Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Wednesday, 11 September 2013
Tuesday, 10 September 2013
Friday, 30 August 2013
Wednesday, 28 August 2013
Sunday, 21 July 2013
Texas passed its omnibus anti-choice legislation one week ago by a vote of 19-11 in the State Senate. This last Thursday Governor Rick Perry (R) signed it.
At the same time the US House approved a farm bill without funding food stamps by a vote of 216-208. The debate was heated with Democrats accusing Republicans of dismissing low income Americans while Republicans did what they could do stifle vocal opposition.
These two polices passed by Republicans at the state level in Texas and the national level are summed up by Rachel Maddow's quotein her analysis of President Obama's re-election speech as she was commenting about what the real political divisions in this country are.
The biggest political divide in this country is not between Democrats and Republicans, it's between who care and people who don't.
Republicans do not care about the rest of their constituents.
They only care about those that participate in the Republican Primary and those that fund their campaigns.
My State Rep, State Senator, US House Member, and US Senators do not care about me. I didn't vote for them, but I expect that they would hear me out because they were elected to represent me. Honestly, they don't represent the interests of me or my friends that fall into the same category as me.
I reached that conclusion during the Texas Senate's HB 2 debate.
During the debate, Senate Democrats offered 20 amendments to try to lessen the blow of the proposed legislation and back to the House for reconsideration. Among those amendments were restoring funding to the cuts to family planning services and education that happened in the 82nd session to teaching age appropriate comprehensive sex education to Senator Wendy Davis's "Equal Pay for Equal Work" proposal.
All 20 amendments were tabled.
By the end of that night, the bill passed as expected.
I made this observation at the start of these special sessions back on 31 May 2013:
This special session is nothing more than an opportunity for the very vocal minority of Tea Party Republicans to push forward their agenda and to prevent some legislators from seeing a formidable primary challenger in 2014. State level Republicans know they are going to get hammered on issues such as the budget and not pushing enough of an extreme agenda by their base.
I later expanded on that observation in the days after Senator Davis's filibuster at the end of the first special session.
One of the reasons for passing this anti-choice omnibus bill was the argument coming from Republicans saying that fetuses feel pain at 20 weeks. I asked this question via twitter:
The #TXGOP's argument is preventing pain for 20 wk fetus. What about the pain of a live child going hungry? #TXLege#SB1#HB2#SWTW
— Michael Watts (@mjwatts1983) July 12, 2013
I had a few responses to this tweet. They were from your stereotypical right-wing Tea Partier types. What did I do?
Blocked them.
The fetal pain theory is bunk(among OTHER anti-choice theories that are circulating the so called "pro-life" movement and Republican politics). A British study says that fetuses cannot feel pain until 24 weeks while an American study says it is much later at 28 weeks. The reason for these findings is that fetuses' have not developed the nervous system to feel pain.
Also, a 2005 study by the Centers For Disease Control published that less than 1.3% of all abortions occur after 21 weeks.
Or in other words, science.
Another issue that Texas Republicans are claiming is that they want to make health care for women safer.
So how safe are abortions in Texas? 22% of abortions in Texaswere preformed in facilities classified as ambulatory surgical centers while the rest were preformed in clinics that don't meet HB 2's standards. According to the health department, the type of clinic has no impact on safety where the abortion is preformed.
HB 2 was not based on sound science or making health care for women safer. Instead it will punish poor women and women of color as they seek unsafe alternative methods to terminate a pregnancy such as purchasing abortion inducing drugs on the Black Market or worse... going to medical providers who will butcher a woman.
I know I have said it once in prior entries, but it is worth repeating.
HB 2's passage was nothing more than political gamesmanship to satisfy the rabid Tea Party base going into the 2014 elections. Texas Republicans pushed their luck and they have lost. There is a sense of anger among people on my side of the aisle and we have had enough. This could be the beginning of the end of the Republican Party's almost 20-year hold on Texas politics.
Back to my question that I tweeted asking about how can Texas Republicans care about fetus pain but not about the hunger pains of a child.The Republican Party claims to be the party of "pro-life." There is a catch... they only care about you if you are a fetus. After you are born, you are on your own.
