GRANGER'S Fundamental Problem is that she's Completely and OBVIOUSLY LYING

"A righteous man hates lying,
But a wicked man is loathsome and comes to shame."
Proverbs 13:5

Came across this drivel scrolling through Twitter:

Few things in politics are more cynical than a leader’s (or prospective leader’s) eleventh-hour “conversion” on an issue that for many of us is simply a matter of principle.

Who can forget President Barack Obama’s “evolution” on gay marriage?

Or Sen. Mitt Romney’s flip from pro-choice governor to pro-life presidential candidate?
A bit closer to home, we have the declared evolution of Fort Worth’s own Rep. Kay Granger on abortion, a transformation some voters are meeting with skepticism.

....

As recently as 2007, when she was serving as a campaign surrogate for (quite ironically) Romney, Granger called herself a “pro-choice Republican.”

There must not have been many Republicans watching that MSNBC interview 13 years ago, because when video of her pro-choice declaration re-surfaced as part of an aggressive primary challenge from businessman Chris Putnam, many conservatives, myself included, were shocked.

The article goes on to argue that we should trust Granger because she's been endorsed by a couple of allegedly "pro-life" money laundering organizations and...something about Trump.

Poppycock.

Granger's problem, no matter how she wants to beat around the bush, is that she's a 24-year incumbent.  In that time, she's never actually lifted a finger to do anything about it.  O.k., fine, she voted for a couple bills that tinkered around the edges.  Anyone who thinks that's even remotely close to good enough is, at best, a cheap date.

But where the piece becomes particularly asinine is in the comparison to Trump.

Trump was running in a general election against someone who was known to be completely terrible.  In that instance, there's a case to be made for going with the unknown over the guaranteed bad outcome.  While this website never found that argument particularly satisfying, it doesn't take a genius to understand it.

Granger, by contrast, is running in a primary.  For a safe Republican seat.  Chris Putnam, meanwhile, has been endorsed by the only credible pro-life organization in this state.  In this case, upgrading makes total sense.

None of this is difficult to understand.

Bottom Line: After 24 years, a record of doing (at best) the absolute bare minimum isn't good enough.

Stupid Party Faces Test of the Moniker

"But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”

She said, “No one, Lord.”

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
John 8:1-12

The day is here.  The Republican Party of Texas is going to, once again, have a completely pointless discussion about an issue it should have resolved five years ago.  Good grief, what a waste of time.

Nevertheless.

This issue isn't about Log Cabin Republicans.  At least, not really.  Neither is it about a convention booth.  At least, not really.

It's about a (small) set of people who can't set priorities, and who didn't lift a finger when this subject mattered a year ago.

In case you've forgotten:

Republicans’ legislative efforts to ban cities from mandating benefits for employers’ workers took another twist late Wednesday night after a Texas House committee added protections for LGBTQ workers that the state Senate had removed from previous legislation.

Senate Bill 2486, which the House State Affairs Committee advanced Wednesday in a 10-2 vote, is part of a larger package of legislation state Sen. Brandon Creighton filed to limit the ability of cities to regulate private companies’ employment policies.

After hearing roughly eight hours of testimony Wednesday, state Rep. Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, advanced a reworked version of the bill — adding the language explicitly protecting local nondiscrimination ordinances to the measure, which would bar cities from enacting rules on how businesses schedule their employees’ shifts.

The move comes after several legal experts and LGBTQ advocates raised alarm bells that without the language in place, the potential new state law could undermine the enforceability of local anti-discrimination ordinances. They fear it would allow businesses to selectively pick and choose which of its employees are eligible to receive benefits that go beyond monetary compensation.

Phelan later told The Texas Tribune he chose to reintroduce the nondiscrimination protection language into the bill to help ensure local ordinances — already in place in six major Texas cities — aren’t gutted should the measure become law. And he told Tribune CEO Evan Smith in a podcast interview that he’s “done talking about bashing on the gay community” and didn't want to push legislation that could be used as a vehicle for discrimination.

“It's completely unacceptable... This is 2019,” he said.

[Note: Emphasis added.]

Having completely caved to the LGBT lobby on the most important employment law bill of the last generation, we're supposed to believe the Texas GOP is now taking some sort of principled stand?!?



You've already surrendered on this issue top the most totalitarian members of that community.  But, to make up for it, you're going to act like assholes jerks to the members of that community who help elect conservative at the local level.  Only one word describes such 'logic': MORONIC.

Some will argue against the Log Cabin R's because they want to change some platform planks.  Well, guess what?!?  Many people want to change platform planks.  Debating such things is the entire point of the convention.

