Federal Judge gutsTexas voter registration law

Federal judge overturns State law, again:

Costa granted a preliminary injunction on five sections of the law until a trial on whether the entire law violates the plaintiffs’ civil rights and the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.

Key points

Under the ruling, the state may no longer require that deputy voter registrars live in Texas, a law Voting for America said prevented it from organizing voter registration drives.It also may not prevent deputy registrars from registering voters who live outside their county; prevent organizations from firing or promoting employees based on the number of voters registered; prevent organizations from making photocopies of completed voter registration forms for their records; or prevent deputy registrars from mailing completed applications.

via Judge guts vote registration law – Houston Chronicle.

 

County Clerks are responsible for registering voters and maintaining the voter rolls,and they swear in the Deputy Voter registrars, but the judge says that County lines and even State residency don’t matter anymore. Anyone who wants to come in from out of State may grab a handful of voter registration cards and fill them out , copy the  information, and even mail in completed forms.

Texas Womens Health Program update

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.

BACKGROUND

For more information, visit Governor Rick Perry’s website, Fighting for Women’s Health: http://governor.state.tx.us/initiatives/womens_health/.

Here’s a (YouTube) video of Texas Alliance for Life’s executive director, Joe Pojman, Ph.D.: Joe Pojman, Ph.D., Executive Director. This video interviews Texas Alliance for Life’s board member, Dr. Beverly Nuckols: Beverly Nuckols MD, FAAFP, Family Physician 

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.

www.TexasAllianceforLife.org    512.477.1244

twitter.com @TXAlliance4Life     facebook.com/TexasAllianceforLife

George Will on the danger of the majority (and @tedcruz) #tcot #TxSen

Update, January 25, 2016 Read about the endorsement from Governor Perry

“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.

George Will. Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Will-Forgotten-heroes-of-1912-3758656.php#ixzz22Z0xb3FN (link to bio by me, BBN)

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 Rules, Again! @MittRomney #taxes #tcot

From Rush’s transcript, August 2,  2012,

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.

Office of the Governor Rick Perry – [Press Release] Gov. Perry Announces Janek and Traylor to Lead New Leadership Team at HHSC

This should be interesting! Have we ever had a former Representative and Senator for Commissioner of Health and Human Services?

Office of the Governor Rick Perry – [Press Release] Gov. Perry Announces Janek and Traylor to Lead New Leadership Team at HHSC.

Gov. Rick Perry has appointed Dr. Kyle Janek of Austin as executive commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) effective Sept. 1, 2012, and announced that Chris Traylor of Austin will serve as chief deputy commissioner. This team will oversee the operations of the five health and human services agencies, including more than 55,000 employees, combined annual budgets of more than $30 billion, and the state’s Medicaid program.

“Texas, like the rest of the country, is headed into a period of the most significant changes in health care in our history,” Gov. Perry said. “This new leadership team, with Kyle and Chris at the helm, combines unparalleled experience and expertise to ensure Texans continue to have access to the health care they need while implementing fiscal policies that are mindful that it’s taxpayer money they are spending.”

Janek is a board-certified anesthesiologist and director of anesthesia services at Lakeway Regional Medical Center. He is a past member of the Texas Legislature, serving in the House of Representatives and Senate from 1995 to 2008. He is also a board member of the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute and the Beyond Batten Disease Foundation, and a member of the Travis County Medical Society, Texas Medical Association, Texas and American societies of Anesthesiologists, the International Anesthesia Research Society, and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists. Janek received a bachelor’s degree from Texas A&M University and received a medical degree and completed his residency at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. He replaces Tom Suehs, who is retiring.

Traylor has served as commissioner of the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services since 2010. He helped oversee the consolidation of the 15 health and human services agencies into the current five in 2004, and is past associate commissioner for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. He has also previously held additional positions at HHSC including chief of staff and deputy commissioner of government relations. Traylor received a bachelor’s degree from Texas Tech University.

Law Enforcement Associations respond to @TedCruz @ #Cash4Kids #TxSen

I received this in my e-mail, this morning. As a mother, a grandmother and long time advocate against the abuse of children and for smaller government, and fewer laws, with appropriate punishment for REAL crimes, I couldn’t agree more!

To the voters of Texas,

Police and Law enforcement put their lives on the line to protect the public from those who would hurt our most vulnerable, our children.

Ted Cruz chose to defend a man, Robert Mericle, who took part in a judicial kickback scheme the resulted in 4000 children being incarcerated for profit. This scheme was reprehensible and exploited these children so that Cruz’s client and the corrupt judges he bribed could make millions in profits.

Now Ted Cruz’s campaign is sending out a mailer to Texans claiming that this felon and child exploiter helped prosecutors. Ted Cruz should be ashamed of himself for making this claim, when he knows his client is a convicted felon who hurt kids.

Ted Cruz tried to get his client Mericle out of paying his victims, the children, the damages Cruz’s client owed them. And now Cruz is trying to paint this villain as a hero.

To follow the chain of Cruz’s logic–every cornered criminal who cooperates with prosecutors to save their skin would be treated as a hero.

Ted Cruz needs to answer whether he personally approved this mailer his campaign sent out. Does Mr. Cruz really believe his client Robert Mericle is someone who should be applauded for his role in this scandal?

Ted Cruz’s inability to admit that his client was a convicted felon who exploited children raises serious questions about whether he has the judgment and character to represent Texas in any way.

Sincerely,

Charley Wilkison
Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT)

What you might not know about the Texas US Senate Race #TxSen

At Monday night’s debate in Houston between Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz, Republicans in the runoff for the US Senate race(Twitter #TxSen), I met a couple who said they were still “undecided” about who to vote for. They asked why I was supporting Lt. Governor David Dewhurst over Ted Cruz. They were surprised that I believed his record is so strong and hadn’t even heard about Ted Cruz’ speculation to reporters that Governor Perry wanted to get Lt. Governor Dewhurst elected because he wanted Dewhurst out of Austin. The fact that these two went to the effort to attend a debate on  a Monday night made me believe that they are actually informed voters, but that if these two people don’t know the issues, perhaps many others don’t either.

I’ve covered some of this in other posts on WingRight, including my last Post, “An Open Letter to Texas Voters,”  and you can read about the support David Dewhurst received from 18 of the 19 Republicans in the 31 member Texas Senate, here. Here are more specific reasons why I support pro-life, pro-marriage, small government candidate Lt. Governor David Dewhurst for US Senator from Texas.

