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.

Disgraced, Liberal, (Kinda Psycho) Bishop Leading Attacks on Pro-Lifers

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

Bishop Michael Olson of Ft. Worth has been problematic for awhile.  In recent months, however, he's become worse.  Texas Right to Life has more:

[E]very election cycle the liberal establishment deploys one tool to deceive Pro-Life voters: the political organization known as the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops (TCCB).

Rest assured, even for Catholics, the TCCB has no magisterial or canonical authority; rather, the TCCB is simply a lobbying and administrative entity with no governing power.

Last election, the TCCB launched a politically-motivated (and FALSE) attack to intimidate faithful Catholics against voting for authentically conservative Pro-Life candidates. The TCCB not only favors moderate politicians who are weak on the Right to Life, religious liberty, and homeschooling, but most bishops actually have a history of voting Democrat!

That’s right: Most Texas bishops actually have a history of voting Democrat!
....

The TCCB lobbyist and disgraced Fort Worth Bishop Michael Olson (who is under investigation for multiple scandals and has been called to Rome to try and account for his behavior) are behind these attacks on Texas Right to Life.

The Star-Telegram cataloged Michael Olson's various issues about a month ago.  The piece is too long to quote in full.  But we strongly recommend reading the whole thing here.  Dude's psycho.

Of course, this shouldn't surprise anyone whose watched the so-called "Texas Conference of Catholic Bishops" for more than ten minutes.  They're not an actual faith based organization.  They just exist top give a quasi-religious patina to the crony capitalists who run this state.

None of this is new.  Under Michael Olson, however, the mendacity has become blatant.  Kudos to Texas Right to Life for calling it out.

Bottom Line: Wolves...sheep's clothing...beware...etc.

#TXLEGE: Texas needs a better way of paying for "longshot" medical care

"And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me."
Matthew 25:40

As the baby Tinslee case continues, we're struck with one thought: There's GOT to be a better way.

Obviously, the baby Tinslee case is tragic.  Obviously, Cook Children's "Hospital's" conduct has been appalling.  None of that changes the underlying issues.

We wrote last month:

Here's the secret: This type of care is extraordinarily expensive. Hospitals frequently eat that cost. These are some of the most challenging examples of what the industry calls "indigent care."

It's not an objection to which we are entirely unsympathetic.

[Note: Emphasis in original.]

Such a solution probably would involve free-market health care reforms alongside increased philanthropy.  Certainly, we have no shortage of rich people in this state.  As for free-market health care...the incumbent medical cartel is the biggest opponent.  But we're open to other suggestions [Note: That don't involve expanding Medicaid.]

Bottom Line: These sorts of cases aren't going away...and there's GOT to be a better way.

First National Conservative Media Outlet, pretty much EVER, Calls BS on Abbott

"Better is the poor who walks in his integrity
Than one who is perverse in his lips, and is a fool."
Proverbs 19:1

One America News is a newer outlet.  To be honest, we're not super familiar.  We do, however, have a couple of business acquaintances who are big fans.

That being said, they've certainly taken the lead on one of the most important stories that needs to reach a broader audience.

In reporting on the Baby Tinslee case, OAN anchor illuminates deeper truths about Greg Abbott and the Texas GOP that can be applied to an number of issues.



Highlights:

• "Republicans in Texas, our eyes are on you."

• "Republicans in the state legislature, Governor Greg Abbott, YOU have the power to repeal this rule once and for all."

• "Governor Abbott, call a special session and repeal this rule."

• TxRTL likewise calling for a special.

• "Call these Texas Republicans out for what they're doing!!!"
• Dear National Conservative Media: MORE OF THIS.

• "Texas legislature, and Governor Greg Abbott, they have the ability to call a special session."

• TxRTL: Abbott "is the only one who has the power to end this right now."

• TxRTL has learned about more cases since the Baby Tinslee case has been in the news.

Bottom Line: We need A LOT more of this, but you've got to start somewhere.

Cook Children's "Hospital" conforms to WRETCHED Stereotypes

"Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
Matthew 5:12

This is astounding:

Lawyers from a Fort Worth hospital are harassing a conservative organization in North Texas as part of their plan to combat a judge’s interference in killing a 9-month-old baby.