But the Log Cabin R's are singled out, because, well...there's no good reason.

Last night a source who's been a delegate to the past several RPT pointed out:

• The past couple RPT conventions ('16, '18) have included toll-road lobbyists.

• Texas Eagle Forum has opposed various tort reform efforts over the years.

• Texas Alliance for "Life" routinely undermines the RPT platform.

Despite the fact that they're trying to change (or actively subverting in the case of TAL) the RPT platform, nobody complains about the afore mentioned groups.

Hmm.

Bottom Line: Let he among you who has never tried to change a platform plank cast the first stone.

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.

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....

#RPTCon18: A DEVASTATING end to an otherwise great Convention

"It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness,
For a throne is established by righteousness."
Proverbs 16:12

[Note: You can read Olivia Messer's original 2013 piece in the Texas Observer here.  You can read her 2017 reports here and here.  You can read the Texas Tribune's reporting on the subject here.  You can read the Austin Chronicle's reporting on the subject here.]

We still can't believe that it happened.

Assuming it survived the vote by the delegates, we expect plank 187 of the 2018 Republican party of Texas platform to read:

Sexual Harassment: RPT supports a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment.

The good news: This is the first time in history the RPT platform has addressed it.

The bad news: It's a weak, toothless, unenforceable position.  It doesn't mention why the plank is in there in the first place.  It's the Texas Alliance for "Life" of sexual misconduct planks.

We moved to amend the plank to instead read:

Sexual Misconduct:  RPT supports a zero-tolerance policy for all forms of sexual misconduct in the Texas Legislature.  We furthermore call upon the Legislature to create a credible system of due process to adjudicate complaints within two weeks.  In the event complaints are found to be valid, we call upon the legislature to create tangible penalties including, but not limited to, loss of committee chairmanship and dismissal.

Our amendment was designed to give teeth to the existing language.

Unfortunately, and inexplicably, the delegates voted it down.  It wasn't close.  Two thirds/one third.

[Note (11:48 pm): We're trying to edit this post to get it up before midnight...and we still can't believe we read that last paragraph.]
.
We don't get it.

The Texas Legislature is a disgusting cesspool.  Whatever the excesses of the national "hashtagMeToo" movement, the Texas Legislature is a legit case.  The Texas Legislature is Harvey Weinstein, not Aziz Ansari.

And, to be honest, some of the behavior we saw the past few days confirmed our worst fears.

We saw a Texas house Committee Chairman get into an elevator at one in the morning with a woman who wasn't his wife.  We saw another member of the Texas house at the hotel bar gettin' real grabby with any hot young thing that would move.  By themselves, neither is proof of anything...but let's just say that the circumstantial evidence is strong.

Also, this is not one of those "allegedly" cases.  We saw this with our own eyes.  We dare either of the legislators in question to sue this author.  We have witnesses.

[Note: We wanted to get video, but there was no way to film in a way that wouldn't have been obvious.]

-------

The worst part is that the objections during floor debate didn't make sense.

One person spoke against who he made vague comments about political correctness and lack of due process in Title IX investigations.

Here's the thing: WE.  LITERALLY.  INCLUDED.  THE.  PHRASE.  DUE.  PROCESS.  IN.  OUR.  AMENDMENT.  LANGUAGE.

-------

In hindsight, our biggest mistake was not taking the time to educate the delegates (we should have literally used the phrases "adultery" and "prostitution").  There was limited time to discuss platform amendments. We were trying to be a team player.  We were trying tosave time.  We assumed that if we mentioned Olivia Messer by name, delegates would take our word for it and do their own research later.

We all know what they say about the word "assume."

Our other mistake was not forcing a discussion on this topic in the legislative priorities committee.  To be honest, the taxpayer funded lobbying/union dues stuff was going so well that we didn't want to annoy the committee by asking for more.  We assumed we could get the language we wanted in the platform, and that that would be good enough.

Once again, everybody knows what they say about the word "assume."

[Note for future legislative priorities committees: If we had had seven legislative priorities to work with, instead of five, this author wouldn't have felt that pushing this issue would be perceived as selfish.]

-------

Note to this website's left-of-center readers: The real reason for today's result was the backlash to the national "hashtagMeToo" movement.  They went too far.  And, obviously, the results speak for themselves.

Imagine a world where the Republican Party of Texas adopts strong language condemning sexual misconduct by elected officials...and know that the only reason we're not currently living in that world is because an ambitious feminist blogger went after Aziz Ansari.