As I’m sure you know, Texas has a quirky system, where our Lieutenant Governor is more powerful than our Governor in many respects. If you want to know what Lt. Governor Dewhurst will do in the US Senate, look at just some of the laws he’s helped pass over the last 10 yrs:

• Women’s Right to Know Act, an informed Consent law for abortion with 24 hour waiting period, 2003;
• Prenatal Protection Act which declared the unborn an “individual” – a person in Texas law – “from fertilization until natural death,”  2003,
• Defense of Marriage Act, 2003, with a Second law passed to amend our State Constitution, 2005;
• Parental consent for abortion, 2005;
• Tort reform, 2005;
• Decreased school property tax by 1/3, 2007;
• Jessica’s Law, 2009,
• Loser Pays, 2011;
• De-funded abortionists, including Planned Parenthood, 2011;
• Prohibited illegal aliens from getting driver’s licenses, 2011;
• Photo Voter ID, 2011;
• Blocked the law written specifically to force Texas to follow the Democrat’s call to raise school spending at 2009 stimulus levels, 2011;
• Sonogram Bill, requiring the abortionist to offer the mother a chance to see her child and hear the heartbeat;
• Castle Law 2009 that allows Texans to use deadly force to defend themselves against threats, without having to prove they tried to “retreat”to safety;
• Stronger protection for Concealed Carry Permit holders every session since 2003:
• Balanced our budget every two years, even when there were projected shortfalls in 2003, 2009, 2011;
• Every year since 2005, Texas has spent at least $100Million of our tax dollars to augment border security and that number was doubled in 2011.

Governor Perry, with the help of Lt. Gov. Dewhurst and the Texas Senate, refused to accept those “Stimulus funds” for education and unemployment insurance that would have forced us to change our laws in 2011. Yes, we used some stimulus funds that didn’t require us to change our laws, but, as our former Senator, Phil Gramm said,

“(I)f the Congress had a vote on whether to build a cheese factory on the Moon, I would oppose it based on what I know now, and I cannot imagine the circumstance under which I would support it. But on the other hand, if Congress in its lack of wisdom decided to start a cheese factory on the Moon, I would want a Texas firm to do the engineering, I would want a Texas construction firm to do the construction, I would want the milk to come from Texas cows, and I would want the celestial distribution center to be in Dallas, Texas, or College Station, Texas, or somewhere else in my State.”

These are just the highlights of a career that began the same year that 11 Democrat Senators left Austin on a supporter’s plane in order to hide out in Albuquerque New Mexico for a full month in order to deny the Senate a Quorum and avoid losing the votes on Congressional redistricting.

You might have read that Dewhurst increased taxes, with the misleading statistic that our revenues went up over the last 10 years. Increased revenues do not necessarily mean increased taxes! They also go up with the growth of the economy. Texas’ population went up over 20%  and our State added more jobs than all the other States combined in the same time period. These were good jobs, and they went to legal residents who come into our State at the rate of 1000 people a WEEK! The fact is that even the Club for Growth, who is now backing Mr. Cruz, stated last year that Texas’ spending has actually gone down over the last 10 years, when adjusted for population and inflation.

How did we spend that money? Mr Cruz knows exactly how: he was the lawyer who worked out a deal in Federal Court when he was Solicitor General that bound the State to increase spending on Medicaid. He uses this spending from his agreement against the Lt. governor.

You might also read that Dewhurst supported a “payroll tax,” or even an “income tax.” These accusations are based on words in a press release and an editorial against the Lt Governor, from 2006. These weren’t the words used in the Bill that is bandied about, and that Bill never became law. In the law that was eventually passed, there are three ways to calculate our State business franchise tax. One of those is a tax based on employee pay, minus benefits. But there are two other ways, and the business chooses the best way for them. More telling is that our Attorney General won the case proving that the tax is not an income tax, last November. Cruz knew that his claim was wrong as from the beginning of his ads and web campaign against Dewhurst.

You can find my other posts on the US Senate race here.

Romney, GOP blast Obama for ‘gutting’ welfare reform law – The Hill’s Healthwatch

How does Congress reign in this Administration’s penchant for ignoring the letter and spirit of the law? Some headlines claim the Administration is “bypassing Congress! (and what’s next?)

The idea of allowing States more leeway sounds good until you read that the Obama admin will allow studying for GED to count. There’s not a thing wrong with working while taking classes. Lots of us did it.

Working to qualify for assistance from the Government is a reasonable expectation.

Republicans came out strongly against a quiet policy change by the Obama administration that could change how states administer welfare.

Under the new policy, federal waivers would allow states to test new approaches to improving employment among low-income families. In exchange, states would have to prove that their new methods are effective, or lose the waivers.

Republicans blasted the change as “gutting” work requirements in the landmark 1996 welfare-to-work law known as TANF.

via Romney, GOP blast Obama for ‘gutting’ welfare reform law – The Hill’s Healthwatch.

I believe in assisting people who have bad luck and hard times, although I do believe private charity is preferable.

One reason it’s better than government assistance is that government puts in more rules, and is much more likely to invade privacy of recipients. Then, there’s a difference between taking money from someone by force of law (with the accompanying threats of fines, prison) and freely giving of what you have out of compassion.

There’s also the personal indebtedness that comes from person to person charity and assistance. Taxpayer funded aide doesn’t cause the beneficiary to have reciprocal emotional attachment to the one giving the aide It’s good to see and hopefully understand and mirror the feeling of sacrifice by the giver. And it’s good to feel grateful and indebted. (And it’s more likely to cause the person who receives to be compelled to “pass it on” to someone else when able later on.

And back to that original question: this Administration ignores the law that’s written, so new law won’t help much. What can the rest of us or our Legislators do to keep them from flaunting the law and the Constitution?

Medicaid Expansion Would Cost Everyone

Bravo to Governor Rick Perry for refusing to move ahead on the Medicaid expansion requirements in the misnamed “Affordable Care Act,” AKA “ObamaCare.”

According to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, of the 6.5 million uninsured in Texas, fewer than 10% of Texas’ uninsured would benefit from expanding Medicaid to everyone at 133% of the Federal poverty guidelines. ObamaCare has no requirements other than annual income.  The law won’t allow asset verification or take into account beneficiaries’ willingness and ability to work.