Tinslee Lewis was born with congenital heart disease. She is currently at Cook Children’s Medical Center in Fort Worth and relies on a ventilator to live. On October 31, against the objections of Tinslee’s mother, the hospital announced it would remove the ventilator from Tinslee on November 10, thus killing her. No reasons relating to bodily health were given by the hospital. Instead, only a vague “quality of life” argument was provided.

The action by Cook Children’s is legal under Texas’ controversial 10-day rule, which allows a hospital committee to end “life-sustaining care” even if the patient, or his or her surrogate, objects; it also overrides a duly executed medical power of attorney or advance directive from the patient.

Tinslee’s life was temporarily spared when Judge Alex Kim of the 323rd District Court approved a temporary restraining order filed by lawyers from Texas Right to Life on her behalf on November 10—the day she was scheduled to die. A hearing originally set for November 22 was postponed until December 10 after the hospital dispatched its lawyers to try and force Judge Kim to be recused.

The lawyers have now issued a subpoena to True Texas Project, the North Texas grassroots activist organization—formerly known as Northeast Tarrant Tea Party—led by Julie White McCarty. The subpoena contains a draconian list of communications to be turned over to them, including:

• All documents and communications related to any endorsement of Judge Alex Kim’s judicial campaign by True Texas Project. 

• All documents and communications related to any contributions True Texas Project made to Judge Alex Kim’s judicial campaign.

A similar subpoena was given to Empower Texans, the publisher of Texas Scorecard. The subpoenas included a deadline for compliance of less than 48 hours during the week of Thanksgiving.

Because nothing screams "everything we're doing is on the up and up" quite like attempting to sue your critics into silence.

Which is a shame.

Here's the secret: This type of care is extraordinarily expensive.  Hospitals frequently eat that cost.  These are some of the most challenging examples of what the industry calls "indigent care."

It's not an objection to which we are entirely unsympathetic.  A conversation about how to pay for this sort of treatment probably should.  There's got to be a better way.

But then they do something like this.

Cook Children's "Hospital" can find the money to sue their critics...but they can't find the money to treat a little girl?!?

It's quite something.

It also makes one wonder what else they're hiding.

Bottom Line: At a minimum, the optics are terrible...and it's probably worse than that.

#TXLEGE: Organization that ignored grotesque sexism during last campaign suddenly concerned about "Republican women"

"Strength and honor are her clothing;
She shall rejoice in time to come."
Proverbs 31:25

Texas Tribune this morning:

For female Republicans looking to become freshmen in the Texas Legislature, last year was the year of the woman — or, if you want to include both of them, women.

Candy Noble and Angela Paxton were the only freshman female Republicans elected to the Texas House and Senate, respectively, amid a surge of women running for office.

Noble and Paxton exemplify what’s widely viewed as a dearth of female GOP lawmakers in the Legislature. In the Senate, the number of Republican women serving is at an all-time high, but they make up less than a third of the chamber’s GOP-held seats. Across the rotunda, the gender gap is far more visible: Of the 83 Republicans serving, six are women. Democratic women, by comparison, hold 27 of the party’s seats.

As recently as 2012, 19 Republican women served in the House.

To be sure, this topic warrants discussion.  Conservatives have been arguing (correctly) for years about inherent biological differences between men and women.   Thus, it is only logical that we should respect those inherent differences in political communication.  Republicans should take heed.

However, coming from the Trib, one cannot help but think back to the last Republican primary:



That would be incumbent state representative Ernest 'Dirty Ernie' Bailes.  During the last campaign, Bailes called his young, female, opponent a "prostitute" because she worked with a pro-life organization that wasn't aligned with the former speaker.  It was grotesquely sexist.

Here's the thing: The Texas Tribune, literally, didn't cover it.

If the Texas Tribune is honestly curious about why there aren't more Republican women in the legislature, they might want to start there.

Consider what we said at the time:

#TXLEGE: Bailes calling Cook a "prostitute" SHOULD be litmus test for Toxic Capitol Culture....

....

