LOL Wendy Davis Defending "Women's Health Centers"

"You also took up the tabernacle of Moloch,
And the star of your god Remphan,
Images which you made to worship;
And I will carry you away beyond Babylon."
Acts 7:43

We came across this piece of silliness over the weekend:

The relevant part is at the 0:16 mark: "I stood for thirteen hours straight to fight the shutdown of women's health centers."

Is...this a joke?!?   Cuz that's not how we remember that night.   Davis' actions in June 2013 might have had a thing or two to do with a thing or two beyond "women's health."

But, of course, late term abortion doesn't play well in the suburbs.

Obviously, Davis' strategy is to obscure that reality behind euphemistic, fuzzy, language. There's no way that would have worked five or six years ago. At this point, however, that history is far enough in the past that the average voter might have forgotten. It's the responsiblity of those who oppose Davis' candidacy to remind them.

Bottom Line: For those who remember the history, that claim is quite the act of chutzpah...but the real question is how many remember.

TAL Endorses Incumbent Congresswoman who told MSNBC she's "pro-choice"

"How long will this be in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies? Indeed they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart,"
Jeremiah 23:26


Shot:

Chaser:

Pretty self-explanatory.

It's been a running joke for years that TAL would endorse Sarah Davis if she cut them a big enough check.  Granger is...pretty much the federal equivalent.  You can learn about her record here.  At best, it's weak.

Bottom Line: Just...wow.

Creative Lawyering for Good

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5

Ross Ramsey this morning:

Ken Paxton is one lucky duck. The Texas attorney general was asked the kind of friendly, easy question that allowed him to twist the nose of an organization he doesn’t like under cover of state law.

It’s not a secret that Paxton is opposed to abortion. That opposition has long been a centerpiece of his campaigns as he rose from the Texas House to the Senate to his current position. It’s hard to imagine that he wants Planned Parenthood to have more resources.

And given a chance to say that a new state law creates an obstacle to some of that organization’s funding, he grabbed it.

The question posed to the state’s top lawyer was whether Planned Parenthood can continue to be one of the beneficiaries of the State Employee Charitable Campaign. State workers who sign up for the voluntary campaign give a little bit of money from each paycheck to the program, which then distributes the money to charities chosen from an approved list.

This is so great.

SB 22, as it passed, did nothing.  It was one of those fake pro-life bills that the lege likes to pass.  It creates the appearance of being pro-life, without actually doing anything.

The stated purpose of SB 22 was to crack down on practices by the City of Austin.  Of course, the City found a loophole almost instantly.   In other words, the lege wasn't able to accomplish even the stated objective of this watered down bill.

Thanks to Ken Paxton, however, it looks like something useful will come out of the effort.

Bottom Line: It's a small win.  But it's a win in an area that previously would have been a loss.  Kudos Ken Paxton.

#TXLEGE: Apparently, Planned Parenthood Supports Prop. 6

"You also took up the tabernacle of Moloch,
And the star of your god Remphan,
Images which you made to worship;
And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.’"
Acts 7:43

The things you see scrolling through Twitter:

Join PPTV at @CheerUpCharlies to get out the vote!

It's only fitting that, in honor of #BreastCancerAwarenessMonth, we're getting the word out about #Prop6 in order to prevent more Texans from losing their lives to cancer.

Early voting is happening now through Nov. 1. #TxLege pic.twitter.com/EuAotwykzp

— Planned Parenthood Texas Votes (@PPTXVotes) October 22, 2019

YOWZA.

Obviously, we've opposed Prop. 6 since we first heard about it. CIPRIT has been scandal plagued for years.  They don't need an additional $3 Billion.

But we didn't expect Planned Parenthood to get in on the act.

Then again, we never expected NARAL and Wendy Davis to show up here.

Bottom Line: We already thought Prop. 6 was a boondoggle, but this is all the more reason to oppose it....

Zimmerman's lawsuit is potentially VERY far reaching

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5

By now, we assume you've heard about Don Zimmerman's latest lawsuit against the City of Austin:

On Wednesday, Don Zimmerman, a former Austin City Council member and current candidate for Texas House District 47, filed a lawsuit against the city of Austin over its budget amendment that provides $150,000 to assist women seeking abortions with logistical costs such as transportation.