As shown with the farm bill, House Republicans passed a bill that gave subsidies to farmers and big agriculture businesses but no funding to food stamps. It is not just food stamps. Here in Texas, our legislature cut education funding. There is the issue of fracking which raises concerns about the quantity and quality of our water supply. And of course, for the 38th and 39th time, the House GOP voted to repeal ObamaCare. Meanwhile 1 out of 4 Texans are without healthcare coverage. Then there is the issue of that Republicans are refusing to taking on gun reform legislation because the NRA has them by their collective testicles threatens to run NRA backed candidates against them.
Oh and Lege Republicans have filed this bill, The Fetal Heartbeat Bill, that would criminalize an abortion where a heartbeat is detected. The bill is classified as "trigger" legislation meaning it will only take effect if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade (1973).
The bill was filed within minutes of Governor Perry signing HB 2.
So... back to the title of this entry.
My fellow Democrats/Liberal minded people can present Republicans with the facts and we can write letters, tweet them, call them, and show up physically to their offices in their district and the capitol building.
We can hold marches and yell and scream at them to vote for a position that we advocate, but as shown with the votes in The Lege and the US House, those actions did not sway their opinion.
You would think that when a crowd of this size....
from WITHIN TEXAS shows up to the Pink Dome in Austin, that Republicans in The Lege would stop and think about what they are doing.
But as shown with their votes, we don't matter to them.
When Republican politicians return to their districts the moment the Special Session adjourns sine die, they will brag about how they passed this anti-choice bill. The only thing these politicians will be proud about is they have something to shelter themselves going into the 2014 Republican Primaries which will be brutal for them. Other than that, this legislation does nothing to curb Texas's exploding teen birth rate. The Lege did nothing to ensure that future generations of Texans have access to health care with their constant moaning about how ObamaCare is an unfunded mandate (and HB 2 isn't?). And most telling is they didn't fully restore the education cuts that took place during the 82nd session and were unwilling to listen to Democrats proposals to make Texas a better state.
The sad part is they refused to listen to the voices of the victims of sexual assault who were traumatized by their experiences. Or the women who experienced a wide range of complications during their pregnancies that not only endangered the well-being and formation of the fetus but also jeopardized future pregnancies and in some instances endangered the health of the mother.
Because of their unwillingness to listen to the marginalized and only listening to the most extreme voices in their party, Republicans will pay a heavy price at the election booth come November 2014.
Eventually, we will stand up to these bullies.
Thursday, 4 July 2013
Monday, 1 July 2013
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued two decisions in regards to LGBT Rights. One of them was in regards to California's Proposition 8.
In 2008, California passed a law allowing for same-sex marriages to be preformed within the state. At this time, only Massachusetts was the other state where same-sex marriages were preformed. However, those against the idea were able to place a ballot initiative that would change the California State Constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. As highlighted in the documentary 8: The Mormon Proposition, the Yes on 8 campaign received A LOT of support from the Mormon Church based in Salt Lake City, UT.
Election Night 2008 is remembered for two things....
First:
"Barack Obama is projected to be the next President of The United States of America."
- Keith Olbermann, 10 PM (CT) 4 November 2008
Yes, it's true. Keith Olbermann worked for MSNBC. And Current TV. And Fox Sports. And ESPN. And CBS 2 in Los Angeles. And CNN.
Well, here is hoping his upcoming gig with TBS works out.
Second:
What followed was about 4 years of litigation before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments and released its decision.
The 5-4 decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013) ruled that the petitioners did not have standing in the case. The state of California refused to take part in the litigation, but the proponents of Prop 8 were willing to take the case.
If you wish to read the opinionyou are more than welcome to as it contains a lot of references to Article III and the question of standing.
But SCOTUSBlog has the plain English explanation from their live blogging event (scroll down to 10:40):
Here's a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Alito, Thomas, and Sotomayor.
Now that is a weird 5-4 line up.... but so was last year's ObamaCare decision where Chief Justice Roberts joined with the court's 4 liberal leaning members.
In other words, it was a narrow ruling that only impacted California. While I would have preferred that the court issued a wide ruling declaring that such bans of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional, I expected that the court would go with a narrow ruling based on what I have read and heard. The court kicked it back down to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case.
On Friday, the Ninth Circuit issued this one sentence judgment:
"The stay in the above matter is dissolved effective immediately."
And the two couples involved in the Prop 8 litigation were seen on television getting married.
