The Committee Substitute was passed this afternoon with 9 yes votes in the House State Affairs Committee. The Chairman of the Committee, Byron Cook voted “yes,” after assuring the Committee that the Bill (which is not available online or in the Committee) will not outlaw human cloning at Universities.
Voting “no” were four brave Republicans – I’ll list them all as soon as I can verify and make sure I don’t miss anyone. Unfortunately, some of our conservative members weren’t present. I will also name them when I can do so without missing anyone.
I worked with Representative Raymond’s office to come up with good definitions, but I don’t know how much of those definitions made it into the final Bill.
Luckily, in spite of the lies we’ve read over the years, no one has yet been able to clone a human embryo.
What is now encouraged is the purposeful creation of a human embryo by cloning. The embryo may never be implanted, but the Bill declares that the nascent human should be killed and broken up
One woman claimed that the standards shouldn’t be the same as an ambulatory surgical center because they do abortions on 9 year olds!
Minimal standards are considered too much by the abortion industry. They’ve fought every move to keep women and girls safe, and whip out those coat hangers every chance they get.
Women who have D&C’s after a miscarriage have them at a hospital or surgical center, not at in an office setting. But according to the abortionists, healthy mothers having abortions – or 9 year old girls – should be happy with a clinic setting.
AUSTIN – Abortion clinics would be required to meet stricter standards under a bill approved 5-2 by the Senate Health and Human Services Committee Tuesday after emotional testimony over whether the measure would protect women’s health or risk it by causing clinics to close.
“My intent in filing this bill is only to protect Texas women who undergo this procedure,” said Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, who authored the measure with two fellow doctors, Republican Sens. Donna Campbell of New Braunfels and Charles Schwertner of Georgetown.
Planned Parenthood called the measure, Senate Bill 537, a “back-door abortion ban.”
Be very proud of our Texas Senators Cruz and Cornyn. They are fighting for rights — the right to speak, the right to read books, the right to keep and bear arms.
Watch the video! “Do they need a bazooka?” Senator Feinstein could just as well ask, “Do they need those books? Do they need all those words?” I say, Ma’am, rights are not to be limited except to save life in the case of immediate threat.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a ban on the sale and manufacture of more than 150 types of semi-automatic weapons with military-style features Thursday in a party-line vote.
The 10-8 vote came after a heated exchange between Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who Feinstein scolded for giving her a “lecture” on the Constitution.
It’s the fourth piece of gun control legislation to make it out of committee and perhaps the one with the longest odds of becoming law, given opposition from Republicans to a new ban on the weapons.
Committee Democrats first beat back four amendments offered by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) that would have carved out exceptions to the ban. Cornyn asked for exceptions for victims of domestic violence, military veterans and those living on Southwest border states that he said were affected by Mexican gang violence.
Feinstein, the sponsor of the underlying bill, called the amendments “an effort to nip it and tuck it and create exceptions.”
Cornyn said it would Feinstein’s bill would leave citizens with “peashooters” and outgunned by criminals.
Y’all have got to watch @GovernorPerry at CPAC this afternoon!
“The popular media narrative is that this country has shifted away from conservative ideals, as evidenced by the last two presidential elections. That’s what they say. That might be true if Republicans had actually nominated conservative candidates in 2008 and 2012,” Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) said in his address at CPAC this afternoon.
A friend asked us what to do about the latest “American Community Survey,” received from the US Census Bureau. There is a possibility of a $100 to $5000 fine for not filling out the questionnaire, although I can’t find a record of anyone ever being prosecuted.
Seriously, I don’t care what sort of security or “confidentiality” the Bureau promises, do you want to tell any stranger what time you leave your house to go to work? And isn’t it bad enough that we already have to tell the IRS exactly how much your income was last year and exactly where it came from?
If, like me, you think these are too many questions, questions that are too personal and invasive, take the time to call your Congressman and our Texas Senators.