[Second note for this website's left-of-center readers: Even though RPT just face-planted on cleaning up the state legislature, given the cases of Joe Barton and Blake Farenthold, RPT still has the strongest record of ANY state level political party in the country at getting our own elected officials to leave office once the evidence becomes undeniable.]

-------

Note for this website's right-of-center readers: You don't understand the opportunity you just missed.

The saddest part is that we just re-read our blog post from the day Joe Barton left office.

-------

Republicans like to waste time holding pointless meetings about "millennial outreach."

News Flash MORONS:  THE.  AMENDMENT.  LANGUAGE.  WAS.  AN.  ACT.  OF. MILLENNIAL. OUTREACH.

And you just whiffed.

-------

Bottom LIne: A very small improvement on the status quo...but it could have been so much more.

CD-2 Runoff: "Merely" Lousy vs. AWFUL

"Your princes are rebellious,
And companions of thieves;
Everyone loves bribes,
And follows after rewards.
They do not defend the fatherless,
Nor does the cause of the widow come before them."
Isaiah 1:23

The Trib profiles the CD-2 Runoff:



We've discussed previously how we didn't know much about either candidate.  In that spirit, the Trib's profile helped.  The short version is that neither candidate inspires, but one is significantly worse than the other.

Dan Crenshaw is a retired Navy SEAL.  That's good (as far as it goes), but one lesson we've learned from experience is that a Special Forces background doesn't necessarily mean you'll govern as a conservative.  Crenshaw also openly admits to being endorsed by Pete Sessions in the Trib's video.

Kevin Roberts, on the other hand, is a single term state rep.  During his term in the legislature, Kevin Roberts was a reliable rent boi for Joe Straus.  You can learn everything you need to know about Kevin Roberts' awful record here.

Digging deeper into Crenshaw's endorsements, we notice a couple other interesting tidbits:

In other words, Dan Crenshaw has been endorsed by a U.S. Senator (Cotton) who's never met a war he didn't like.  He's also been endorsed by a former Congressman (Dick Armey) whose ethical issues are well remembered.  And Pete Sessions is, well, Pete Sessions....

[Note: A number of local activists we respect have also endorsed Crenshaw; we suspect that's only in comparison to the guy he's running against.]

But then you look at Roberts' endorsements:

'Nuff said.

[Note II: Roberts has also been endorsed by a number of highly questionable figures in Harris County.]

Bottom Line: If we lived in the district, we'd vote for Crenshaw.  But we wouldn't do so with enthusiasm.  Both of these candidates look like dirtbags....

#StickwithSTICKLAND: Perry goes FULL RINO!!!

"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight."
Proverbs 11:1

[Update: James Trimm has more here.]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!?

Perryanti-SticklandEndorsement2k15

For those unaware, Scott Fischer is Jonathan Stickland's opponent in the Republican primary.

Stickland's response sums up the pertinent facts:

"I've served my district for nearly 4 years now and have never tried to represent Austin insiders, only the conservatives in my District," he said in a written statement to the Tribune. "I'm proud to have their support in my re-election campaign."

The special-interest crowd's reaction was predictable:

I am with fmr @GovernorPerry. Pastor Scott Fisher will be an excellent pro-life legislator. #txlege https://t.co/dFETPSfevM

— Joe Pojman, Ph.D. (@joepojman) December 29, 2015

Brent Mayes, whom we've endorsed in SD-24, said it best:

Rick Perry jumps the shark. #SD24 #txlegeThe republican establishment brings out the long-knives against conservative...
Posted by Brent Mayes on Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Bottom Line: This is Rick Perry's most indefensible move since HPV. Perry has now endorsed in three #TXLEGE primaries this cycle, and in EVERY case he's endorsed AGAINST a vocal opponent of corporate welfare.  A clear pattern is emerging.

Please Go Away: An open letter to "Abolish Human Abortion"

"But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned."
Titus 3:9-11

Dear AHA,

Your latest attack on Abby Johnson would be astonishing if it wasn't so stupid:

You're going after Abby for being Catholic?!?

First things first, a single Facebook post doesn't prove heresy.  Without having spoken to her about this post, it seems pretty clear that she's describing the Lord's Supper, not her specific moment of salvation.  Catholics and Protestants can disagree with how frequently Christians should observe the elements, but it's hardly heresy.

I seem to remember reading something somewhere about knowing someone by their fruit.  Abby Johnson's fruit includes helping dozens (if not hundreds) of clinic workers leave the abortion industry.  And what, pray tell, have you done?!?