Texas uninsured numbers include Nearly 1/3 that are illegal aliens, about 40% who earn more than $50,000 a year, and about 1/4 who are already eligible under Medicaid and CHIP. None of these people  would be eligible under the expansion. Many are young and healthy, not convinced they need to spend their money on insurance, anyway.

The cost of expanded Medicaid, much less the rest of Obamacare, would require increased taxes, overt and hidden, on everyone. Sure, for two years, the Federal government is supposed to “pay” for the 10% of Texas’ uninsured added to the expanded Medicaid. But it won’t pay for that 25% of uninsured that are already eligible and it won’t cover illegal aliens or “the working poor.” And after 2 years, the Federal money goes away, leaving Texas with the bill.

Even though Washington can print paper money, the government doesn’t have any money that it doesn’t take in taxes. The cost is not just what is collected by the IRS, it comes in the loss of value of the money and assets we earn or already have.  Obamacare, and the Stimulus before it,  are sold by the Left as a classic take-from-the-rich “redistribution of the wealth.”  However, hey also cost non-taxpayers and the working poor and middle class by the harm they do to our economy and the increase in cost of necessities. As well as inevitably rewarding those who are unwilling to fend for themselves, they punish everyone who lives pay check to paycheck as well as the “wealthy.”

Governor Rick Perry tells Obama Admin, “No!” #TxSen @GovernorPerry

Governor Rick Perry has made it official: Texas won’t expand our Medicaid to cover all adults up to 133% of the Federal Poverty level. The ACA Medicaid expansion does not allow any requirements other than income. No need to work, no asset limits, no medical need or other hardship.

Here’s the Press Release from the Governor:

July 9, 2012

Gov. Rick Perry, in a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, today confirmed that Texas has no intention of implementing a state insurance exchange or expanding Medicaid as part of Obamacare. Any state exchange must be approved by the Obama Administration and operate under specific federally mandated rules, many of which have yet to be established. Expanding Medicaid would mandate the admission of millions of additional Texans into the already unsustainable Medicaid program, at a potential cost of billions to Texas taxpayers.

“If anyone was in doubt, we in Texas have no intention to implement so-called state exchanges or to expand Medicaid under Obamacare,” Gov. Perry said. “I will not be party to socializing healthcare and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government.

“I stand proudly with the growing chorus of governors who reject the Obamacare power grab. Neither a “state” exchange nor the expansion of Medicaid under this program would result in better “patient protection” or in more “affordable care.” They would only make Texas a mere appendage of the federal government when it comes to health care.”

Gov. Perry has frequently called for the allocation of Medicaid funding in block grants so each state can tailor the program to specifically serve the needs of its unique challenges. As a common sense alternative, Gov. Perry has conveyed a vision to transform Medicaid into a system that reinforces individual responsibility, eliminates fragmentation and duplication, controls costs and focuses on quality health outcomes. This would include establishing reasonable benefits, personal accountability, and limits on services in Medicaid. It would also allow co-pays or cost sharing that apply to all Medicaid eligible groups – not just optional Medicaid populations – and tailor benefits to needs of the individual rather than a blanket entitlement.

Gov. Perry has consistently rejected federal funding when strings are attached that impose long-term financial burdens on Texans, or cede state control of state issues to the federal government. In 2009, Texas rejected Washington funding for the state’s Unemployment Insurance program because it would have required the state to vastly expand the number of workers entitled to draw unemployment benefits, leading to higher UI taxes later.

In 2010, Gov. Perry declined “Race to the Top” dollars, which would have provided some up-front federal education funding if Texas disposed of state standards and adopted national standards and testing.

To view the governor’s letter to Secretary Sebelius, please visithttp://governor.state.tx.us/files/press-office/O-SebeliusKathleen201207090024.pdf.

Pray for Attorney General Greg Abbott #TxSen @gregabbott_tx

Today is the day he argues Texas Voter ID at Federal court in DC, more information, here.

Medicine vs. “Health”

Medicine is the diagnosis and treatment of disease and injury, while the World Health Organization defines “health” as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”

Doctors practice medicine, but is “health” even possible?

The hassle factor in “health care” costs

Most docs know the history of medical finance and the creep of health care payments with tax dollars. We know that the costs of chronic, much less catastrophic, health care are high. Nevertheless, most doctors look at history and know that changes in government health policies will likely mean that we will be burdened with regulations and that any talk about “savings,” means a cut in pay for what we do, on top of increased regulations.

At least as often as I hear complaints about payment for our services, docs express urgent concern that aren’t able to care for our patients due to limitations on services, requirements for prior authorizations with limited, sometime under qualified, personnel approving necessary treatments, limitations on numbers of prescriptions per month, and the inability to find sub-specialists when patients need them. And that it is only going to get harder. In my opinion, the “hassle factors” introduced by bean-counters and government bureaucrats are responsible at least as much for the increase in costs as increased definitions of health and improved technology.

A well-known cliché’ about of the cost of regulations is the ridiculous bill for an aspirin in the hospital. My own experience with regulations is another example. In 2003, when HIPAA came into force, requiring compliance, the vendor for my billing software wouldn’t support my old Linux software. They demanded that I buy the new Windows program, requiring all new computers, with the resulting cost of installation, training and the inevitable lag (and error) in billing. At least for some of us, there comes a point when the hassles aren’t worth borrowing the money to keep the office open.

Extrapolate these cascades of costs across the entire system and add in the regulations we know about, much less the ones we don’t know about – yet. Who can calculate the true cost of the Federalization of medical care?

Border security legislation passes Senate committee | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog

Will the Bill authorize the force that is necessary, in contrast to this regulation from the Department of Homeland Security? I hope so, and hope it’s passed and signed into law.

“Every step closer the Jaime Zapata Border Enforcement Security Task Force Act takes toward becoming law is good news for our nation’s continued border security and a fitting tribute to the exemplary agent in whose memory it is named,” Cuellar said in a statement. “I look forward to seeing this bill continue to move forward.”

The legislation, which cleared the House with a vote of 391-t0-2 on May 30, authorizes American and Mexican coordination against crime and drug cartels that permeate the border. It would require local and federal law enforcement to coordinate with officials in Mexico and Canada on border security efforts, and looks to provide $10 million over five years to implement equipment and training for those tasks.

A Brownsville native, Zapata was killed by the Los Zetas cartel members in a highway ambush in February 2011, while on assignment as an adviser to Mexican authorities. Cuellar, a Laredo Democrat, conferred with the slain agent’s family before creating the bill.

via Border security legislation passes Senate committee | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog.