Representative Lamar Smith – Congressional District 21 Washington Office (202)225-4236 San Antonio Office (210)821-5024
Senator John Cornyn Washington Office (202)224-2934 San Antonio Office (210)224-7485 Austin Office (512)469-6034
Senator Ted Cruz Washington Office (202)224-5922 San Antonio Office (210)340-2885 Austin Office (512)916-5834
Texas is ranked as the number one exporting state for the 11th year in a row, according to 2012 annual trade data released today by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
“The fact that Texas is ranked the nation’s top exporter for the 11th year in a row further demonstrates that our strong economic climate provides a broad range of opportunities for businesses to succeed,” Gov. Perry said. “Our longstanding commitment to holding the line on taxes, keeping our workforce strong, and maintaining reasonable regulations and fair courts has led to more than a decade of leading the nation in exports.”
and …
Texas was recently named the top state to do business by Area Development magazine, and Business Facilities magazine awarded Texas as the “State of the Year” for the aggressive economic development strategies that have helped attract jobs and investment. Texas governor Rick Perry was awarded the “Governor’s Award 2012” by fDi Magazine for being the most successful in attracting new investments to the state.
Gov. Rick Perry has reappointed seven members to the Texas Institute of Health Care Quality and Efficiency Board of Directors for terms to expire Jan. 31, 2017. The institute improves health care quality, accountability, education and cost to the state by encouraging health care provider collaboration, effective health care delivery models and coordination of health care services.
. . . Beverly Nuckols of New Braunfels is a board certified family physician. She is a member of the Texas Medical Association, Texas Academy of Family Physicians, Comal County Medical Association, and Texas Physicians Resource Council. She is a fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians, and a board member and secretary of Texas Alliance for Life.
Governor Rick Perry explains why Texas won’t create a State Obamacare health insurance exchange:
Setting aside the obvious fact that health insurance is readily available under current conditions — the problem has been price, not availability — these exchanges represent nothing more than another federal power grab in the guise of a supposedly free market.
States were given the option to set up and execute their own exchanges — at their own expense. The fine print, however, specified that the exchanges would have to follow all rules and guidelines imposed by the federal government, with little to no flexibility. The kicker: Many of these rules and regulations are unknown.
Again, this is par for the course as we continue down the road to fiscal disaster at the hands of ObamaCare.
In Texas, Medicaid spending already accounts for nearly 25% of our general revenue spending, and its costs are only expected to continue skyrocketing.
While the president has promised to subsidize states for Medicaid costs in the near term, in the long term, states are going to be on their own.
ObamaCare has already begun to affect many companies, too, with some publicly announcing plans for layoffs in order to make up for increased insurance-related costs.
Governor Rick Perry wrote a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sibelius:
Gov. Perry’s letter said. “It would not be fiscally responsible to put hard-working Texans on the financial hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not even been written.”
The Texas Institute for Health Care Quality and Efficiency Draft Report is posted for public comment.
You only have a day and a half to comment, since the next meeting of our Board of Directors is Thursday, November 15th. All comments should be sent by 1 PM on Wednesday, November 14th.
Instructions on submitting your comments are here.
Now, for a few comments on my observations as a Board member:
Believe it or not, the time frame from the passage of the legislation in SB 7 last June, 2011, to today and in anticipation of preparing for legislation beginning in January, 2013, is too tight. The Institute’s staff and coordinators did a good job of herding cats in the Board. In addition, the Board members worked hard to make all the meetings, to participate, and to contribute. We have met at least once a month, sometimes more than twice, since our appointment. The Board isn’t paid or even reimbursed for expenses by the State, and many gave up work in order to attend meetings far from their homes.
I haven’t commented on the draft until now, because the Board received our first full copy for review and comment on November 2, and comments were due by 5 PM, Election Day, November 6th. We’re all appointed by the Governor — it stands to reason that a few of us would be actively involved in the election and campaigns. I didn’t even open the email until Nov. 7.
I’m not happy with the length of the report, but I guess the nuances of our discussions over the last few months needed to be documented somewhere. Go to the page 34 in the pdf, numbered “26” in the Draft, for the actual recommendations made by vote in the Board meetings.