Since the Daily Beast reports about the culture of chronic sexual abuse at the Texas Capitol came out, we're heard a lot of talk about part of the solution is for more women to run for office. To be honest, this website agrees with a lot of that talk. So what happens when a young woman runs for the Texas legislature against a male incumbent with a lousy record?!?

Emily Kebodeaux Cook is a well known activist who has worked with Texas Right to Life the past several legislative sessions. She's currently running against liberal Republican Ernest Bailes for a house seat north of Houston. This is a textbook case of a young woman running against the corrupt status quo.

....

Ironically, we've believed for some time that this race was a good test for those who believe "we need more women in politics." As stated above, this is a textbook case of a young woman running against a male-dominated status quo. But, in this case, the male in question happens to be a reliable vote to preserve said status quo who enjoys support from Democrats.

Then the male in question calls the female in question a "prostitute."

....

Bottom Line: This race was always going to be an interesting test of the philosophical consistency of those who believe 'more women in politics' is (at least part of) the solution to recent scandals. And that was before the pro-status quo male incumbent called his conservative female challenger a "prostitute." Won't it be interesting to see the reaction (or lack thereof) in this case....

As we suspected would happen, "lack thereof" was an accurate prediction.

Now, a year later, the Texas Tribune wonders why there aren't more Republican women in the legislature.

-------

Ironically enough, we wrote the above words before we saw what we saw at the last RPT convention.

-------

In fairness to the Trib, they did interview Cook for the article:

That’s not to say women aren’t trying. During last year’s primaries, Emily Kebodeaux Cook, a first-time political candidate, was one of many Republican women who challenged male incumbents or ran for open seats at the Legislature.

In Cook’s case, she ran against incumbent Rep. Ernest Bailes of Shepherd, who won the primary with 59 percent of the vote, compared with Cook’s 41 percent. Cook said she ran because she disagreed with Bailes' voting record during the past legislative session. She added, however, that “the Republican Party will be stronger overall when it’s not just one side of the aisle that has elected officials who look like our daughters.”

But campaigning as a Republican woman comes with its own set of hurdles. Cook said when voters brought up her gender as she and her team went canvassing, those questions often came from other women — rather than men — which she found “astonishing.”

“While a man might ask me where I stood on policy matters,” Cook said, “the first question from another woman would be, ‘How can you balance raising a young family with serving in elected office?’”

That's fine.  It certainly is interesting that female voters are more likely to ask female candidates about work/life balance.  But come on.

-------

Bottom Line: If you ignore a malicious creep calling a young woman a "prostitute," you're not in a position to decry the afore mentioned creeps re-election.

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: Flores has a pretty good night!!!

"He who gathers in summer is a wise son;
He who sleeps in harvest is a son who causes shame."
Proverbs 10:5

We assume you've heard:

Republican Pete Flores and Democrat Pete Gallego are headed to a runoff in the special election to replace convicted former state Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio.

With all precincts reporting Tuesday night, Flores led Gallego by 5 percentage points, 34 percent to 29 percent, according to unofficial returns. At 24 percent, state Rep. Roland Gutierrez of San Antonio came in third in the eight-way race, and he conceded in a statement. The five other candidates were in single digits, including Uresti's brother, outgoing state Rep. Tomas Uresti of San Antonio.

The first-place finish by Flores, who unsuccessfully challenged Carlos Uresti in 2016, is a boon to Republicans in the Democratic-leaning district. In the home stretch of the race, Flores benefited from a raft of endorsements from Texas' top elected officials including Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz.

That's all well and good, but here's where it gets crazy:

In the #txlege #SD19 special the 4 Democratic candidates combined to defeat the 3 Republican candidates 66.1% to 32.8% in the Early Vote, but the 3 Republicans combined to defeat the 4 Democrats in the Election Day Vote, 51.6% to 47.4%. EV=(16.6k), ED=(9.5k).

— Mark P. Jones (@MarkPJonesTX) August 1, 2018

Keep in mind, the Republicans didn't engage until late (and, even then, pretty modestly); for that minimal level of engagement to produce a 20 point shift is astonishing.

Special kudos to Texas Right to Life, without whose early engagement this wouldn't have been possible.

Finally, we will repeat what we've been saying about this race since the beginning: In its current from, the Democrat party is too far to the left on guns and babies for this part of the state.