The funds are intended by proponents of the bill to go to pro-choice organizations such as Fund Texas Choice and The Bridge Collective, which help women get abortions.

The lawsuit was filed the day after the city council approved the new budget and abortion amendment.

There's a lot that could be said about Zim's lawsuit, but we found the following section most interesting:

The city's expenditures, however, violate another Texas statute that imposes criminal liability on anyone who "furnishes the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purposes intended." 2A Texas Penal Code Article 1192, at 433 (1961).

Bottom Line: It doesn't take a genius to see the implications there.

-------

Zim's full lawsuit:

Zimmerman v. City of Austin... by The Texan on Scribd

#TXLEGE: Turns out the Heartbeat bill is actually pretty popular

"For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb."
Psalm 139:13

This week's Trib poll:

Nearly half of Texas voters — and more than two-thirds of Republicans — would support the kind of ban on abortions in the early stages of pregnancy that lawmakers in Mississippi, Ohio and Georgia recently passed, according to the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.

Just under half (48%) of Texas voters support making abortion illegal after six weeks of pregnancy, as a half-dozen states have done with “early abortion bans” or “heartbeat” bills that would outlaw abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected. Another 42% said they oppose such a law.

Party identification marked the biggest divide on the question, with 68% of Republicans saying they would favor an early limit on abortions and 63% of Democrats saying they would oppose it. Proposals to impose these kinds of early limits didn’t advance in the just-finished legislative session.

Obviously, protecting life is about protecting life.  While prudence might suggest certain concessions to feasibility and/or practicality, the basic principle stands.  Poll numbers shouldn't matter.

BUT COME ON.

All session long, we were told that the reason we couldn't pass real pro-life bills was because the big 3 were terrified of public backlash.  Well, there's your public backlash.  It looks like a pretty solid plurality.

Keep in mind, that's after months of one sided messaging; in a more balanced messaging environment, there's every reason to believe those numbers would go up.

Yet our elected officials refuse to try.

Bottom Line: Even by our elected officials own standards, Texas' failure to act on this issue is pathetic....

#TXLEGE: A more honorable type of scoundrel

"A man to whom God has given riches and wealth and honor, so that he lacks nothing for himself of all he desires; yet God does not give him power to eat of it, but a foreigner consumes it. This is vanity, and it is an evil affliction."
Ecclesiastes 6:2

Since session ended, there's been a decent amount of commentary comparing the last two speakers.

The truth is they're both pretty terrible.

Under Straus, you got some modest pro-life bills (Note: Usually when the Governor forced this issue), and little else.  Under Bonnen, you got some decent movement on property taxes, and nothing else.  Neither is acceptable.

The biggest difference is Dennis Bonnen says to your face the things Joe Straus said behind your back.

Where Joe Straus stabbed you in the back, Dennis Bonnen stabs you in the front.

Either way, stab wounds are generally unhelpful.

Bottom Line: Even if the process does improve, does it really matter if the results stay the same?!?

#TXLEGE: Barring a special session, Abortion Tourism is inevitably coming to Texas

"because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."
Romans 1:21

Louisiana last night:

Louisiana's state legislature on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed a so-called "heartbeat" pro-life bill, becoming the latest in a slew of states to enact strict new restrictions on abortion that many conservatives have hoped will end with the Supreme Court revisiting its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, has said he will buck the national party establishment and sign the measure into law. Another Democrat, state Sen. John Milkovich, sponsored the bill -- underscoring the deep pro-life culture in Louisiana, even among liberal politicians.

The bill, which cleared the Louisiana House by a 79-23 vote, requires an ultrasound to be conducted prior to any abortion procedure being performed. If a fetal heartbeat is detected, the bill bans abortion unless, under penalty of perjury, the abortion provider declares the procedure necessary "to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."

Which means Texas now has more permissive abortion laws that almost every neighboring state (except New Mexico) and the overwhelming majority of states within 500 miles.

[Note: While we're on the topic, it's worth pointing out Mexico's abortion laws are stricter than Alabama's.]

There's lots you can say.  Plenty already has been said.  We're sure more is coming.

But none of the commentary can change one new fact of life: A significant chunk of those abortions are coming to Texas.