Finally, my main concern has been with the bureaucracy and regulation that the members of the Board have sometimes appeared to support. In the end, I believe that we have limited recommendations for regulation and “hassle factors” more than some would like. My hope is that the Legislature will decide to focus initially on implementing any new measures in our own State health plans and not interfere directly in private health care practice and systems, except where and when the State foots the bill.
Since President Obama won reelection, I believe that the ability of the 83rd Texas Legislature to adapt and react to Federal Regulations – Obamacare – will be improved by the work of the Institute.
Here are 3 opportunities to meet some of those people on the Republican ticket that I hope you will vote for:
Justice Bob Pemberton,Republican and incumbent candidate for the Third Court of Appeals, will be at a reception hosted by (my) Comal County Commissioner, Precinct 4, Jan Kennady, on Wednesday, October 24 at the Emme Sealy Faust Library (Next to the Sophienburg Museum), 401 W. Coll St., New Braunfels, Texas, from 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM.
Dr. Donna Campbell, the Republican candidate for Texas’ Senate District 25 will be at a reception and fundraiser in her honor hosted by the Guadalupe County Republican Women on Thursday, October 25, at Lake Breeze Ski Lodge, 225 Ski Lodge Road, McQueeney, TX, from 5:30 to 7:30 PM. Tickets are $50. There will be refreshments and a cash bar. Please RSVP to “Sue” at 830-305-0371.
Susan Narvaiz, the Republican who is facing “Layoff Lloyd Doggett” in the new Congressional District 35, will be at the reception in her honor at Frieheit Country Store on Thursday, October 25, from 5 PM to 7 PM. The Freiheit is pronounced “fry height” and is located in New Braunfels, at 2157 FM 1101.
The first day of early voting in Comal County yielded double the voter turn out on the same day in 2008, with more than 3100 voters compared to 1700.
I voted on the second day, and was pleased to find that the Comal County Voting Center on Landa Street in New Braunfels was up to the task. The County has designed an efficient and organized Center, with fast moving lines and 3 stations set up to check in voters.
I cast my first “straight Party” ticket since 1992, today. The first “page of the electronic ballot offers the option to vote for one Party or the other, and a vote for Republicans took me through each page of all the candidates and offices, allowing me to review and view the names of each candidate I voted for and to see who I wasn’t voting for. I hope that those of you who are tempted to just vote the top of the ticket or for a few candidates will consider taking my endorsement of the Republican candidates all up and down the ballot, with the ease of the straight Party vote! You’ll get the well known candidates, like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, Donna Campbell for SD 25, Susan Narvaiz for Congressional District 35 and Kevin Webb for Comal County Commissioner, Pct 3, and you also support judges like Scott Fields, Jeff Rose and Bob Pemberton!
No matter where you live in Comal County, or where your regular voting place is, you can cast your ballot at any of the early voting places or times. Here’s the early voting opportunities in Comal County:
• New Braunfels: 345 Landa, Suite 101. Oct. 23-26, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Oct. 27, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Oct. 29 — Nov. 2, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
• Canyon Lake: CRRC Community Center, 125 Mabel Jones Dr. Oct. 23-26, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Oct. 27, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Oct. 29 — Nov. 1, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.; and Nov. 2, 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
• Bulverde: Bulverde / Spring Branch Library, 131 Bulverde Crossing. Oct. 23-26, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Oct. 27, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.; and Nov. 2, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
• Garden Ridge: City Hall, 9400 Municipal Parkway. Oct. 23-26, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Oct. 27, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Oct. 29 — Nov. 1, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.; and Nov. 2, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.
A fellow Texas Medical Association member asked me today how I felt about TexPAC – was it even worth giving them money and “what about their endorsements for judges?” He had been surprised to notice the TMA’s endorsement of some Democrat candidates after the Judicial endorsements caught his eye. (He even asked whether the list was just a pet of some of the more wealthy docs in the TMA.)