Bottom Line: This race remains an uphill battle, but last night's results are a very good sign.

#TXLEGE: School Choice lobby SQUANDERING Yet ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY in SD-19 Special Election

"He who gathers in summer is a wise son;
He who sleeps in harvest is a son who causes shame."
Proverbs 10:5

Led by Texas Right to Life, followed by Lt. Gov. Patrick, this past week a consensus seems to have emerged that Pete Flores has a decent shot at qualifying for the SD-19 special election runoff.

Unfortunately, one group who could potentially be very helpful is (yet again) missing in action.

A quick search of Flores' website reveals:

I do support a voucher program, as a parent should have a choice where their child goes to school.

Meanwhile, nothing from the school choice lobby.

This is political malpractice.

From both a tactical and a strategic perspective, the SD-19 special election ought to be a political no-brainer for the school choice lobby:

• Tactically -- Adding another R senator would significantly decrease the leverage Seliger and the other squishy R Senators would have in the Senate; this makes it easier to pass a strong bill in the Senate and sets up a better negotiating position with the house.

• Strategically -- In the urban parts of the district, a strong performance by a pro-school choice candidate would put the urban D's on notice.  Ditto the rural R's in the rural parts of the district.  This special election is an opportunity to put both the rural R's and the urban D's on notice, yet the school choice lobby appears to be doing neither.

And that's political malpractice.

Bottom Line: The school choice lobby never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity (but at least we won't run out of yellow scarves)....

#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.

Texas Right to Life Reads Mean Tweets

"And Sarah said, “God has made me laugh, and all who hear will laugh with me."
Genesis 21:6

This is great:



Highlights:

• "We're so low at Texas Right to Life that the political lobbyist to religious leaders had to take time to write an advisory to the whole state because of our voter guide."

• They're worried because TxRTL is having an impact.

• Texas has dropped to #12 in national pro-life rankings when we used to be #4.

• "We're about to get rid of a bunch of anti-Life, lukewarm, Republican incumbents.

• Some yutz compares TxRTL and Empower to the Russians.
• Note: Sadly, dying legacy media outlets have said the same thing.

• "Adoption is a lie."

• Liars and charlatans!

• A bizarre 9/11 reference.

• Something about the physical attractiveness of pro-Life men.

#TXLEGE: Bailes calling Cook a "prostitute" SHOULD be litmus test for Toxic Capitol Culture....

"And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever."
1 John 2:17

Since the Daily Beast reports about the culture of chronic sexual abuse at the Texas Capitol came out, we're heard a lot of talk about part of the solution is for more women to run for office.  To be honest, this website agrees with a lot of that talk.  So what happens when a young woman runs for the Texas legislature against a male incumbent with a lousy record?!?

Emily Kebodeaux Cook is a well known activist who has worked with Texas Right to Life the past several legislative sessions.  She's currently running against liberal Republican Ernest Bailes for a house seat north of Houston.  This is a textbook case of a young woman running against the corrupt status quo.

So, what did Ernest Bailes call Emily Cook at a candidate forum last night?!?



Ain't that something....

Ironically, we've believed for some time that this race was a good test for those who believe "we need more women in politics."  As stated above, this is a textbook case of a young woman running against a male-dominated status quo.  But, in this case, the male in question happens to be a reliable vote to preserve said status quo who enjoys support from Democrats.

Then the male in question calls the female in question a "prostitute."

Finally, allow us to pre-emptively address the alleged 'substance' of Bailes' remark.  We suspect that, at some point soon, Bailes will try to weasel out of his remark by claiming he misspoke and saying something vague about "special interests."  Well, you can learn everything you need to know about Ernest Bailes' record with special interests here.

As for which candidate in this race is raising more money from special interests, recent campaign finance reports speak for themselves:

Bottom Line: This race was always going to be an interesting test of the philosophical consistency of those who believe 'more women in politics' is (at least part of) the solution to recent scandals.  And that was before the pro-status quo male incumbent called his conservative female challenger a "prostitute."  Won't it be interesting to see the reaction (or lack thereof) in this case....