It's a simple legal, and geographical, reality.

When that reality fully takes hold, the elected officials who allowed it will bear responsibility.  Whether this situation arose deliberately, or if it arose from ignorance, is irrelevant.  Reality will be reality.

However we got here, only one person can change that reality: Governor Greg Abbott.

Greg Abbott can call a special session.  We have the votes to pass any pro-life bill we want.  Of course, Abbott has already said he's not doing that.

Which means that, whenever abortion tourism inevitably rears its ugly head in Texas, Greg Abbott's gonna own those headlines.

Bottom Line: When you add the the legal reality to the geographical reality, the inevitable result is obvious...unless Greg Abbott wants to change that legal reality.

A-LIE-ance for "Life" LIES about SCOTUS order

"They are all adulterers.
Like an oven heated by a baker—
He ceases stirring the fire after kneading the dough,
Until it is leavened."
Hosea 7:4

The things you see scrolling through Twitter:

Supreme Court grants cert in IN humane disposition law, denies cert in IN law banning abortions for sex, race, and disability (similar to TX #SB1033). The 7th Circuit's ruling that struck down second law stands. Concurrence by Thomas. https://t.co/nwwJbg9HPC #TXlege

— TexasAllianceforLife (@TXAlliance4Life) May 28, 2019

Yowza...looks pretty convincing.

Until you read what SCOTUS actually said:

Page 11

Translation: The fastest way to get this case in front of SCOTUS is for the 5th circuit to produce a ruling at odds with the 7th circuit.

As for Justice Thomas:

Page 14

Translation: Justice Thomas is saying the opposite of what TAL's tweet implies.

Bottom Line: Reasonable people can disagree over the degree to which SCOTUS deserves deference, but we should at least tell the truth about what they actually say....

#TXLEGE: Alliance for...enabling bureaucrats over patients?!?

"They are all adulterers.
Like an oven heated by a baker—
He ceases stirring the fire after kneading the dough,
Until it is leavened."
Hosea 7:4

Over the past week, we've seen movement to reform the diabolical Texas "Advance Directives" Act.  Mind you, this is reform, not repeal.  The bill in question leaves the wicked system in place.  It merely establishes a more workable system of 'due process' for those already trapped.

Furthermore, the horrifying Carolyn Jones case happens in the background.

Yet, even this modest concession is too much for some:

SB-2089-opposition-letter-4... by on Scribd

Obviously, that letter has a lot to unpack, but to yammer about "imminent and certain death" at a time when a Beaumont woman is heroically disproving their argument tells you what you need to know.

Something else in that letter speaks louder:

Wow.

For those of you unfamiliar with the history, the so-called Texas "Medical" Association has been one of the...more zealous advocacy groups for abortion in this state.

Yet an allegedly pro-life group treats them like BFF's.

At least the so-called Texas "Medical" Association has a certain 'logic.'  They're a trade group.  As such, their objective is to preserve their own pricing power.  Given this objective, it doesn't take a genius to see why they support bureaucrats over patients.

Their logic might be diabolical.  Their logic might be wicked.  But their logic IS logical.

We can't say the same for any self-respecting "pro-life" organization.

Obviously, end of life decisions are difficult.  But that's why those decisions should be made by patients and families.  Not bureaucrats backed by the force of an obscure state law.

Which, of course, is obvious to anyone who calls themselves pro-life and has a shred of integrity or self-respect.

Unfortunately, not everyone in this state who markets themselves as "pro-life" has those traits.

Bottom Line: The correct pro-life position in this case is obvious to anyone who isn't willfully blind or hopelessly compromised....

#TXLEGE: Sham Bill Nevertheless Accomplishes Political Purposes

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Matthew 18:6

[Note: Van Halen's "Runnin' with the Devil" literally came on in the background as we sat down to write this blog post.]

Fascinating write up in the Texas Observer over last week's passage of the 'born-alive' act:

As the Texas House voted on the first anti-abortion bill to make it to the floor this session, advocates rolled down a banner above the board displaying lawmakers’ votes: “STOP TURNING LIES INTO LAWS.”