I explained that, while the TMA generally opposes ObamaCare, the Association unfortunately has what they call the “friendly incumbent” rule. I also agreed that the policy doesn’t explain all of the choices on the TexPAC list. But for the most part, It’s virtually a given that the PAC endorses the incumbent in a race, even if the candidate doesn’t agree with the TMA on such vital issues as ObamaCare and the (Un-) Sustainable Growth Rate (“SGR”) or even the “RAC audits.” (“Recovery Audit Contractors” – *private* contractors who audit Medicare “providers” – doctors and hospitals, and earn more for finding more “fraudandabuse.”)
The policy – along with the heavy-handedness of some of the leaders of the PAC – leads to such debacles as their mistaken endorsement of Jeff Wentworth, who opposed tort reform, over Dr. Donna Campbell, the eventual winner (by a 2 to 1 vote!) of the Texas Senate District 25 Republican Primary,
I suggested that he include a note about his disagreements with the PAC in any check he writes in the future. As for this election, I advised my friend – who is very opposed to ObamaCare – to ignore any recommendation that didn’t have an “R” for “Republican” in front of the candidate’s name – especially when it comes to the candidates for our Third Court of Appeals: Scott Fields is a much better choice for conservative voters than the incumbent. (I could say the same about Congressional District 35, where I hope my neighbors will vote for Susan Narvaiz, rather than Layoff Lloyd Doggett.)
We had twenty good Republicans turn out to watch the Presidential Debate at the Comal County Republican Party Election Headquarters tonight.
I tweeted (@bnuckols) throughout the debate, (Twitter search, “#debates”) and read the new Dem talking points over and over and re-tweeted:
It turns out that calling “Latinos” “Hispanics,” is equivalent in the eyes of some to calling Black people, “Colored.”
According to a couple of Dems, it’s “racist” to use the word “illegals.” One even said that it’s racist for all races!
Several libs tweeted that the request for continued security in Libya was for Tripoli, not Bengazi Actually, wasn’t the security for the Ambassador and the staff?
Here’s some information you might find interesting:
The Hill is reporting that there may be a compromise that “allows” State GOPs to continue to chose their delegates to the National GOP convention. There is no mention about killing the proposed rule allowing the Rebublican National Committeetoo change the rules – with a 3/4 majority vote – once we all go home.
Unfortunately, the controversy is being cast as Mitt Romney vs Ron Paul, rather than Grassroots vs PTB (Powers That Be):
“We are currently reviewing and getting feedback from our delegates. While we are not sure how this will ultimately be received, [it] is very positive that the Romney campaign is listening to feedback from the grassroots and looking to find common ground,” said Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign manager.
Under the agreement, a bound delegate must vote for the presidential candidate that they are required to vote for under state law or state party rules, leaving the actual selection of delegates up to the states.
Previously, a proposal would have given presidential candidates the power to veto delegates sent by the states — a change that had Paul supporters crying foul, seeing it as an establishment attempt to stifle the upstart contingent.
The deal strikes a middle ground between establishment Republican leaders and conservative delegates, but is likely to infuriate some Paul backers who had spent much of the last year gaming the system to their benefit and who virulently opposed compromise on the issue.
“We were able to achieve an agreement that accomplished what everyone wanted to accomplish,” Bopp told The Hill. “The Romney campaign wanted to make sure the delegates pledged to support him will actually vote for him … and at the same time the concern we had was addressed so that state parties have complete control of the delegates.”
Bopp had blasted the Romney campaign’s original rule when it was approved, calling it “the biggest power grab in the history of the Republican Party.” He said Monday he did not know if the Paul camp would be satisfied by the changes — and didn’t care much, accusing them of “causing chaos for chaos’s sake in order to achieve their agenda.
And guarantee a third party (or 4th and 5th) push.
Propose a GOP rules change that appears designed to squelch any National delegates that might not be loyal to the favored Candidate and add a new rule that would allow the Powers That Be – the Republican National Committee – to make even more rules changes between the National Conventions!