For a group that loves to use civil war imagery, you forget history.  During the antebellum period, there was a group called the Underground Railroad who helped take care of the economic needs of fugitive slaves.  Do I need to explain this one?!?

The ironic thing is that Abby and I don't get along particularly well.  We've been on different sides of numerous political disputes in Texas.  Furthermore, that's going to continue.  But there are appropriate forums to settle these disputes.  Calling someone a heretic on Facebook isn't one of them.

I probably shouldn't feed you trolls, but you're the Westboro Baptist Church of the pro-Life movement; please go away.

Sincerely,
Adam Cahn
Austin, TX
November 13, 2014

#Stand4Life grows calmer; #HailSatanTX becomes more irrational

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
1 Timothy 2:3-4

U.S. District Courthouse, Austin TX -- This morning, a coalition of pro-abortion groups filed a last-ditch lawsuit to derail the pro-life law Texas passed last summer.  The final provisions of the law, related to the Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) provisions, go into effect next month.  When that happens, Texas will only have 6 abortion 'clinics' remaining.

As expected, both sides had a presence.  Approximately 500 pro-lifers stood across the street from the courthouse, prayed, and sang worship songs.  The pro-abortion crowd, by contrast, had thinned considerably, but those that remained were the hardest of the hardcore:

Far anyone who was at the Capitol last summer, this morning's event felt very similar. The biggest difference is that the contrast was 100 times starker. As good defeats evil, good becomes calmer while evil throws a temper tantrum.

This website regrets not collecting more footage of the prayer vigil, but Leah Brown of Texas Alliance for Life was gracious enough to share this video that she recorded:

-----

During the last round of primaries/runoffs, this website had several high profile differences of opinion with TAL.  That being said,  following this morning's prayer vigil, they held a fantastic, informative pro-life briefing at the Capitol.  From our notes:

• 5% of surgical abortions result in serious complications.
• 20% of pill abortions

• If it's done post miscarriage, Dilatation and Curettage procedures are only done in a hospital or ASC.

• Prior to the Texas Sonogram Law, Planned Parenthood protocols already required transvaginal ultrasounds; the difference is that now women have the right to see the the sonograms which they didn't have before.
• Sonogram law also requires the abortionist to personally counsel the woman seeking the abortion; when combined with the law's 24 hour waiting period, requires abortion 'clinics' to pay doctors to show up at least twice.

• Taxpayer funding, even if it doesn't directly fund abortions, subsidizes the rest of an abortion provider's operation.

• HB 2 - Prior to its passage, 1/3 of Texas Abortionists didn't have admitting privileges.
• There are currently 6, non-abortion related, ASC's in McAllen.

• Irony alert: Douglas Karpen is now performing plastic surgery!!!

• When doing sidewalk counseling outside clinics, it's a good idea to have And then there were none literature.

• Planned Parenthood does group 'informed' consent in Dallas; this is illegal under the sonogram law.

• In Ft. Worth, Planned Parenthood opened an abortion facility next to an adoption center.

• There are angles at which you can conduct an ultrasound where you can't make out features; Planned Parenthood does this all the time.

-----

Finally, there's the pro-abortion people who showed up.  To be honest, we don't want to give these people more oxygen than they deserve.  There were only 25 of them, and they were clearly in pain.  That being said, it's important for the public who these people are and what they're about (even with their dwindling numbers).  It was like watching the Devil throw a temper tantrum.

Why I did not choose Adoption:

Highlights:

• I looooooooooooooooooooooooooooved my abortion.

• Women are not incubators.

• Fetuses are not babies.

Pro George Tiller #1:

Pro George Tiller #2:



[Author's Note: To learn more about George Tiller, click here.]

Abortion on Demand and without Apology:

-----

Update (8/7/2014): We were bending over backwards not to associate the kooks above with Team Wendy or the Texas Democrats absent proof, but it looks like the Travis County Democrat Party had no such reservation....#HAILSATANTX!!!

Post by Travis County Democratic Party.

Texas Alliance for Life endorses Abortion Squish (UPDATED)

UPDATE: AN EARLIER VERSION OF THIS POST INCLUDED A HEADLINE THAT TOOK A CHEAP, UNFAIR, LOW BLOW AT TAL.  WHILE THIS WEBSITE REMAINS UNCONVINCED ABOUT THE DEPTH OF DAN BRANCH'S PRO-LIFE CONVICTION, TAKING A CHEAP SHOT AT A THIRD PARTY WASN'T NECESSARY.  CAHNMAN'S MUSINGS APOLOGIZES TO TEXAS ALLIANCE FOR LIFE AND HAS CHANGED THE HEADLINE (and, to be honest, the updated headline is a more accurate description of Branch's position).