The House gave initial passage to the bill, titled the “Texas Born-Alive Infant Protection Act,” after a brief but tense floor debate Tuesday evening, and gave it a final stamp of approval on Wednesday. The measure, House Bill 16, is Texas’ version of a national proposal that failed in the U.S. Senate earlier this year. HB 16 would penalize doctors who don’t give full medical treatment to babies born alive after abortion. Practically speaking, the bill does very little: There have been zero cases reported by the state since it started tracking them in 2013. Even if it did occur, federal law already requires infants born alive at any stage in development be given equal protection. But abortion-rights advocates say the measure is dangerous political propaganda that aims to paint abortions later in pregnancy as extreme and target the doctors who provide them.

[Note: Emphasis added.]

Money quote from Donna Howard:

“We refuse to waste the limited time we have here to take care of the people’s business by entertaining malicious and purely political attacks against women and doctors,” Howard said. “We refuse to ignore the expertise of medical professionals and allow them to be targeted and harassed. We refuse to use the power entrusted in us by our constituents and the voters of Texas for political theater, or to be party to turning lies into law.”

Here's the thing: Donna Howard is correct.  This 'born-alive' bill is political theater.  But (like all Democrats) she misunderstands the intended target of the theatrics.  In her misunderstanding, she led Democrats right into the trap.

Allow this guy to explain:

The Democrats' refusal to support children born alive will haunt them in the upcoming elections. Republicans are on the right side of life. There's only a tiny constituency who favors killing kids born alive. #txlege https://t.co/sBUtJQnFOS

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) April 21, 2019

-----

As we explained about six weeks ago:

There's nothing inherently wrong with this bill.  Obviously, babies still alive after an abortion deserve medical care.  But, notice that phrase: After an abortion.

A month ago, following Democrats' stunt at the committee hearing:

This bill doesn't stop a single abortion.  This bill only goes into effect after the baby is 100% outside the birth canal.  That's why we've been unenthusiastic about it.  But Holy Toledo Democrats....

There will be plenty of time to discuss the proper response, but it's worth taking a second to reflect on the insanity of this position: Texas Democrats want to Deny Medical Care to Infants who are 100% outside the birth canal.

Again, The Texas Observer article linked above is correct. This bill doesn't stop a single abortion.  That's not its purpose.

The purpose of the 'born-alive' bill is to find an obvious, common sense, issue with almost zero practical impact.  Then get the Democrats to vote against it.  Which most of them just did (more on that below).

------

This issue polls well with suburban women.

-------

Here's what's crazier: In a session in which 'bi-partisanship' (hashtagNewDay, hashtagTexasPlan, hashtagTheTimeisNow) is all the rage, the Democrats could have used this to neutralize abortion as a campaign issue.

Had the Democrats gone along with this farce, they could have taken a vote for political cover without stopping a single abortion.

They could have made it all about 'bi-partisanship.'  They could have spun it as being 'magnanimous.'  They could have appeared to have made a concession (without conceding anything in reality).  Heck, they probably could have traded their support for several Billion dollars of additional spending.

Instead, they took the vote they took.....

-------

Democrat State Reps elected in 2018 who voted against 'born-alive' act:

• Michelle Beckley

• Rhetta Bowers

• John Bucy

• Gina Calanni

• Art Fierro

• Vicki Goodwin

• Julie Johnson

• Ray Lopez

• Terry Meza

• Lina Ortega

• Ana-Maria Ramos

• John Rosenthal

• Carl Sherman -- Note: Apparently, this guy's a Pastor.

• James Talarico

• Erin Zweiner

Obviously, a few of those are safe seats where one Democrat took over for another.  But most of those are districts the D's picked up last fall.  Good luck defending that vote.

Furthermore, most of those Democrats are white, a point upon which we will elaborate below.

-------

Let's return to the Texas Observer article that was the original reason for this blog post:

The bill passed, 93-1-50; Republicans were joined by 12 Democrats to support it, while state Representative Harold Dutton, D-Houston cast the sole “no” vote and 50 lawmakers registered “present, not voting.”

Sssssssssay what?!?  12 Democrats voted for the 'born-alive' act?!?  While there are a handful of D's that vote for pro-life bills, 12 is really high.

Which ones?!?

[Note: Joe Moody later made a journal statement for the bill.]