Penumbra of a tax

It’s not tax enough to invoke the Anti-injunction Act of 1987, but it will be collected by the IRS so it’s a legal, Constitutional, tax?

Maybe it’s just a shadow of a tax?

The Roberts decision on the mandate to purchase health insurance, is more confusing to me than most legal decisions. I keep looking for a way to untangle what appears to be circular contradiction, rather than logic. Here’s the best summary I’ve found that seems to say that the money the IRS collects is a tax, not a penalty for breaking the law:

Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.

Many of us have complained that laws and regulations have become too complicated, that no one can keep up or even avoid inadvertently breaking laws here and there. But this law is even worse because it forces action and taxes or penalizes the failure to act according to the Government’s determination of what is for our own good, rather than punishing an action or inaction that infringes on the rights of another.

To repeat hundreds of others, including the Justices who wrote the dissenting report, what are the limits of the Government once it can charge me for not doing some act?

All I can say is, vote to overturn the ObamaTax.

Praise for a centrist (#TxSen @DavidHDewhurst on @teDCruz)

In a two page letter in a November, 2008 mailer from The National Law Journal, Ted Cruz (then a new partner in a global law firm)  wrote a letter endorsing John McCain for President.

Many of us supported Senator McCain in 2008.  Like Cruz, we may have commended McCain for his military service, for voting on principle, and for his efforts to fight the war on terror. Some of us may have cast our vote for Sarah Palin or against Obama.

However, Mr. Cruz specifically praises John McCain for his “moderation,” for being a  “centrist,” and for his avoidance of “divisive” issues: abortion, marriage, tort reform, free trade, and union “bosses.”

National Law Journal: Why I Choose McCain (By Ted Cruz)

Obama, to his credit, speaks often of bipartisanship. But there are virtually no issues of consequence where he has dared to part with the far left of his party. Trial lawyers, union organizers, protectionists, and advocates for gay rights and abortion rights make up some of the core constituencies of the modern Democratic party. And, predictably, Obama has pledged to oppose tort reform; to abolish secret elections for union organization (which would render workers vulnerable to being strong-armed into voting for union bosses); to oppose free trade with allies like Colombia and to “renegotiate” NAFTA; to oppose a federal Marriage Amendment; and to sign legislation repealing restrictions on “partial-birth” abortion, parental notification, and government funding of abortion.

McCain’s record, in contrast, reflects far greater moderation. Rather than advocate on these divisive issues, McCain has focused his passion on fighting and winning the global war on terror.

I’ll admit that the only reference I can give is a link posted in a “hit piece” on the David Dewhurst for Texas Senator campaign website. Nevertheless, the letter is reproduced in full and says what it says. He doesn’t pull punches when it comes to Islamic terrorism or the importance of naming Supreme Court justices. Why does he focus his praise, his whole endorsement, on what many of us on the right would consider Mr. McCain’s weaknesses?

Ted Cruz RUSE #8: TEDCRUZ THE DECEPTIVE POLITICAL WEATHER VANE

@DavidHDewhurst knows Obama Administration is his real opponent #TxSen

In stark contrast, Ted Cruz, who has never served a day in the military or elected office, used his announcement to make false charges against Lt. Governor Dewhurst.

“This makes clear that sanctuary cities exist only because of state and local decision-making; it highlights that we have sanctuary cities in Texas only because Lt. Gov. Dewhurst killed the bill that would have ended sanctuary cities. Had the Texas Legislature passed that bill—had Lt. Governor Dewhurst not run from the fight and prevented its passage—then today’s decision would have upheld that Texas law as well.”

While the Supreme Court’s ruling does not prove anything about Sanctuary Cities. And, in fact, the Sanctuary Cities Bill passed in the Senate in the Special Session on June 15, giving the House 2 weeks to address it.

This press release was not the time to attack a fellow Republican. He doesn’t seem to understand that on August 1, we’ll all be Republicans working to vote out Obama.

But then, that’s been the Cruz’ campaign’s problem all along and why I switched from Cruz to Dewhurst.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dissent on Arizona

Read the scathing comments and review of the history of US Immigration law in Justice Scalia’s brief.

“If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should
cease referring to it as a sovereign State. For these reasons, I dissent.”

Just, “WOW!”

@DavidHDewhurst and the “Payroll Tax” Press Release (False Charge)

During the Friday night televised debate between Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz, Cruz asked the Lieutenant Governor whether he had ever “supported a payroll tax.” The Lt. Governor answered “No.” This “When did you stop beating your wife” tactic has been the subject of much crowing from Cruz supporters who accuse the LG of lying.

In fact, the LG was telling the truth and the whole issue is baseless spin, resulting from cherry picking  two words out of hundreds in a Press Release from May 12, 2005, reproduced in part, here:

That highlighted sentence says, “Texas businesses will have a choice of paying either a low-rate revised franchise tax or a payroll tax.”

The LG definitely praised parts of HB 2 and HB 3, but the release doesn’t mention “payroll tax” until a brief note in the 4th paragraph about alternatives for calculating the tax owed by the businesses.The word “payroll” is not found in the Bill passed out of the Senate. It is not found in “quotes” in this document, so is not part of a statement made by the Lt. Governor.

The falsehoods don’t stop there. Early last Fall, Cruz has used a Wall Street Journal editorial to blur the line between the Business Franchise Tax and a State “income tax.” Editorials are simply opinion, they are not news reports and are not sufficient evidence of anything except someone’s opinion.

Cruz himself, admitted in New Braunfels last month that the “payroll tax” is in reality a hundred-years-old business tax and that he knows that Attorney General Greg Abbott successfully defended against the claim that it is an income tax on businesses, in front of the Supreme Court last November. Anyone who wants to understand the tax, could just read the AG’s response to the lawsuit, submitted to the Court in August, 2011.

Cruz’ supporters go even farther than Mr. Cruz and claim over and over on Twitter and in blogs that the LG supported or proposed not just a “payroll tax,” but a “personal income tax.”

Neither the “gotcha” question from Mr. Cruz nor this press release is something that the Cruz campaign should have based its criticism on. It certainly is not support for the false claims – beginning in the Fall of 2011 – that Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst supported either a “payroll tax” or an “income tax.”

Traditional families supported by two new studies.

The original study by Mark Regnerus, PhD, can be found, here.