Here are the controversial new additions to the Rules of the Republican Party:
“The Republican National Committee may, by three fourths (3/4) vote of its entire membership, amend Rules 1-11 and 13-24. Any such amendment shall be considered by the Republican National Committee only if it was passed by by a majority vote of the Standing Committee on Rules after having been submitted in writing at least ten (10) days in advance of its consideration by the Republican National Committee and shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption. No such amendment shall be adopted after September 30, 2014.”
New rule inserted as number 15(a):
15(a)(1) Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for president of the United States in a primary, caucus, or state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the National Convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters.
15(a)(2) For any manner of binding or allocating delegates permitted by these Rules, no delegate or alternate who is bound or allocated to a particular presidential candidate may be certified under Rule 19 if the presidential candidate to whom the delegate or alternate delegate is bound or allocated has, in consultation with the State Party, disavowed the delegate or alternate delegate.
15(e)(3) The Republican National Committee may grant a waiver to a state Republican Party from the provisions of 15(a) and (b) where compliance is impossible, and the Republican National Committee determines that granting such a waiver is in the best interests of the Republican Party.
Texas’ delegation will push to get rid of these changes. From their reaction in a meeting this morning, Governor Sununu might not be able to make the transition from Temporary Chair to Permanent Chair of the Rules Committee and the Convention will most likely scrap the whole 2012 Rules and revert to the 2008 Rules.
Although this restriction functions as a speech-based funding condition, it also functions as a direct regulation of the content of a state program, and is therefore constitutional . . . “[W]hen the government appropriates public funds to promote a particular policy of its own it is entitled to say what it wishes.” Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 833 (citing Rust, 500 U.S. at 194).
Needless to say, the press, including the Texas Tribune and theAustin Chronicle disagree with this ruling, the latter more obviously than the former.
Once again, please look at the Texas Tribune’s own interactive map or the State’s data base of doctors and clinics who have contracted with Texas’ WHP. Those Planned Parenthood clinics aren’t located in health care shortage areas. There are no shortages of willing providers for the services in question in the areas surrounding the abortion affiliates.
For them, the issue isn’t abortion; it’s about the doctor-patient relationship, patient health and the ability to put everything on the table that needs to be discussed. Even if it’s abortion.
In a recent letter to the state, the Texas Medical Association, joined by other medical groups, said Texas is about to embark on a plan for providing medical care to low-income women that will impose a “gag order” on discussing abortion even on doctors working with patients not in the program.
Other groups, weighing in during the public comment period on proposed state rules, have similar concerns.
It’s a plan, they say, that will ensure not enough doctors for this program willing to provide care, including family planning services. And this, they say, will guarantee more unintended pregnancies, more abortions and more illness that might have been prevented for low-income women.
Among those also commenting on the rules were the Center for Public Policy Priorities, and leaders of Planned Parenthood entities in the state, South Texas groups among them.
Trust me, for everyone who is mentioned above, it’s about abortion. The law doesn’t stop anyone from discussing or even promoting true contraception that doesn’t end the life of our youngest children of tomorrow.
And it is about “elective abortions:” those that are performed on health babies in healthy mothers. We’re not talking about the more controversial abortions in cases of rape and incest, much less in the cases of congenital disorders that are “not compatible with life outside the womb and certainly not in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. Since when do elective abortions “need to be discussed?”
How difficult is it to understand that Texas taxpayers should not pay for “promotion” of abortion? Or that we most certainly do not want our State tax funds to go to doctors who perform elective abortions on healthy babies and healthy mothers?
While I don’t speak for the Society, I am an elected delegate for my County Medical Society to the TMA House of Delegates and I believe that most of our members would agree with me on this. I am very much in favor of restricting payment from our limited State funds to only those doctors and organizations that provide comprehensive and continuing medical care for the whole woman and her whole family. With Texas Family Doctors, Internal Medicine Docs, Pediatricians and OB/Gyns reeling from the lack of increasing fees from Medicare and decreases in Medicaid funding, why not help keep them in business by adding the availability of billing the State for screening tests like pap smears, exams for breast masses, diabetes and high blood pressure?