The overwhelming majority of those members are Black or Hispanic; all of those members, except one, represent majority-minority districts.

That's a racial dynamic Republicans should exploit.

Especially when white Democrats are taking the votes referenced above.

-------

Bottom Line: We'd rather prevent abortions, but we'll take the campaign issue....

#TXLEGE: Thoughts on the Abolition Bill hearing

"And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart."
Galatians 6:9

Obviously, we stayed late to testify on Monday night.  These are our thought.  No particular order:

• Jeff Leach did a really good job running the hearing.  With such an intense topic, the hearing could have been easily derailed.  It wasn't.
  
  Credit for that goes to the chair.

• We know some people were annoyed at the pace of the hearing.  We respectfully disagree.  On a topic like this, it's better to let everybody speak.  If it takes an extra four hours, so be it.

• Speaking of Jeff Leach: That exchange with the chick from NARAL was quite something.  ICYMI, she attacked Leach over taking an allegedly non-mainstream position.  Leach asked her whether she supported legal abortion at 39 weeks, 6 days, and 23 hours.  When she said yes, Leach correctly refused to be lectured about mainstream positions on abortion.

• The post-abortive women who testified as to how this sort of law would have impacted their thinking were easily the most compelling of the night; they should be the face of the movement moving forward.

• Tom Glass is right: The real solution on any number of issues, including abortion, is for the states to become much more assertive with the federal government.  Baby steps.

• Speaking of Baby Steps: We referenced the Capitol euphemisms "beginning the conversation" and "multi-session process."  Monday's hearing was the former.  It begins the latter.  You've gotta start somewhere.

• Speakiung of Starting Somewhere: Tony Tinderholt and Jeff Leach deserve tremendous credit for getting this ball rolling.

To be clear: This author's concerns about the unintended consequences of this approach remain, but those concerns weren't relevant Monday night....

Bottom Line: Monday night undeniably moved the cultural conversation forward....

Georgia Proving Greg Abbott's Pro-Life FAILURES

"Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."
James 4:17

Via Erick Erickson:

The Georgia House of Representatives has passed the fetal heartbeat legislation. In the past week, progressives have mounted strident opposition to the legislation, but Republicans held their ground. The measure passed the Georgia House with 92 votes to 78 in opposition.

Democrats claim they will use this measure to take back the House next year, but objective polling shows most women are actually in favor of some restrictions on abortion. This measure would begin restricting abortions when the child has his own heartbeat. It would also allow parents to claim children in utero for tax purposes and allow mothers to get deadbeat dads to help cover the costs of pregnancy.

Governor Kemp intends to sign the legislation.

Meanwhile, in Texas, we can't even establish a quorum to pass the joke bill they're using to run interference.

What's really insane: 2018 General Election was closer in Georgia than Texas.

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp:

Greg Abbott:

Even if you use the Cruz/O'Rourke race as your benchmark, Texas Republicans still won bigger.

Which proves that close elections are no reason to go soft on life.

Bottom Line: The midterm election was closer in Georgia than Texas.  Yet Georgia moves forward.  For that, you can blame Greg Abbott....

#TXLEGE: Texas Democrats remain NUTSO as ever for Murdering Children

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Matthew 18:6

ICYMI:

A frustrated Texas House Republican committee chairman was forced to postpone a hearing on his anti-abortion bill Monday morning after five members on the nine-person panel didn't show up for the meeting — prompting what’s known as a lack of quorum.

At issue is a bill by state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano. The measure, House Bill 16, would require doctors to care for a baby who survives an abortion procedure. It was unveiled earlier this month and already has more than 70 House members signed on as co-authors.

Four Democrats and one Republican on the committee were absent for Monday’s meeting, which was scheduled to begin at 8 a.m. Leach said state Rep. Morgan Meyer, R-Dallas, missed because of a flight delay. Meyer’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The four Democrats, meanwhile, signed onto a statement Monday saying that they would not “join this charade,” apparently referring to Leach’s anti-abortion proposal that was on the committee’s calendar for consideration.