Of course, most of the articles reviewing the latest studies complain that the phenomenon is too new and still carries stigma that cause the problems.  They say if we’ll experiment with our kids just a bit longer, and with more legal protection (i.e., “marriage” and laws to punish people who won’t gush over the forced changes), the kids will turn out better. (“Haven’t we heard this about socialism: it’s just never had a chance to be done right.”)

The legitimate criticism for the Regnerus study is that the statistics are weakened because there is no distinction between children raised by same-sex parents who had long-term relationships and parents with a series of multiple partners or long periods without while the children of heterosexual parents are divided into traditional families and variations including single parent, etc. The database didn’t include that information. However, the problems for the children of homosexual parents are statistically significant.

Grammar edited 8/13/12 BBN

Petition: “Fire Eric Holder” via @DavidHDewhurst 4 #TxSen

Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst first called for the resignation of Eric Holder last Fall because one of Texas’ sons was killed  with guns in the hands of criminals, due to “Fast and Furious.”

Now, he has this excellent video and a petition up on Dewhurst for Texas demanding that President Obama not only answer Congress’ subpoenas for information on F&F, but that Eric Holder be fired.

Dr. Jack Wilke on “Romney’s Conversion”

Dr. Jack Willke is an unimpeachable pro-life activist. He has taught many of us both why and how to protect life over the years. I was reassured to read his account of the pro-life conversion of Mitt Romney on LifeSite News and that Dr. Willke (and Dr. Hurlbut) are secure in believing that it’s genuine

The first part of the article outlines the work Dr. Willke did with George H. W. Bush when Bush was named as Vice Presidential running mate with Ronald Reagan. The last part is about Governor Romney’s conversion:

As this is written, Barack Obama has proven to be the most pro-abortion president of modern times and he is now seeking a second term. Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Presidential slot in November. Naturally, some have questioned his pro-life credentials and convictions so let’s examine the details of Governor Romney’s conversion.

When he was first elected Governor of Massachusetts, it was generally presumed that his position was “prochoice.” However, about half way into his first term as governor in 2005, Romney announced that he was opposed to embryonic stem cell research and proceeded to veto a bill making the “Morning After,” plan B contraceptive pills available. In the same year, he declared that he was pro-life.

Governor Romney tells us that he changed his mind in November 2004. At that time, he was obviously searching and had questions. He met with Douglas A. Melton, PhD, a scientist from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute on November 9. In that interview the Governor said this researcher told him, “Look, you don’t have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue because we kill the embryos after fourteen days.” This had a major impact on Romney and his chief of staff, as they saw it recognizing that such embryonic stem cell research in fact was killing what they were convinced were human lives already in existence. Later, through a spokesperson, Dr. Melton disputed that he used the word “kill.”

But Governor Romney, wanting to know more, consulted with one of the best people available in February 2005. This expert was William B. Hurlbut, a physician and professor at Stanford University Medical Center Neuroscience Institute. Dr. Hurlbut is a dedicated pro-lifer.

The two of them met for several hours, discussing the issue in great detail. They went through the dynamics of conception, embryonic development and repercussions of the various research and experimentation that has been going on aimed at exploring the first weeks after fertilization. At that point, Romney was under intense pressure to change a state law that, at the time, still protected human embryos from lethal stem cell research. Some of the pressure came from Harvard, his own alma mater. After this in-depth consultation, Romney stated that he was pro-life.

Asked about their meeting by columnist Kathleen Parker, Dr. Hurlbut said, “Several things about our conversation still stand out strongly in my mind. First, he clearly recognized the significance of the i s s u e, not just as a current controversy, but as a matter that would define the character of our culture way into the future. Second, it was obvious that he had put in a real effort to understand both the scientific prospects and the broader social implications. Finally, I was impressed by both his clarity of mind and sincerity of heart. He recognized that this was not a matter of purely abstract theory or merely pragmatic governance, but a crucial moment in how we are to regard nascent human life and the broader meaning of medicine in the service of life.”

Similar to my time with President H. W. Bush, Dr. Hurlbut presented Governor Romney with sound scientific and medical information. The Governor responded by changing his position to support the protection of innocent human life from the point of fertilization. He declared himself pro-life and has repeatedly done so since that time.

For over twenty years, Life Issues Institute has been solely dedicated to prolife education. It has been my primary contribution to the pro-life movement since the 1960s. Our strength comes from the central fact that we are daily changing the hearts and minds of Americans on abortion. And our efforts have greatly be en assisted by science. The tool of ultrasound has resulted in an entire generation having their first baby picture taken within the womb, and it’s greatly impacted people’s opinion on abortion. Every pro-life individual and organization should rejoice when anyone—political or otherwise—responds to the unmistakable fact that human life begins at fertilization and that it should be protected.

Life Issues Institute and I are confident that Governor Romney’s conversion is real, heartfelt and authentic. Since the Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization, we cannot endorse a political candidate. As such, this article should not be construed as an endorsement of Governor Romney’s candidacy but rather a testament to the fact that we believe Mitt Romney is truly pro-life.

Liberty depends on keeping promises

Liberty depends on each of us keeping our word, following the rule of law, and honoring contracts. When men and women will not honor their promises or keep their word, the law must enforce contracts. At least nominally, this is a basic tenent of libertarians and conservatives.

A very few men and women who are supporters of Ron Paul believe that they know better than the millions who voted in their State Republican Primary and they are suing in Federal Court for the “right” to nullify the votes of people who voted in the Republican Party Primaries. This lawsuit is about members of a voluntary association, the Republican Party, who don’t want to follow the rules in existence when they campaigned to be delegates by voting in the first ballot for the person chosen at their State Primaries.

“In a revolt against Romney, at least 40 more national convention delegates asked to join 123 previous plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Republican National Committee, and their attorney said hundreds more may soon follow suit.
“The first 123 delegates, all from the 9th Circuit, sued the RNC, its Chairman Rince Priebus, and every state party chairman in the 9th Circuit in Federal Court on Monday, demanding the right to vote for the candidate of their choice on every ballot at the Republican National Convention, including the first.
“The delegates claim the party violated federal law by forcing them to sign loyalty affidavits, under threat of perjury, to vote for Mitt Romney, though he is not yet the official nominee.

The Republican Party has rules. ‘The people who went to the Primaries to vote thought they were voting for their candidate to be placed on the Republican ballot in November. Expecting people who join our Party to follow those rules is not “intimidation” or “disenfranchisement.” The people who are now suing to change the rules volunteered to join a political party when there were other parties available and no party affiliation is mandatory.