In fact, that’s what the Legislature decided: that money would be prioritized. First come the comprehensive care docs, hospitals, and county and city clinics. Planned Parenthood is never mentioned, although there is a section of the law that absolutely prohibits the State from contracting with anyone who “promotes” abortion *if there are other qualified providers available.*
Texas DHS has already identified more than enough doctors and clinics that qualify under the law. These doctors can actually treat the diseases for which the Texas Women’s Health Plan screens. Our Texas Legislature made a wise decision when they agreed that it doesn’t make sense to send our few dollars to a clinic that treats a very narrow medical spectrum in an intermittent manner.
And the law has already saved human lives: Austin city and Travis County taxes once paid for 400 elective abortions each year. A year ago, the law achieved what the taxpayers who protested this use of their money couldn’t do: Austin and Travis County health clinics were forced to stop funding those abortions.
If you have a family doctor, consider a polite call to his or her front desk asking them to let the TMA know their views on using Texas’ tax funds to support Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
You might also consider contacting Texas Alliance for Life and/or you local Crisis Pregnancy Center to let them know that you support their efforts to keep your State (and federal) tax funds from paying for the ending of lives of our Texans of tomorrow.
Paul Ryan is an excellent, conservative choice for Mitt Romney’s Vice President running mate. Not lukewarm at all, no pale pastels, here!
For background on Representative Ryan from Wisconsin, read the coverage of his votes and past statements at OnTheIssues.org
My primary issue is the right to life – without security of protection for life, there is no other freedom or right and if a person discriminates between other human beings as “persons,” then I can’t trust them to preserve my life and liberty.
Here’s the notes on “Abortion” and other life issues on that link above:
Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization. (Jan 2011)
Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011)
Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)
Texas Alliance for Life has sent out a notice of a hearing Monday, August 8th, on the TWHP. (Sorry for the formatting, I’m traveling, so limited access to the Internet.)
* * * URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT 8/3/12 * * *
Please Contact the Texas Department of State Health Services to Register Your Opposition to Tax Funding for Planned Parenthood!
Deadline on MONDAY
Please immediately contact the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and register your opposition to tax funding for Planned Parenthood in a new state health program.
DSHS is creating a new state-funded program, called the Texas Women’s Health Program (TWHP), to provide preventative health care for low-income women. The services will including some STD screening and treatments, screening for breast and cervical cancer, and contraceptives. The new state program will replace the Medicaid Women’s Health Program, which is expected to come to an end in October. The new TWHP will provide the same or more services as the Medicaid program it replaces.
See a sample message and contact information below. Comments must be received by Monday, August 6.
The Obama Administration is killing the Medicaid Women’s Health Program in Texas because Governor Perry and the Legislature refuse to fund Planned Parenthood. Senate Bill 7, passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Perry last year with Texas Alliance for Life’s strong endorsement, explicitly excludes organizations that provide or promote elective abortion, like Planned Parenthood. Without Senate Bill 7, there would be no statutory basis for excluding Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid Women’s Health Program and from the Texas Women’s Health Program.
SAMPLE MESSAGE: Please call, email, or mail a message in your own words by Monday, August 6.Phone — 800.322.1305 (during business hours):
Email — click here to email to CHSS@dshs.state.tx.us. “Dear Ms. Garcia, “This is a comment regarding the proposed rules for the Texas Women’s Health Program published in the Texas Register on July 6, 2012. “Please assure that Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide or promote elective abortion are not eligible for public funding under the Texas Women’s Health Program. Planned Parenthood runs 14 abortion facilities in Texas, and they promote elective abortion at every one of its sites in Texas even where they do not perform abortion. I do not want my tax dollars to go to organizations that perform or promote abortions as a method of family planning”
“—–Your name and address
Mail: Imelda M. Garcia, Department of State Health Services, Division of Family and Community Health Services, Community Health Services Section, Mail Code 1923, P.O. Box 149347, Austin, Texas 78714-9347,
Deadline: Monday, August 6, 2012.
Please let us know you’ve made your contact. Simply send comments to info@texasallianceforlife.org.