And here is the first live wedding on The Rachel Maddow Show
But alas, the opposition has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and filed an emergency stay to halt these marriages. Good news is that Justice Anthony Kennedy told them to take a hike.
To the opposition: You lost. Get over it.
Congrats to the all the gay couples in California. You've earned it.
The big LGBT Rights cases announced on Wednesday challenged the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
In 1996, the Republican controlled Congress passed a bill that President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed. Clinton, who in 1992 stated he would be the first President to champion gay rights, went back on that promise with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and then in 1996 facing re-election signed DOMA. Representative John Lewis and many House members fiercely stated their opposition to the bill. The law defined marriage for the purpose of federal benefits as one man and one woman. The law denied 1,138 benefits to federal employees involved in same-sex marriages.
Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer were together for 46 years. In 2007 the couple married in Canada under their equal marriage laws passed which were passed in 2005. Coincidently enough, that was the same year of the NHL's season long lockout that resulted in the Stanley Cup Final not being played.
If you get a chance watch Edie and Thea: A Very Long Engagement. It's about an hour long. It's very funny and sweet about how these two were together for so long and how Edie takes care of her wife Thea.
Thea Spyer passed away in 2009. As executor of Thea's estate, the IRS compelled Edie to pay over $350,000 in back taxes. The state of New York recognized their relationship as at the time the Empire State recognized same-sex couples who were married in other places.
In November 2010, Edith "Edie" Windsor with assistance from the ACLU sued the United States over that this policy discriminated her. In March 2013, oral arguments were heard in the case of United States v. Windsor (2013).
Among those that signed onto the amicus briefs were 212 members of Congress, Electronic Arts (creator of the popular Madden NFL series), Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), Microsoft and Starbucks, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA).
IAVA wasn't the only veteran group to sign on to the repealing DOMA. Former congressman and retired Navy Admiral Joe Sestak authored this op-ed in philly.com stating his support for DOMA repeal. Several retired military leaders, service members and families, and Outserve-SLDN also filed amicus briefs in support of repealing DOMA.
After oral arguments, Ms. Windsor made this statement on the steps of the Supreme Court:
"I am today an out lesbian... who just sued the United States of America."
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinion with the four liberal-leaning justices joining. Justice Scalia authored a dissenting opinion with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Thomas joining.I read Kennedy's opinion. Here are the portions that stood out the most to me.
The Act’s demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law. This raises a most serious question under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.
DOMA’s operation in practice confirms this purpose. When New York adopted a law to permit same-sex marriage, it sought to eliminate inequality; but DOMA frustrates that objective through a system-wide enactment with no identified connection to any particular area of federal law. DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits.
DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.
From there it goes into detail about how DOMA impacts couples.
And here is where Justice Kennedy lowers the boom!
The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Section III of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional. In effect DOMA is dead. It is still there, but it's dead weight. And we don't dump anything within 50 miles from shore.
All and all this case (along with the Prop 8 case, which I will have up shortly) was a big (bleeping) deal. This country has come a long way in LGBT Rights.
But, as stated earlier, a new journey begins.
And I welcome it.
Sunday, 30 June 2013
Tuesday night was a momentous occasion. State Senator Wendy Davis (D, SD-10) successfully filibustered the large anti-abortion omnibus bill that would have closed down all but 5 of such clinics in the state of Texas. Somewhere between 800-1300 activists from across the state stormed the Capitol to do what they could to help the small minority of Senate Democrats to stall passage of the bill over the last several days in order to not allow the bill to pass before the end of the first special session of the 83rd Legislature or 83(1).
Last week a hearing was held in a House committee room to discuss testimony on why this bill should or should not pass. The majority of the testimony was against this bill, but the committee was having none of it. At one point, State Rep. Byron Cook (R, HD-8) said "The testimony has been impassioned, but it has become repetitive, so I am going to only allow another hour of testimony on this bill." The bill passed committee in the wee hours of 21 June.
Over that weekend, House Democrats did everything they could to stall the passage of the bill out the house. The longer they stalled, the shorter amount of time it had in the State Senate where even though Republicans control a majority (19-12), it is not a super-majority. Democrats were introducing various Points of Orders (POO or PoO for short on twitter) and various amendments to at least minimize the damage that this bill could do. State Rep. Mary Gonzalez (D, HD-75) pointed out that this bill would harm the women in her El Paso district because if the bill had passed the nearest reproductive services clinic within the state would be in San Antonio, a 550 mile drive that can be done in 8 hours and stretches two time zones (El Paso is in the Mountain Time Zone, while the rest of the state is in the Central Time Zone).