“While some members of the Texas Legislature insist on attacking as well as offending women directly and indirectly, we will not join this charade by participating in this political grandstanding on issues which are already codified in Texas and Federal law,” read a statement signed by state Reps. Victoria Neave of Dallas, Julie Johnson of Carrollton, Jessica Farrar of Houston and Yvonne Davis of Dallas. “We refuse to offend our fellow Texas women, their families, and licensed physicians by wasting time on unnecessary legislation designed to intimidate and restrict women’s access to healthcare.”

That's insane.

This bill doesn't stop a single abortion.  This bill only goes into effect after the baby is 100% outside the birth canal.  That's why we've been unenthusiastic about it.  But Holy Toledo Democrats....

There will be plenty of time to discuss the proper response, but it's worth taking a second to reflect on the insanity of this position: Texas Democrats want to Deny Medical Care to Infants who are 100% outside the birth canal.

This website doesn't often tout our greatest hits, but this incident from six years ago is re-relevant:



Bottom Line: Clearly, some things never change....

#TXLEGE:Four Good Bills (and one STINKER)

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."
Mark 16:16

{Note: The committee hearing can be viewed here; our testimony on the smoking age bill is about two and a half hours in, our testimony on the election integrity is about five hours in.]

We spent most of today in the Senate State Affairs committee.  We testified on two bills and dropped cards on two others.  Finally, we discovered a bill that, while we weren't aware it was getting a hearing today, is totally worth supporting.

The Good:

• SB 13          Creighton               
  Relating to the ethics of public officials, including restrictions relating to lobbying and the personal financial statements of public officials; creating a criminal offense.
  
  This is similar to ethics legislation the House has killed in previous sessions. Testimony on the bill was closed by the time we arrived at the hearing. But this very worthwhile.

• SB 9           Hughes                  
  Relating to election integrity; increasing criminal penalties; creating a criminal offense; creating civil penalties.
  
  This is the omnibus election integrity package. Others argued in-favor of it far more eloquently than we could. We're sure they'll write about it in detail as well. But this is must pass legislation for this session.

• SB 29          Hall                    
  Relating to expenditures for lobbying activities made by certain entities.
  
  This is the Senate compainion to the ban on taxpayer funded lobbying. We were out of the room when they called us to testify. But there isn't anything to say on this topic we haven't already said.

• SB 22          Campbell | et al.        
  Relating to prohibiting certain transactions between a governmental entity and an abortion provider or affiliate of the provider.
  
  This bill would prohibit municipal governments from subsidizing abortion providers; obviously, this bill doesn't prevent a single abortion, but it's nevertheless worthwhile.

The Awful:

• SB 21          Huffman | et al.         
  Relating to the distribution, possession, purchase, consumption, and receipt of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and tobacco products.
  
  The smoking age bill. Such a terrible bill for many reasons. Unfortunately, there's a good chance it will require the Governor's veto.
  
  Yeah, we know....

Bottom Line: For better or worse, bills are moving this session....

#TXLEGE: Are we trying to prevent Abortions?!? (Or, will cheap theatrics suffice?!?)

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations."
Jeremiah 1:5

Interesting:

AUSTIN — A North Texas lawmaker has filed a bill that could result in doctors being fined for not trying to save an infant born after an abortion.

Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, filed House Bill 16 on Thursday. The legislation would require doctors to provide "appropriate medical treatment" in the event that a fetus lives through an attempted abortion. The parent or guardian — or the infant itself — could sue the physician for damages, and the state attorney general could impose a $100,000 fine if it's proved such treatment was not provided.

"With the filing of the Texas Born-Alive Infant Protection Act today, the Texas Legislature will draw a line in the sand, proclaiming clearly and loudly on behalf of the Texans we represent, that a baby who survives an abortion deserves the full protection of the law and the highest standards of medical care," Leach said Thursday at a news conference packed with the bill's supporters.

....

Brenham Republican Lois Kolkhorst, who is sponsoring the bill in the Texas Senate, said she hopes Lone Star State conservatives will prevail where Washington's failed.

One and a half cheers. Hip, hip, hooray. Hip, hip....

That's all the enthusiasm we can muster.

There's nothing inherently wrong with this bill.  Obviously, babies still alive after an abortion deserve medical care.  But, notice that phrase: After an abortion.

This is a defensive; pro-lifers need to go on offense.

"Going on offense" means actively preventing abortions.