Texas Alliance for Life (TAL) is a non-sectarian, non-partisan, pro-life organization of people committed to protecting innocent human lives from conception through natural death through peaceful, legal means. TAL is a statewide organization based in the Texas capital.
“I wanted to talk about him, who he was, see if I could get a handle on Ted Cruz the man, not Cruz the caricature I’d seen through the political lens. What I found was a very different person than what I had been led to believe.”
******
Espousing unconstrained majoritarianism, (Theodore Roosevelt) disdained Madison’s belief that the ultimate danger is wherever ultimate power resides, which in a democracy is with the majority.
In other words, Conservatives are Constitutionalists not because we desire to limit the rights of others who disagree with us, but because the Constitution rightfully constrains the majority from infringing the rights of the minority.
Reading the Op-Eds and comments in the Houston Chronicle, the Washington Post, and in the Austin American Statesman about Ted Cruz’ victory here in Texas shows that we Conservatives have a lot of educating to do. People still don’t get what we mean when we speak of Constitutionalism.
My concern all along with Mr. Cruz has been his tactic of running against the entire Republican Party in Texas. I believe that his denial that Texas is led by Conservatives, and his focus on a couple of Bills that failed, rather than identifying with and emphasizing the victories of the Texas GOP, has created a distraction from the “Taxed Enough Already” Party agenda, rather than strengthening it.
The left (and even some of the Tea Party members) believe we Conservatives want to end government and taxes, rather than control both in the interest of protecting our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. We forget that the Left and the media only see groups, not individuals. They thrive on class warfare and are trying to make Cruz’ victory “White” vs “non-white,” “old” vs. “young,” with a strong dose of “throw the bums out!”
Rapprochement by Mr. Cruz toward our Texas Conservatives in office here in Texas – making a point that they/we exist and that he is one of us — will not only help him win an easier victory in November, it will strengthen our Texas Republican Party and advance Conservatism.
RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, Mitt Romney is no tax cheat. But even if he was, so what? The Treasury secretary of the United States is an admitted tax cheat, and the Democrats didn’t give a damn about that. Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats in the Senate voted to confirm Little Timmy Geithner, the tax cheat. Joe Biden is a plagiarist. Anybody care about that? Barack Obama fudged laws in a shady deal to buy his house with the help of a conflicted felon. His good pal Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon. Romney is none of this. Not even close to it. We have an admitted tax cheat that is the Treasury secretary of the United States, Timothy Geithner. Democrats don’t care about it.
Have we in the Republican Party really come so low that we only look at charisma and ethnicity?
Slate.com is a long time online and very left leaning news site. Today, the article by David Wiegle, “The Inescapable Logic of Nominating Ted Cruz for Senate” proves that they don’t think very highly of Republicans, especially Conservative Republicans.
…Only toward the end of the editorial do we get some sound logic for Cruz.
“[A]s the Houston-raised son of a Cuban immigrant, he is proof positive that the American dream is very much alive and well — if in desperate need of defenders within the political system. Mr. Cruz can provide that defense in a way that Mr. Dewhurst simply is not equipped to do.”
Ah, there we go. Cruz is 42 and Hispanic. Dewhurst is 66 and white.
So there you have it: This man believes that a “white man” in his 60’s can’t represent the American Dream, no matter his humble beginnings and his own evidence that the American Dream of success is possible.
I don’t believe the bulk of Conservatives have reached that point, yet. The trouble is that a lot of our Party members are young and/or just got out of their recliners to join in our electoral process. They are vulnerable to the loudest and most brash of our “leaders” who deceive them about the process and possibilities of legislative elective office.
The fact is that inertia is built into the system of Government, both at the State (especially) at the Federal level. Most of the time that’s a good thing!
David Dewhurst knows the ins and outs of government, he can balance budgets, convince men and women to form coalitions and get things done. Most of all, he knows how to move that inertia we call Government to success as in ‘The Texas Miracle.” (The year-round Senate in DC will probably seem too much, too long to him.)
Please consider voting for David Dewhurst for US Senator from the great State of Texas!