These people actually believe that they know better than the voters in their State’s Republican Primary. Since they are so much wiser than the voters, they want to become their own elite power to trump what they believe is another elite. The honest and honorable thing is to follow the votes in the Primaries. It’s ridiculous to believe that they would sign pledges or contracts and decide to break these contracts, yet be honorable or trustworthy enough to override the election results in their States.

The Constitution (Article 1, amended by the 12th Amendment) is clear about the national election of the President and the Vice President. However, Party delegates are not covered in the Constitution, nor are the Parties themselves. At the least, the contract put in place by State Party rules should be followed.  At the most, this is definitely a case of State’s rights that is not covered by the Constitution.

In Texas, our State law imposes some rules and the rest come from our delegates to the RPT convention. Before the candidates stood for nomination at our Congressional District meetings last week, the rules for and requirements of delegates and alternates were read. Anyone who didn’t want to follow our RPT rules shouldn’t have run.

This lawsuit probably won’t extend to Iowa, since the Ron Paul delegates are happy with the outcome in that State. Last January, I represented Governor Rick Perry at one precinct caucus in Des Moines and heard the chair of that caucus explain how the National Delegates would be chosen. Nevertheless, after the Caucus voted overwhelmingly for Santorum, the precinct participants then voted to send the two men who spoke for Romney and Paul to their County Conventions. In effect,whether they knew it or not, they actually voted for Paul and Romney, since those delegates later voted to send Paulers to the State Convention. Of the 28 Iowa delegates going to the National Convention, 23 are aligned with Paul. That’s the rules in Iowa and it’s the responsibility of the voters to know.

Irregularities at the State Conventions are completely separate from the requirement to agree to follow the will of the Primary voters. The news reports from Louisiana seem to be one place that a lawsuit to correct high handedness at the State Convention would be appropriate.  If the plaintiffs in the 9th Circuit Court lawsuit can prove their other allegations of ballot stuffing and intimidation at Conventions, then perhaps they have a case there. But two wrongs don’t make a right and they don’t have the right to unilaterally invalidate a contract that they knowingly signed.

Liberty Movement 101 (or Re-love-ution 10.1)

Check out the ongoing comments on my post at TexasGOPVote.org, if you’ve wondered about the philosophy of the Ron Paul supporters who are trying to win control of the Republican Party. They reaffirm my conclusion after years of flirting with (capital L)ibertarian philosophy: the Libertarian Party is not compatible with conservatism. Conservatism advocates small government, with a few rules, while utilitarianism, and especially objectivism, celebrate license rather than liberty and all too often de-volve into nihilism.

I can sympathize with the proponents of Libertarianism, having spent years participating on the Libertarians for Life list-serve in the ’90’s and early 2000’s. I even tried out to justify “Christian Libertarianism,” which I’ve concluded is an oxymoron. (Check out the blog, Vox Popoli, which, unlike most Libertarian groups, supports traditional marriage.)

The comments at TexasGOPVote.org by one man on marriage were probably the most enlightening:

If two men or women want to get into a contract we see as morally wrong, who are you or me to tell them no?? They don’t have to accept our definition of marriage, and we don’t have to accept their definition of marriage, but neither one of us have the right to use government force to make the other accept our values. That would be Statism. Additionally, faith is a gift, and not all are blessed with it. You, nor I have the right to claim we know that which is unknowable. We can speculate, and we can have faith, but we cannot judge others who may have different beliefs.

These aren’t the first time we’ve heard/read/countered these arguments. Remember the calls for “open marriage” and “do your own thing” in the ’60’s? Demands for restructuring marriage and the family are pervasive in virtually every historic “revolution” EXCEPT the American Revolution, which was based on Judeo-Christian principles:  from the enclave that gave us the Enlightenment, to the French Revolution, to the Soviet Revolution and the various social experiments of the 20th Century.

2010 RPT (original) Platform “Strengthening Families, Protecting Life and Promoting Health”

Here is the original 2010 platform – I’ve only copied the section that was disputed. The 2010 Platform was used by the 2012 Temporary Platform Committee as a beginning for our new 2012 Platform of the Republican Party of Texas. (At least for now, the entire 2010 document is online at the Tarrant County Republican Party website. The 2012 Platform is here at the RPT website.) (Thank you Tarrant County Republican Party!)

I’ve noted amended portions in red and deleted wording in blue. You can see the final version of this section here and the version proposed by my sub-committee is here.

STRENGTHENING FAMILIES, PROTECTING LIFE AND PROMOTING HEALTH

PROTECTING INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE

Party Candidates and the Platform on Protecting Innocent Human Life– We implore our Party to support, financially or with in-kind contributions, only those candidates who support protecting innocent human life. Further, we strongly encourage the State Republican Executive Committee to hear and recognize the longstanding and overwhelmingly consistent voice of the grass roots and revise its by-laws to make this action binding on our Party.

Partial Birth Abortion– We oppose partial birth abortion. We recommend that Congress eliminate from all federal court jurisdictions all cases involving challenges to banning Partial Birth Abortion.

Right To Life – All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We affirm our support for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution and to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection applies to unborn children. We support the Life at Conception Act. We oppose the use of public revenues and/or facilities for abortion or abortion–related services. We support the elimination of public funding for organizations that advocate or support abortion. We are resolute regarding the reversal of Roe v. Wade. We affirm our support for the appointment and election of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We insist that the U.S. Department of Justice needs to prosecute hospitals or abortion clinics for committing induced labor (live birth) abortion. We are opposed to genocide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. We oppose legislation allowing the withholding of nutrition and hydration to the terminally ill or handicapped. Until our final goal of total Constitutional rights for the unborn child is achieved, we beseech the Texas Legislature in consideration of our state’s rights, to enact laws that restrict and regulate abortion including:

1. parental and informed consent;
2. prohibition of abortion for gender selection;
3. prohibition of abortion due to the results of genetic diagnosis
4. licensing, liability, and malpractice insurance for abortionists and abortion facilities;
5. prohibition of financial kickbacks for abortion referrals;
6. prohibition of partial birth and late term abortions; and
7. enactment of any other laws which will advance the right to life for unborn children.

Sonograms – We urge the Texas legislature in its next biennial session to enact legislation requiring a sonogram be performed and offered as part of the consent process to each mother seeking an elective abortion.