There are currently 3 approaches in play to go on offense:

• Outright abolition.
• Note: This author has some very serious reservations about this approach, but it's a debate worth having.

• Heartbeat.

• Pre-Born Non-Discrimination.

There's a very valid debate in terms of which of these is most prudent, but all three share one common factor: They PREVENT abortions.

[Note: From a narrowly-defined political perspective, PreNDA is the vote we want to make every Democrat elected last fall take.]

Bottom Line: Go on offense....

#TXLEGE: Freedom Caucus unveils priorities (while Swanson has hearing on debt transparency bill)

"Because of the transgression of a land, many are its princes;
But by a man of understanding and knowledge
Right will be prolonged."
Proverbs 28:2

The Texas Freedom Caucus unveiled its priorities for the current legislative session:



Highlights:

• Same top priority as everyone else -- Property taxes/school finance.

• Austin ISD + Plano ISD will pay $900 million into Robin Hood just by themselves.

• Merit pay for teachers.

• "Our hearts are broken by the actions of the New York legislature." re: Abortion.
• Several related priorities.

• Pass Constitutional Carry/oppose "Red Flag" laws.

• Uniform Election Dates.

• Paper trail for ballot results.

• Religious liberty.

• Border stuff.

• Expand career and trade schools.

• Ban taxpayer funded lobbying.

It's a solid list.  It's basically the RPT priorities, plus some others added by the grassroots.  That being said, as someone who served on the committee, this author can assure readers that most of these items would have been RPT priorities had the committee not been limited to five.

However, the biggest story was who was not there.  Valoree Swanson had to miss the press conference...because she was laying out a bill in committee.  If you're looking for a sign things are moving in a better direction at the Capitol, the fact that Valoree Swanson is laying out a bill in February is a pretty good one.

Swanson's bill was a simple debt transparency bill that would restrict the number of items school districts can put on a bond proposition:

HB 134             Swanson                 
Relating to the form of ballot propositions in an election seeking authorization for the issuance of school district bonds supported by property taxes.

Putting it mildly, that bill does not get a hearing last session (especially in February).

Bottom Line: The process will continue, but today was a good day....

Dismemberment Ban in Court

"For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb."
> Psalm 139:13

Via Texas Right to Life:

NEW ORLEANS–November 5, 2018: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments over the Texas Dismemberment Abortion Ban earlier today. The three-judge panel hearing the arguments included Chief Judge Carl E. Stewart and Judges James L. Dennis and Don R. Willett. The Texas Dismemberment Abortion Ban, passed by the Texas Legislature in 2017, outlaws one specific gruesome and barbaric abortion method commonly used in the second trimester of pregnancy. Justice Willett pointed out that Texas does have a valid state interest in protecting preborn Life, which the state is acting on by banning this particular procedure.

Previously, in November 2017, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel ordered the Pro-Life law be permanently enjoined and blocked from being enforced. The ruling against the Pro-Life law followed a seminal five-day trial where attorneys for the state questioned several abortionists, bioethicists, and medical professionals, building an extensive trial record that the circuit court indicated they will heavily rely on while considering the appeal. The record includes models, diagrams, and medically accurate descriptions of a dismemberment abortion, which will be key for the appellate court’s consideration of the brutal nature of this abortion method and the ubiquity of alternative legal abortion procedures.

The lead attorney for Texas, Heather Hacker, argued that the appeals court should reverse the district court’s ruling against the Texas Dismemberment Abortion Ban because of several key legal and factual errors in the lower court’s logic. Hacker emphasized, “A child born at 18 weeks would…still be swaddled and cared for, but at that same age, the child in the womb could have forceps used to rip that child from the womb piece by piece. In Texas, no animal is permitted to be killed this way, nor a convicted criminal on death row treated like this.”