#TXLEGE: Media Correction of the (Young) Year

"He who is slow to wrath has great understanding,
But he who is impulsive exalts folly."
Proverbs 14:29

Late yesterday afternoon, we posted to Facebook about wanting to write a longer...critique...of a sensationalistic article the Trib published about a Texas House race West of Waco.  Chris Evans, the TxRTL endorsed challenger to a liberal Republican incumbent, apparently got in some legal trouble a decade and a half ago.  The original article was a transparent opposition research dump fed to a credulous reporter who subsequently posted a click driven story.

The Trib has subsequently updated the story.   It's now straight news recounting.  Since they fixed their story before we got a chance to write this blog post, we'll cut them some slack.

But the correction they posted is mint:

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described Texas House candidate Chris Evans as having been convicted for possessing a pipe bomb. He received deferred adjudication for the offense.

Gee..what could you have possibly been trying to imply by saying he was "convicted" for possessing "a pipe bomb"?!?

That being said, the funniest part is how the Trib's unforced error allows Chris Evans to run a media-bashing campaign the rest of the way.  Expect messaging along the lines of "you know the liberal media is scared of Chris Evans because they're already attacking him."  As a point of comparison, if you're wondering how that messaging will resonate in that district, just remember the HD-59 is Sid Miller's old district (*).

Bottom Line: This was a funny unforced error.

-------

* - It's worth pointing out that the liberal Republican incumbent was originally elected with assistance from Planned Parenthoood.

#TXLEGE: Straus throws RPT Platform Under Bus

"He who is often rebuked, and hardens his neck,
Will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy."
Proverbs 29:1

[Note: The Trib has more here.]

'When I take the oath of office at the beginning of the legislative session, I take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Texas constitution; I don't take an oath to a political party platform.'

That was Joe Straus' response when we asked him his reaction to the no-confidence resolutions over 50 Republican county party executive committees have passed related to his leadership when we asked him this morning at TribFest.  We weren't taking notes, so we can't promise that the above quote is a perfect transcription of his exact words, but it's an accurate representation of its spirit.  He also made a bunch of excuses related to passage of the resolution in his home county that were previously debunked.

In response to a separate audience question, Straus claimed the current leadership of the Texas House doesn't play fast and loose with parliamentary procedure.  Obviously, that was a bald faced lie.  See here and here for examples.

Basically, Straus was as arrogant and smug as we've ever seen him.

Straus also made several references to the wide margin of victory he achieved in his last election in reference to how the voters in his district feel about the Republican party platform [Note: Spending seven million dollars in that campaign probably didn't hurt either].  That might be true, as far as his personal district goes.  But we suspect that's going to be a much more difficult sell in the districts of his committee chairs.

Finally, in response to a question from Texas Right to Life, Straus pretended to be unfamiliar with the Texas Advance Directives Act.  He then attempted to obfuscate by misrepresenting the DNR bill that was passed during the recently concluded special session as the TADA.  Once again, this was another bald faced lie.

Bottom Line: Joe Straus doesn't care about the RPT platform, he said so himself this morning.

#TXLEGE: House leadership caves three times today....

"And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance;"
Romans 5:3

[Note: Today's floor session can be viewed here; Hunter's remarks are at the 43 minute mark.]

• Cave #1 - Hunter pulls the property tax gag rule.
  
  As we discussed yesterday, the Calendars committee had posted a rule for Saturday's floor debate on property tax reform that would have barred any amendments on the bill.  The freedom caucus and the grassroots justifiably went BONKERS.  This morning, Hunter pulled the rule.
  
  "As chair of calendars, there will be no motion for that calendar rule."
  
  They didn't have 76 votes; we've heard conflicting reports about why that was the case, but multiple sources have suggested that the Democrats recognized that for the minority party to assent to this precedent was a move that could come back to bite them in future sessions.

• Cave #2 - Tan Parker sets GOP caucus meeting.
  
  
  
  Even if certain (predictable) members are trying to weasel out of attending, there's week to make sure they show up.
  
  
  
  
• Cave #3 - DNR bill now moving.
  