The best part of the House debate came from State Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R, HD-89) where she said this:
In case you missed it, here it is again:
If a woman is raped… We have hospital emergency rooms. We have funded what’s called rape kits that will help the woman, basically clean her out. And then hopefully that will alleviate that.And this is one of the many reasons why Texas cannot have nice things.
Laubenberg sits on the House Public Health Committee and is the chair for the state's chapter of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALECis a conservative-right leaning organization that is responsible for pushing things like Florida's Stand Your Ground gun legislation (which has received considerable attention in the media in the Trayvon Martin murder and associated George Zimmerman trial), various voter-identification bills, and Wisconsin's union stripping bills.
I've seen many episodes of Law and Order: SVUand I don't think rape kitswork that way.
But let's ask an organization that is dedicated to sexual assault victim's advocacy on the topic. The Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network (RAINN) explains that the purpose of rape kits is to collect evidence, not to perform the procedure that Rep. Laubenberg thinks they do.
The anti-abortion omnibus bill, HB 60, passed the House on 21 June 2013 by a vote of 97-33 and was on its way to the Senate as SB 5.
The fight was on.
At 11:18 AM (CT) on Tuesday, State Senator Wendy Davis (D, SD-10) took to the State Senate floor to filibuster the bill.
The leadership may not want to listen to TX women, but they will have to listen to me. I intend to filibuster this bill. #SB5#txlege
— Wendy Davis (@WendyDavisTexas) June 25, 2013
Texas filibuster rules are different than the ones at the US Senate. For one, you actually have to speak and hold the floor. So, yeah... take that US Senate GOP.
You cannot leave the chamber for anything (yup, you better have a strong bladder). No eating or drinking.
The filibusterer can decide whether he (or in this case she) will take questions. Once the question is asked, the floor is returned to the filibusterer.
Most importantly, you have to stay on topic. No reading from the phone book, quoting scripture, reciting Lady Gaga lyrics, or reading twitter feeds. You have stay on point or you are issued a warning/strike. After 3 strikes, a vote is held to end the filibuster and all that is needed is a simple majority.
Davis read the testimony that did not have the opportunity to be heard at the House committee hearing. Folks were able to contribute additional testimony to her speech. Even though I am not physically able to have children as a biological male, I stated my opposition to this bill being considered because we have other issues to worry about.
A recent bipartisan poll via Progress Texas shows that a overwhelming majority, 80%, DOES NOT SUPPORT The Lege taking up these bills during the special session. 63% of Texas VOTERS think that this state has enough abortion restrictions and 71% believes that The Lege should be focusing on the economy and jobs.
Here is another telling statistic: 34% trust the Governor and The Lege to make decisions about women's health.
I'm surprised it is that high.
During the filibuster, Republicans attempted to end Davis's speech. The first strike was over germaneness, which means is she staying on topic or ranting on (like a CERTAIN person we know...). The Republicans were challenging over whether discussing Planned Parenthood's Budget was relevant to the topic. I think it is since the Republicans are tirelessly trying to defund the program. Especially around the false claim that all that Planned Parenthood does is abortion.
You might want to look at what a majority of Planned Parenthood does. 35% is STD Testing and Treatment, another 35% contraception, one-sixth is cancer screening and Prevention, and the final tenth is other women's health services.
Only 3% is abortion services.
And no federal dollars goes towards abortion except in cases of rape and incest. That was in an amendment passed and added to a larger bill in 1976. It's called the Hyde Amendment and was passed in response to Roe v. Wade (1973). I once had a state representative, Myra Crownover, who was unable to explain what it was.
The second strike came early in the evening over Davis's Democratic colleagues were adjusting her back brace. Maybe a little ticky-tacky, but if you're following the letter of the law, ok fine. I'll give them that one.
That did follow with some passionate debate over about the traditions of the chamber and how close the members are. Remember, there are only 31 members that sit in the Texas Legislature and that is out of a population of over 26 million people.