The Texas abortion industry challenging the law argued that the Pro-Life policy would cause a substantial obstacle for women seeking abortions in Texas. The attorneys arguing for Whole Woman’s Health and other abortion businesses argued that the law fails a simple burden-benefit analysis, emphasizing that Texas must prove the Pro-Life policy has a health benefit for Texas women, failing to acknowledge that protecting fetal Life had any benefit at all. Hacker argued that this was a misapplication of the legal standard adopted by SCOTUS in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and even in the more radical Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt opinion. The attorney defending the Pro-Life law showed that SCOTUS has always limited the undue burden question to “abortion access,” something that will not be affected by the Dismemberment Abortion Ban. The state of Texas pointed back to numerous quotes, records, and testimony from Texas abortionists, abortion experts, and the plaintiffs themselves who affirmed during the five-day trial in the district court that Texas abortion clinics already routinely perform abortion procedures alternative to dismemberment. One related point that caught the appellate judges’ attention this morning was that the abortion industry and Judge Yeakel neglected the strong and clear opinion of SCOTUS that states do have a compelling state interest in protecting innocent human Life. The plaintiffs framed the argument as if Texas has no right to pass legislation to stop such inhumane and gruesome practices as the preborn child is torn apart limb from limb while her heart is still beating.

Although the Fifth Circuit has previously ruled in favor of many Texas Pro-Life laws, the outcome of the case has the potential to change greatly based on the particular three-judge panel that is drawn to hear the case. In this instance, two of the three judges (Stewart and Dennis) were appointed by anti-Life President Bill Clinton and have served since the mid-1990s. Justice Willett was appointed by Pro-Life President Donald Trump and was sworn in earlier this year.

Bottom Line: It boggles the mind that anyone could oppose this policy, yet here we are....

#TXLEGE, #TribFest18: Freedom Caucus outlines plans for next session

"Have I not commanded you? Be strong and of good courage; do not be afraid, nor be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go."
Joshua 1:9

[Note: We lost our notes from this panel, so this post is written from memory.]

Three members of the Matt caucus (Krause, Rinaldi, Schaefer) discussed next session during a Tribfest panel this afternoon.

On the speaker's race, their "powder is still dry."  No decisions have been made.  This is probably the appropriate course until after November.  That being said, we found it interesting that Travis Clardy attended the panel:

As for priorities, property taxes and a more rational school funding system.  All were open to the idea of more state funding to "buy down" school taxes.  It's a worthwhile idea, although there have to be some conditions.

We asked if it was, realistically speaking, possible to improve the property tax system without first abolishing taxpayer funded lobbying.  All three seem to think it can be done.  Consider us skeptical.

Guns and babies were also discussed.  Schaefer gave a really good answer as to why red flag laws don't solve the problem at hand.  He also spoke eloquently about how the job of government is to protect life.

Bottom Line: It's too soon to make any predictions, but next session is going to be interesting....

#TXLEGE: Banning Race-Based Abortions could SWING SD-19 Special Election

"For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb."
Psalm 139:13

We recently discussed how, in the context of the current special election, a concerted pro-life push could flip SD-19.  SD-19 is filled with culturally conservative legacy Democrats (aka. pro-life Hispanic Catholics) uncomfortable with the Democrat party's current position on abortion.  Looks like Texas Right to Life noticed the same thing:

Now through July 31, Pro-Life voters in Senate District 19 have the opportunity to elect a true Pro-Life candidate to the Texas Senate: Peter Flores.

Senator Carlos Uresti, a radical pro-abortion Democrat who has been the Senator for SD 19 since 2006, was recently forced to resign after being convicted of several felonies. He will serve a 12-year jail sentence. Governor Greg Abbott called an emergency special election to take place July 31 to fill this seat for the remaining two years of the term.

SD 19 has always been represented by Democrats, leaving Pro-Life Republicans yearning for better representation. A little known secret is that SD 19 is not a deep blue one, being in fact a swing district. After more than a hundred years of Democrats owning this seat, now is our time to seize this opportunity!

Soo...you have a strong pro-life contrast in a majority/minority district.

And what, pray tell, is Texas Right to Life's top legislative priority next session?!?

[The Preborn Non-Discrimination Act] would protect preborn children from discriminatory abortions based on race, sex, or suspected disability.

The campaign ads (English and Spanish) write themselves: "Pete Gallego and Roland Gutierrez support aborting babies because over race.  Pete Flores is the only candidate who will protect children of color.  Vote Pete Flores for Texas Senate."

It would tie the Democrats in knots.

Bottom Line: Not killing babies based on their race a solid ethical principle; in a Catholic majority/minority district, it's also a political no-brainer.