, but a hospital wouldn't treat her so she sought out an abortion clinic; a Louisiana hospital would not terminate a woman's pregnancy because of her cardiomyopathy despite doctors' warnings that the pregnancy might kill her, so she had to travel 100 miles by ambulance to Texas for an abortion; and another woman traveled 200 miles by ambulance for an abortion because of severe pregnancy-related renal failure.
Most religion-affiliated hospitals prohibit their doctors from performing abortions, and groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops want a broad legal conscientious objection to not provide or cover patients' birth control. The existence of the religion industry under the guise of "health care" is, however, a sad and tragic reality in our commonwealth and our country.
For starters, Cantor has been rebuked by Republican Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey and McDonnell himself. Christie told a crowd, "Our people are suffering now, and they need support now. And they [Congress] can all go down there and get back to work and figure out budget cuts later. We need the support now here in New Jersey, and that’s not a Republican or a Democratic issue." McDonnell said on radio, "My concern is that we help people in need. For the FEMA money that’s going to flow, it's up to them on how they get it. I don't think it's the time to get into that [deficit] debate."
Cantor has softened his stance some. The Richmond Times-Dispatch quoted him Wednesday as saying that relief will not be withheld until funds are offset. "These are disasters that there is a precedent for a federal role. I believe there's an appropriate federal role. And the monies will be there," Cantor said. Yet, a former senior FEMA official told TPMDC about the risks involved with offsetting in general:
"They've addressed offsets before, and unfortunately offsets were from [Housing and Urban Development] money – community development block grants – which are a good tool for recovering from disaster. ... Is anybody vehemently opposed to offsets? No. But they need to make sure that if they do them that, one, it happens quickly and, two, it doesn't come from programs that help recovery."Additionally, The Huffington Post reported Wednesday that Cantor voted against offsetting disaster relief when an amendment came up for vote in 2004 after Tropical Storm Gaston, which also affected Virginia. Cantor's office told HuffPo, "We are living in different times," and cited the higher national debt as a reason for offsetting now.
If that's the case, Cantor should argue for the Bush-era tax cuts to lapse. After all, the percentage of publicly-held debt of the GDP will be 100% in 2021 with the tax cuts in place compared to 60% without them. Cantor himself said last year, "If you have less revenues coming in to the federal government, and more expenditures, what does that add up to? Certainly you are going to dig the hole deeper."
That's Eric – "I was against offsetting disaster relief before I was for it!" – Cantor, today's Worst Virginian in the World!
I will be on vacation this weekend, but Worst Virginians will return Sept. 9.