WE WILL ADDRESS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE POLITIFACT REBUTTAL BELOW THE ORIGINAL POST.

-----

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves."
Matthew 7:15

Earlier this week, for anyone who hadn't yet noticed, Texas Alliance for "Life" revealed their true colors:

"Dan Branch is a pro-life champion and an effective and trusted conservative," said Joe Pojman, Ph.D., executive director of Texas Alliance for Life PAC. "As his recent defense of Texas' pro-life laws in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals shows, Dan Branch has the legal skills and strength of character to tenaciously fight for the right to life of unborn Texans. As a member of the Texas House, he voted to ban abortions after the fifth month of pregnancy, require parental consent for abortions on minor girls, protect babies from murder and assault before birth by recognizing the personhood of unborn children, require sonograms before abortions, and defund Planned Parenthood millions of tax dollars. These measures have closed abortion facilities and saved lives. We are pleased and proud to endorse Dan Branch for Attorney General." (ASCs).

This, of course, is the same Dan Branch who attempted to expand create a new loophole late-term abortion in 2005:

At issue is an amendment authored by Branch back in 2005 that attempted to add to legislation dealing with health care issues. During floor debate, former Rep. Will Hartnett (R-Dallas) offered an amendment to ban third trimester abortions. Branch then offered his amendment to the amendment, that could have expanded the situations in which third-trimester abortions are allowed in the state.

His proposed language would have banned third-trimester abortions "when the viable unborn child does not have a severe, irreversible brain or vital organ impairment.” The original bill allowed for such late-term abortions in the instance of “irreversible brain” impairment only.

According to a Breitbart Texas interview with Texas Right-to-Life Executive Director Elizabeth Graham, Branch’s proposed amendment gave broader latitude to third-term abortions.

"Had Branch’s amendment passed, abortions would be allowed in the third trimester if the child suffered ’impairment of a vital organ,' a judgment call that would have been made by the abortionist who makes a substantial profit off these late abortions," said Graham, whose organization has endorsed Branch's opponent in the run-off. Graham added, “And what exactly was meant by 'impairment'—diminished function? Temporarily slowed function? Function that could be improved or cured with treatment? The term was undefined, ambiguous at best, and left to the interpretation of the abortionist."

....

Branch's amendment failed on a "motion to table," but did garner 55 votes in the 150-seat House. Republicans overwhelmingly rejected the measure, with the exception of Rep. Joe Straus (then a first-time legislator from San Antonio) and a handful of others. The release sought to drive home his “pro-life” record.

[Emphasis added]

Dan Branch's record of support for late-term abortion is obvious to anyone with access to Google.  For an allegedly 'pro-life' organization to call such a person "a pro-life champion" speaks for itself.

-----

Update II: To address the substance of the politifact 'rebuttal', consider the following:

Recapping: Hartnett’s amended amendment would allow late abortions if a "viable unborn child" had irreversible brain damage. Branch’s amendment, which Hartnett opposed, would have added another exception, allowing third-trimester abortions if the viable unborn child had irreversible damage to vital organs.

....

Branch, saying he was "strongly opposed as a general matter to third-trimester abortions," told the House, "If you’re going to have this exception for severe, irreversible brain damage, then my point is, as a son of a neurosurgeon, as a brother of a neurosurgeon, as someone who’s lived through this with multiple children and multiple miscarriages, the term ‘or vital organ’ merely says that the heart -- it acknowledges that the heart or the lack of lungs or the kidney or the liver are all also vital organs in addition to the brain."

Branch in debate: 'Pro-life position'

After about 40 minutes of debate on his proposal, Branch said, "I hope you understand I’m coming from this in a pro-life position; I’m really just trying to be careful and precise and intellectually honest. If we’re going to make this exception for the brain, then we ought to include absolutely essential organs."

Hartnett, moving to table Branch’s proposal, told House members that "vital organ" was too broad: "I just think ... we’re getting into the posture of trying to water it down by drip, drip, erosion," he said. "You can live without a kidney is my understanding, you can live without a lung, you can live without just about anything except your brain, and that’s why we’re drawing the line at the brain."

....

So Hartnett’s measure tightened abortion limits; Branch’s amendment would have added a second exception to one of them.

 In other words, Branch didn't explicitly seek to 'expand' late term abortion.  He attempted to water down a bill restricting late-term abortions.  "Vital Organ" is a loophole that a skilled trial lawyer working with a progressive judge could drive a truck through.