  Confession: We thought this was dead, buuut....
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• After TMA tried to weasel out of the deal, Abbott's staff got involved.
• Bill passed Byron's Cook's committee this afternoon.
• Floor debate could come as early as Saturday.
• Note: We're guessing sunday; there's no way they put this on the same calendar as the property tax reform bill.

Bottom Line: Deadlines are a wonderful thing.

#TXLEGE: Roundup from today's pro-Life hearing....

“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

[Note: The hearing can be view here; our testimony on the DNR bill can be views around the 3 hour 20 minute mark, our testimony on the local defunding bill is a smidge before the 5 hour mark.]

This morning, the Texas Senate committee on Health and Human services committee heard bills on four distinct pro-life related topics.  This website supports all four.  However, we specifically testified in favor of abolishing involuntary Do-Not-Resuscitate orders and in favor of eliminating all local government subsidies to abortion providers.

SB 11, by Charles Perry, would prohibit hospitals from placing a DNR order on a patient without their consent (or, in certain circumstances, the consent of the person with medical power of attorney).  Did you know that's currently legal in Texas for hospitals to do?!?  Well, it is....

We testified that we find it astonishing that this practice is even legal in the first place.  Furthermore, it's a symptom of the erosion of patient rights alongside the enlargement of bureaucrats that's currently taking medicine in really creepy direction.  Finally, we discussed how the recent Charlie Gard case in the UK illustrates the urgency of this issue.

SB 4, by Charles Schwernter, would prohibit abortion providers from receiving taxpayer funding from local governments.  Emily Horne, of Texas Right to Life, gave detailed testimony about the various offenses from cities, counties, and hospital districts around the state.  Horne furthermore explained that a statewide prohibition was the only way to end the cycle of local whack-a-mole.

We testified about how, as a resident of Austin and Travis County, we're offended that our tax dollars go to subsidize this brutal, gruesome, barbaric process.

The committee voted everything out at the end of the hearing; the bills succeeded along party lines.

Bottom Line: All of the Senate's pro-life bills are out of committee, they'll probably be on the floor early next week.

------

DAMN RIGHT:

This guy wants everyone to know that he really really really hates abortion... #TXLege pic.twitter.com/FMjmm1qcYq

— Teddy Wilson (@reportbywilson) July 21, 2017

#TXLEGE: UK's AWFUL Charlie Gard case illustrates why Texas needs to abolish non-consensual DNR's....

"And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart."
Jeremiah 7:31

Over the past few days we've been horrified by the Charlie Gard case in the UK:

Any day now, they’ll kill Charlie Gard.

Charlie Gard, born last August, suffers from an inherited disease called infantile onset encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, generally referred to as “MDDS.” The disease is extraordinarily rare: At present, there are only 16 known cases worldwide. Most patients who suffer from it die in early infancy. Charlie is unable to breathe unaided, suffers from seizures, and has severe brain damage.

For ten months, Charlie has been living in the intensive-care unit at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London. In March, his doctors decided that there was nothing more they could do for him, and they recommended that his parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, withdraw his ventilator. They refused, on the grounds that an untried experimental treatment was available in the United States. The hospital, in accordance with British law, applied to the courts to forestall further treatment. In April, the High Court found for the doctors and against the parents. In May, the Court of Appeal upheld the initial decision. In early June, the Supreme Court agreed. And this week, the European Court of Human Rights — the last court of jurisdiction — refused to intervene. Charlie’s parents have raised enough money from private donations to fund the experimental treatment, but the court decision prohibits his removal to the U.S. Whenever they see fit to do so, the doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital can now remove Charlie’s life support.

Yes, it's as awful as it sounds.

But...did you know that Hospitals in Texas have authority to do basically the same thing?!?

Under current law, hospitals in Texas are allowed to place "Do-Not-Resuscitate" orders on patients without their consent or, in the case of minors or the incapacitated, the consent of their next of kin?!?

Texas Right to Life explained in April [Note: The relevant section begins at the 2 minute mark]:



Highlights:

• It's not required by law to have patient consent for a DNR order.

• Patients have secret DNR's placed on them without being informed.

• A doctor an put a do-no-resuscitate order on a patient against their will.