The final strike happened because Davis was talking about the Sonogram Bill than passed in the 82nd session. If you are unfamiliar with Texas politics, the last session was the passage of the controversial sonogram bill where if you want to have an abortion in Texas you have an ultrasound within 24 hours of the procedure. The Texas Observer has a heart wrenching story about a family enduring the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy due to a sudden medical problem occurring. Before I post the link, I must warn that it might be a trigger for some. Here is that story.
Davis failed to yield to a question from Senators Jane Nelson (R, SD-12) and Donna Campbell (R, SD-25). I suspect it was because earlier Nelson was reportedly laughing and joking with other senators on the floor while security in the gallery were asking observers to refrain from making noise. The only noise from early in the event was from a "pro-lifer" who was ranting about how those who were against SB 5 were sodomites.
Senator Campbell successfully challenged the germaneness of the topic (which it was on topic) and the filibuster was over at 10:07 PM (CT).
If you are wondering, Senator Campbell was voted one of the worst legislators during the 83rd regular session per Texas Tribune readers. Yes, she was voted WORST than Stickland. She ran against Lloyd Doggett in 2010 and she hold board specialties in ophthalmology and emergency medicine. Senator Campbell is a supporter of the "fetal pain bill" (considering she is an eye doctor) and restricting voting rights.
Most importantly... she is up for re-election in 2014.
Anyways...
With the filibuster ending, all hell broke loose in the State Senate.
There was one item to the Democrats' advantage was the clock. There was less than 2 hours left and they did everything they could to stall the vote on SB 5.
There was one ace in the hole: Senator Leticia Van de Putte (D, SD-26), the Senate President Pro Tem.
Senator Van de Putte was back in her home town of San Antonio attending her father's funeral. He was presentwhen Senator Van de Putte was named Governor-for-a-Day on 4 May 2013. This has been a difficult session for the Senator as she had to also bury her 6 month grandson. In the Texas Monthly's profile of Van de Putte as one of the Best Senators, the article pointed out the Senator's willingness to persevere through difficult times with this observation:
The session ended in tragedy for Van de Putte, when her infant grandson died unexpectedly in early May. The news was heartbreaking, and her grief understandably overshadowed much of her work. Still, she carried on, a diligent lawmaker intent on making incremental progress.
After many points of orders that took the clock to 11:45 PM (CT), Senator Van de Putte asked a question:
Can you say that the microphone was effectively dropped?
The chamber ERUPTED in applause and cheers. I was cheering here at the Watts News Network global headquarters.
The cheers went on for 15 minutes. The clock stuck midnight and the first special session of the 83rd was over. SB 5 was dead.
Or was it...?
CBS and the AP was reporting that the bill did pass. There were reports that the bill passed 17-10 or 19-11, something like that. Those reports were later found to be incorrect.
There was one problem... the timestamps.
Senator Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (D, SD-20) shows that SOMEONE altered the timestamps.
Time-stamp altered to show vote happened before midnight. Left shows 6/26; right 6/25. #txlege#sb5#timestampgatepic.twitter.com/HA2QJCxAA9
— Juan Chuy Hinojosa (@TxChuy) June 26, 2013
Finally at 2:45 AM (CT), Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst finally conceded what everyone knew: the bill was dead.
"Regrettably" @DavidHDewhurstsays time expired and #SB5cannot be enrolled. #txlege. "It's been fun, but, um, see ya soon," he says.
— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) June 26, 2013
The crowd in the capitol rotunda erupted in cheers.
This event has vaulted Wendy Davis into the national spotlight. There are talks among Texas Democrats that she could run for governor in 2014. Leticia van de Putte was featured on 2 MSNBC programs on Thursday (Now with Alex Wagner and All in With Chris Hayes). Folks are realizing that yes, there are Democratic-Progressive-Liberal minded folks in Texas. They aren't just concentrated in Austin. A lot the people that witnessed this event came from out of town. I know some people that drove from Denton to witness this. If I didn't have a test on Thursday, I so would have gone down there.
Over 180,000 people were watching the filibuster live on line. Many were following on twitter. Over a quarter of the #StandWithWendytweets came from Texas.
Here are some other stats and figures about the social media awareness during the filibuster.
And perhaps, I contributed to that pink blob that was on the DFW Metroplex.