Harassing Pregnancy Centers– We urge legislation to protect pregnancy centers from harassing ordinances to require pregnancy centers to post signs in violation of their Constitutional rights. We further oppose any regulation of pregnancy centers in Texas which interfere with their private, charitable business.

Choose Life – We ask the Legislature to provide Texans opportunity to purchase “Choose Life” license plates.

Parental Consent– We call on the Legislature to require parental consent for any form of medical care to minors. We urge electoral defeat of judges who through judicial activism seek to nullify the Parental Consent Law by granting bypasses to minor girls seeking abortions. We support the addition of a legislative requirement for the reporting of judicial bypasses to parental consent on an annual basis to the Department of State Health Services and such reports shall be made available to the public. Further, we encourage the Congress to remove confidentiality mandates for minors from family planning service programs operating under Title X of the Public Health Services Act and Medicaid.

Protection of Women’s Health– Because of the personal and social pain caused by abortions, we call for the protection of both women and their unborn children from pressure for unwanted abortions. We commend the Texas Legislature for the passage of the Woman’s Right to Know Act, a law requiring abortion providers, prior to an abortion, to provide women full knowledge of the physical and psychological risks of abortion, the characteristics of the unborn child, and abortion alternatives. We urge the state government and the Department of State Health Services to ensure that all abortion providers are in compliance with this informed consent law and to ensure that all pregnancy centers and other entities assisting women in crisis pregnancies have equal access to the informational brochures created by the Department of State Health Services.

Alternatives to Abortion– We urge the Department of State Health Services to provide adequate quantities of The Woman’s Right to Know Resource Directory to anyone that works with pregnant women.

RU 486 – We urge the FDA to rescind approval of the physically dangerous RU-486 and oppose limiting the manufacturers’ and distributors’ liability.
Morning After Pill– We oppose sale and use of the dangerous “Morning After Pill.”

Gestational Contracts– We believe rental of a woman’s womb makes child bearing a mere commodity to the highest bidder and petition the Legislature to rescind House Bill 724 of the 78th Legislature. We support the adoption of human embryos and the banning of human embryo trafficking.

Unborn Child Pain Protection – We support legislation that requires doctors, at first opportunity, to provide to a woman who is pregnant, information about the nervous system development of her unborn child and to provide pain relief for her unborn if she orders an abortion. (Language added here to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks.)

Unborn Victims of Violence Legislation– We urge the State to ensure that the Prenatal Protection Law is interpreted accurately and consider the unborn child as an equal victim in any crime, including domestic violence.

Abortion Clinics – We propose legislation that holds abortion clinics to the same health regulations as other medical facilities and that subjects clinics to the same malpractice liabilities. We oppose any public funding for Planned Parenthood or other organizations/facilities that provide, advocate or promote abortions.

Abortion Requirements for Hospitals– We propose legislation that entitles hospitals to refuse to perform abortions because government has no moral authority to require such an abortion.

Conscience Clause– We believe that doctors, nurses, pharmacists, any employees of hospitals and insurance companies, health care organizations, medical and scientific research students, and any employee should be protected by Texas law if they conscientiously object to participate in practices that conflict with their moral or religious beliefs, including but not limited to abortion, the prescription for and dispensing of drugs with abortifacient potential, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, eugenic screenings, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. We call on the Texas Legislature to pass legislation to strengthen and clarify the current conscience clause in the Occupational Code to include the above-mentioned persons and practices. We further encourage legislation that requires hospitals and clinics to inform all health care personnel of their right to refuse to become involved in abortion or euthanasia, and their protection from prosecution and retaliation under Texas law.

Fetal Tissue Harvesting – We support legislation prohibiting experimentation with human fetal tissue and prohibiting the use of human fetal tissue or organs for experimentation or commercial sale. Until such time that fetal tissue harvesting is illegal, any product containing fetal tissue shall be so labeled.

Stem Cell Research– We oppose any legislation that would allow for the creation and/or killing of human embryos for medical research. We encourage stem cell research using cells from umbilical cords, from adults, and from any other means which does not kill human embryos. We oppose any state funding of research that destroys/kills human embryos. We encourage the adoption of existing embryos. We call for legislation to withhold state and/or federal funding from institutions that engage in scientific research involving the killing of human embryos or human cloning.

Human Cloning– Each human life, whether created naturally or through an artificial process, deserves protection. We confirm that somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is the process by which a human being is cloned, and that SCNT creates a unique human being with the same properties of a human embryo created through the union of sperm and egg. We seek a ban on human cloning for reproductive purposes (where a cloned human embryo, created through SCNT, is implanted in a womb and the human clone is birthed). We also seek a ban on research cloning (where a cloned human embryo, created through SCNT, is created, grown in the laboratory, and then destroyed when its stem cells are extracted for research purposes). Furthermore, criminal penalties should be created and experimenters prosecuted who participate in the cloning of human beings. No government or state funding should be provided for any human cloning.

Patient Protection– We support patients’ rights by calling on the state legislature to amend the Advance Directive Act to establish due process of law and ensure that a physician’s decision to deny life saving treatment against the patient’s will or advance directive is not due to economic or racial discrimination or discrimination based on disability. We also support the passage of legislation to amend the Advance Directive Act by requiring hospitals intending or threatening to withdraw life-sustaining treatment against the patient’s wishes or their advance directive to continue all treatment and care for such patients pending transfer to another facility.

Gene Manufacturing – We support a ban on research that alters human DNA in living human beings at any stage of life, including the altering of artificial, manufactured, and natural genes and chromosomes.

Legion II: “Liberty Movement” Monitored RPT Committee Members, Votes

My WingRight post about a group of delegates and the odd actions of one particular boy at the Republican Party of Texas 2012 Convention was published at Texas GOP Vote, also. There were interesting comments at both sites.

While I wasn’t surprised that there would be objections to my report, I was surprised to find that one man from SD 25/ CD 21 (where I cast my votes), who posted at Texas GOP Vote, claims that I was “monitored” by “the Liberty Movement” and/or Ron Paul supporters, along with “all” my votes on the Platform Committee. It seems I was good enough not to be challenged in my SD for Permanent Platform Committee member.

The group that wanted to video-tape the meetings weren’t quite so transparent themselves, were they?

If any group wants to make changes in the conservative Republican Party of Texas, they will have to do it the same way as all of the rest of us: make contributions of time and energy in order to build up and support, rather than tear down and undermine. The “Liberty Movement,” if it includes any move to change the legal definition of marriage or dismisses the scientific definition of the beginning of all organisms that reproduce sexually, is not Conservative.