During this past regular legislative session, HB 2063 was filed by GREG Bonnen.  It was a five paragraph bill that would have required hospitals to obtain patient consent before issuing a DNR.  Unfortunately, after it was slow walked through Byron Cook's State Affairs committee and Todd Hunter's Calendars committee, it was died late in the session after House leadership attempted to use it as a legislative hostage to grease the skids for a variety of special interest bills.

Yes, that's as awful as it sounds.

Fortunately, we have a second chance: Governor Abbott made "strengthening patient protections relating to do-not-resuscitate orders" a special session agenda item.

It'll be interesting to see how Byron Cook and Todd Hunter act the second time around.

Bottom Line: Involuntary do-not-resuscitate orders have always been horrific, but this week's news out of the UK re-illustrates the urgency of the issue.

#TXLEGE: On the issues, grading the 85th (Regular Session Edition)....

"Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
Matthew 7:20

[Note: Our assessment of the 84th can be viewed here.]

It's that time of the political cycle!  The regular session of the 85th Texas Legislature is over.  How'd they do?!?

Border Security: B -- They passed the Sanctuary cities bill and maintained border security funding in the budget; if border security is one of your top issues, you can't deny that they made tangible progress on this issue this session.

But we've publicly stated doubts about whether the approach behind the sanctuary cities bill will ultimately accomplish it's stated objective, and we've found the discussion to be very theatrical.

In other words, they notched a couple of first downs but missed other opportunities to reach the end zone.

Pro-Life: B -- The top realistically achievable pro-life priority, the dismemberment abortion ban, was successful.  In addition, we had a couple of pro-life victories in the budget.  But we'll repeat what we said two years ago: "The only reason meaningful pro-Life legislation passed this session was the dogged and indefatigable work of Texas Right to Life."

Unfortunately, for no reason besides political spite, House leadership killed efforts to eliminate abortion subsidies in the health insurance market and to prohibit involuntary due not resuscitate orders in hospitals.

Finally, while it had no realistic path to 76 votes, for Byron Cook to kill the abolition bill without a hearing speaks for itself.

Austin Bashing: C -- The Uber bill crossed the finish line.  On housing issues, they lost linkage fees.   And it's not a secret that a number of local politicians have cynically grandstanded over sanctuary cities.

But the overwhelming majority of bills to reign in the City of Austin's abusive practices died in House committees chaired by Democrats.  Pro-property rights bills related to historical zoning and short term rentals died in Carol Alvarado's Urban Affairs committee, while bills to stop micromanaging hiring practices and pre-empt tree cutting ordinances were slow walked in Rene Olivera's Business and Industry committee.  Alvarado and Olivera killed several other bills without hearings.  It's worth noting that none of Paul Workman's Austin bashing bills were successful.

Finally, an attempt to prohibit other forms of housing price controls died late in the Senate.

Religious Liberty: C -- Conscience protections for adoption service providers successfully passed and that's a pretty big deal.  In addition, efforts to reign in some of the most abusive actions we saw in  the 2014/15 Houston saga were successful.  Both of those are fairly substantial victories.

But any number of other religious liberty bills died in the House.

It wasn't terrible, but it was underwhelming.

Higher Education: D [Note: Senate C, House F] -- The good news: The Senate passed strong bills on tuition and free speech.  Unfortunately, both predictably died in the House.  Nevertheless, those Senate bills are a solid foundation from which to build in future sessions.

The bad news: In the one place where the Senate had leverage and the House was irrelevant...the Senate rubber stamped the damn regent nominees.  Thus, we expect the higher ed. status quo to continue in the short term.  In addition, the Senate caved and increased higher ed. funding in the budget.

The only reason we're giving them a passing grade is because UT had to back down on the Houston land grab.

Ethics: D [Note: Senate A, House D] -- The first bill the Senate unanimously passed was an ethics bill that would have accomplished the following objectives: "barring politicians convicted of a felony from holding office or drawing a pension, requiring lawmakers to disclose government contracts, bond counsel, and legal referral fees, enacting more effective disclosure of lobbyist wining and dining of legislators, and banning elected officials from being employed as lobbyists while in office and eliminating the “revolving door” by adding a one session cooling-off period before former lawmakers can become lobbyists."  In addition, the Senate began the process of reigning in taxpayer funded lobbying.  Over the course of this session we have become convinced that eliminating taxpayer funded lobbying is, by far, the most important ethics reform the legislature could make.