Texas Filibusters: We do them bigger. #StandWithWendy#StandWithTXWomen#SB5#TXLege#GOTV2014#GoodByeGOPhttp://t.co/tY9i4KbP2x
— Michael Watts (@mjwatts1983) June 25, 2013
@WendyDavisTexasWe hear you Senator Davis. #StandWithWendy#StandWithTXWomen#TXLege#GOTV2014
— Michael Watts (@mjwatts1983) June 25, 2013
#StandWithDavis#StandWithTXWomen#SB5http://t.co/wxd10ZVFcL
— Michael Watts (@mjwatts1983) June 26, 2013
@BradTracy2032@WendyDavisTexasis a fighter for #Veterans. That is why I #StandWithDavis.
— Michael Watts (@mjwatts1983) June 26, 2013
So.... it's over right...?
No
Governor Perry hours after the first session ended called for a second special session. Yes, he also put on the agenda to pass a transportation funding bill and juvenile justice measure, but we know WHY he is calling this.
Yup. Abortion.
Senator Dan Patrick (R, SD-7) re-filed the anti-abortion omnibus bill in the Senate as SB 2 and SB 9. Patrick is also the former ESPN Sportscenter host who was teamed with Keith Olbermann during the program's high point in the 1990s recently announced his intention to challenge David Dewhurst for Lt. Gov. in 2014.
I am going to repeat what I said in a post looking back the 83rd Regular Session.
This special session is nothing more than an opportunity for the very vocal minority of Tea Party Republicans to push forward their agenda and to prevent some legislators from seeing a formidable primary challenger in 2014. State level Republicans know they are going to get hammered on issues such as the budget and not pushing enough of an extreme agenda by their base. Governor Perry knows this too as he is weighing his options on whether he will run for re-election next year. The latest polling shows that the governor is the favorite to win the Republican nomination over Attorney General Greg Abbott who has expressed some interest in the race though there is sentiment among Republicans that it's time for Perry to step out of the spotlight.
The special session should be utilized to focus on the tangible and real issues such as repairing our roads, participating in Medicaid expansion, solving our water issues, improving voter turnout, and other problems that exists with the budget.
What the Texas Legislature is involved in is nothing more than political gamesmanship.
Also me to add on to this.
This special session is nothing more than Republican hypocrisy and arrogance on display. If you listen to Republicans within the DC Beltway they mention about rebranding the party, but here in Texas and other places where the Republicans control the legislative and executive branches at the state level it is, as Senator Davis put it when the first special session was called:
RT @amanbatheja: Wendy Davis on Perry's special session call: "Business as usual, to borrow the phrase y'all have been using" #txlege
— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) May 27, 2013
And she is correct.
Republicans claim to be the party of limited government and no regulations but is doing the complete opposite with this bill. They are refusing to listen to the people who are experts in this field. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and American Medical Association (AMA) have stated STRONG opposition to this bill stating that these proposals are NOT based on sound science, they weakens the standards for care, it threatens the doctor-patient relationship, and creates over-reaching requirements for abortion facilities.
In a statementby Lisa Hollier, MD, MPH, FACOG, and Texas-ACOG Chair: "The regulations set forth [in the Texas bill] require additional standards that are not necessary. The regulations are much more stringent than for other surgical procedures at similar risk, such as a colonoscopy."
Also, if they wish to limit the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies, maybe it is time to ditch this idea of abstinence only education and start embracing comprehensive AGE APPROPRIATE sex education that is based around that thing called oh, I don't know... FACTS.
Yes, Governor Perry will tell you that abstinence works, but the data says otherwise. Texas has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates. Clearly something is NOT working.
Republicans say that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. This second special session is estimated to cost the tax payers $800K. If the session goes the full 30 days, it could run a bill of $1.6 million. And this speaks about Texas Republican's arrogance. Again, 800-1300 people showed up in Austin from all across the state to protest this. Again, 80% of Texans do not support using the special session to push this bill. 63% feel that the state has enough abortion restrictions. 71% feels that The Lege should be focusing on the economy and jobs.
Letters From Texaswriter Harold Cook points out what has already been stated: It is about satisfying the six percent of voters who will participate in next year's Republican Primary Elections here in Texas.
The Lege starts its second special session on Monday. There is a planned rally against these anti-abortion bills.
Texas Fight is on because for the first time in a while...
The Eyes of Texas Are Upon The Lege.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