Unfortunately, the only parts of that package that survived the House were the parts about barring pensions for convicted felons and a watered down form of contract disclosure.

Finally, it's worth noting the degree to which the House has treated Greg Abbott with contempt over this topic.  For the past two sessions, the Guvnah has made ethics reform an emergency item, to only receive the crumbs from House leadership we detailed in the preceding paragraph.  That Abbott won't even fight for his own stated priorities is quite revealing.

Two Year Budget: D -- We said our piece about the budget two weeks ago but the TL,DR version is that the this budget met the bare minimum standard (kept the top line number under inflation+population growth) but went no further and funded a lot of garbage.

Tax Relief: F [Note: Senate B, House F] In one of the highest profile discussions of the session, the Senate passed a bill that would have begun the process of structurally reforming the property tax system; the Senate bill didn't go far enough, but it was a fairly significant step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, due to a combination of incompetence and mendacity from Ways and Means chairman Dennis Bonnen, that effort collapsed in the House; we detailed Dennis Bonnen's debacle in real time.

They didn't even get margins tax elimination across the finish line.

Second Amendment: F -- Constitutional carry remains undone.  Mom's Demand Action bragged about having a successful session.  Case closed.

Education: F [Note: Senate A-, House F] -- While they had to modestly water it down to get to 19 votes, the Senate passed the strongest parental educational choice bill the legislature has ever considered.

In the House, Chairman Dan Huberty thumbed his nose at the Republican party platform and killed parental choice.  The House followed up with a budget vote that further illustrated their loyalty to government bureaucrats over parents and children.  Huberty also attempted to use a shady process to pass a "school finance" bill that would have accomplished little besides pouring additional money into the same failing system.

The only silver lining is that when the school finance bill made it to the Senate, they rewrote it in a way that might point the way towards a long term compromise.

"Fit hits the Shan" Preparation: F -- For as little as was getting done this session, we thought there was a decent chance grid security could pass, but it ultimately didn't; right to use cash legislation and the Texas Sovereignty act similarly died.

Structural Fiscal Reforms: F [Note: Senate A, House F] -- For future state budgets, the Senate passed a strong spending limit bill in late March.

In addition, the Senate took a hard look at various corporate welfare programs, 'economic development' shenanigans at the local level, and ballot integrity for local bond elections; these are a strong foundation on which to build future efforts.

None of these efforts went anywhere in the House.

Transportation: Incomplete -- As far as we can tell they didn't do anything terrible (though they tried), but neither did they do anything particularly good.

Overall, we would give the Senate a B and the House an F.

Bottom Line: The good news is that most of the bad stuff died; the bad news is that most of the good stuff also died.

Texas Medical Association gets deeper into bed with Planned Parenthood

"And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
John 3:19

The so-called Texas "Medical" Association is a liberal special interest group who routinely attempts horrible things in the legislature.  Of their many transgressions, the worst is that they're rabidly pro-Abortion.  On that note:

Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas has named Dr. Sealy Massingill as its new chief medical officer.

As CMO, Massingill will oversee clinical staff at health centers in Dallas, Denton, Fort Worth, Waco, Austin, Corsicana, Paris, Tyler, and surrounding communities. He will also be in charge of managing Planned Parenthood’s direct patient care site at Southwest Fort Worth health center.

Massingill currently is president-elect of the Texas Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Section 2 Chair for District XI of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Previously, he served as president of the Texas Medical Association Foundation and president of the Tarrant County Medical Society Board of Directors.

#TXLEGE: Another issue where Abbott's actions don't match his words....

"For you were hypocrites in your hearts when you sent me to the Lord your God, saying, ‘Pray for us to the Lord our God, and according to all that the Lord your God says, so declare to us and we will do it.’ "
Jeremiah 42:20

We haven't had the bandwidth to cover election integrity issues this session, but we signed this letter and ABSOLUTELY concur:

#TXLEGE 85 (R) -- Election Integrity Letter by Cahnman on Scribd