“Expect us” to object to call for change in our core beliefs.

RPT Platform SubCommittee Proposed Language for “Protecting Innocent Life.”

The final language from the 2012 Platform is posted here. The portions in red are the amendments I came prepared to present to the Committee. The amended and substituted 2010 language can be found here for comparison.

PROTECTING INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE

Right To Life – All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life, which cannot be infringed.

Roe v. Wade – We are resolute regarding the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

Human Life Amendment – We affirm our support for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.

Natural Life – We support the sanctity of human life and therefore, oppose genocide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.

Abortion – We support the elimination of public funding or the use of public facilities to advocate, perform or support elective abortions.

Abortion Legislation – Until our final goal of total constitutional rights for the unborn child is achieved, we support laws that restrict and regulate abortion including, but not limited to :

1. parental and informed consent;
*Add #2 . Prohibition of elective abortion in the second trimester in light of the ability of the unborn child to feel pain and current viability at 21 weeks.
2. prohibition of abortion for gender selection;
3. prohibition of abortion due to the results of genetic diagnosis
4. licensing, liability, and malpractice insurance for abortionists and abortion facilities;
5. prohibition of financial kickbacks for abortion referrals;
6. prohibition of partial birth late term abortions
7. the prohibition of the manufacturing and sale of abortifacients;
8. new causes of action for so called “wrongful birth” or “wrongful life”; and
9. enactment of any other laws which will advance the right to life for unborn children.

Candidate Support – The Republican Party of Texas should provide financial support only to those candidates who support the right to life planks.

Alternatives to Abortion – We urge the Republican Party of Texas to assist in educating the public regarding alternatives to abortion.

Human Embryos– We support the adoption of human embryos and the banning of human embryo trafficking.

Conscience Clause – All persons and all entities have the right of conscience and should be protected under Texas law if they conscientiously object to participate in practices that conflict with their moral or religious beliefs.

Fetal Tissue Harvesting and Stem Cell Research – We support legislation prohibiting experimentation or commercial use of human fetal tissue,which requires or is dependent upon the destruction of human life. We encourage stem cell research using cells from umbilical cords, from adults, and from any other means that does not kill human embryos.

Human Cloning – We seek a ban on human (cloning).

Patient Protection – We support patients’ rights by calling on the state legislature to amend the Advance Directive Act to allow more time for families to prepare an participate. We also support the passage of legislation to amend the Advance Directive Act by requiring continuing current treatment for patients pending transfer to another facility.

The “Legion,” Anarchists at the RPT Convention

I’m working on a couple of blog posts concerning the controversies that occurred at the 2012 Republican Party of Texas  held in Fort Worth last week, but thought I’d report on the oddest event of the week, which happened during the last few minutes of the Convention.

All week a small group of young men and women who claimed to represent college and high school students testified in several subcommittees (including the one I served on, the “Family, Life, and Health” subcommittee) and then at the full Rules and  Platform Committees.

For the most part, the group members were super-serious and neatly dressed in suits and skirts or dresses. They all used very much the same language, telling us that we shouldn’t run off all the young people with our platform. They testified that college-aged voters have ‘moved on” and that we were dividing the party by making statements about life, marriage and homosexuality. They also were part of the group that wanted to record videos of all meetings and persuaded the Rules and Platform Committees to allow video and audio recording of our meetings. (I voted for this change, since so many people have the equipment on their phones and we wouldn’t refuse the local TV station if they asked to video tape us for the news.)

One young man, Ian Quisenberry, who calls himself “the Cynical One” on Facebook, appeared to be learning to wear his green suit and to translate his debate club experience to action in the real world.  The 18 year-old, soon to be 19 year-old, red-headed delegate testified to the Family, Life and Health Sub-Committee and then to the larger Platform Committee on Wednesday. When encouraged by the Chairman of the Platform Committee and commended for his talent in speaking, Ian explained that he was a new high school graduate, about to turn 19, and heading for college.

During the last few minutes of the very last General Session, Ian twice attempted to get the attention of the Chair, Steve Munisteri by approaching the microphone and hitting the light switch indicating that he had an “interrupting action,” under Robert’s Rules of order.  Each time Ian stood at one of the microphones asking to make a motion, Steve explained that there were no motions that would be appropriate, but allowed him to speak the second time.

The boy introduced himself by name and then said, “I’d like to motion for ‘We are legion, expect us,'” before turning to leave the Arena. You can watch the video, here. Ian’s statement is at about 14 minutes in.

That quote is a slogan used by anarchists, most notably the Anonymous group that “hacks” into the websites of its supposed enemies.

Now, I don’t know why these people didn’t spend their time at the Libertarian Convention, held nearby this weekend.They should know that we Republicans are conservatives and we respect laws and facts. We understand that the “egg” ceases to exist when fertilized, just as the sperm does. What exists then is an embryo, an organized organism. We know that “marriage” can’t be redefined for a political fad or social “eugenics.” We grow weary of their implication that the young are are better prepared to lead than the older, wiser, and more experienced. We certainly don’t want a tent big enough to include same sex unions or redefined marriage.

But how disturbing is it that an 18 year old boy would identify with a group whose symbol is an empty suit and whose motto came from the story of demons that committed suicide after Jesus cast them into pigs?

28And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes,^e two demon-possessed^f men met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way. 29And behold, they cried out, “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?” 30Now a herd of many pigs was feeding at some distance from them. 31And the demons begged him, saying, “If you cast us out, send us away into the herd of pigs.” 32And he said to them, “Go.” So they came out and went into the pigs, and behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the waters. 33The herdsmen fled, and going into the city they told everything, especially what had happened to the demon-possessed men. 34And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their region.

 Many of us suspected that they were Ron Paul supporters, but it appears that at least one identifies with anarchists.

Republican Party of Texas 2012 Final “Protecting Innocent Human Life”

Here is the final 2012 section containing the substituted 2010 language and the amendments made in the whole Platform Committee on Thursday night, June 7, 2012

STRENGTHENING FAMILIES, PROTECTING LIFE AND PROMOTING HEALTH

PROTECTING INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE
Party Candidates and the Platform on Protecting Innocent Human Life – We implore our Party to support, financially or with in-kind contributions, only those candidates who support protecting innocent human life. Further, we strongly encourage the State Republican Executive Committee to hear and recognize the longstanding and overwhelmingly consistent voice of the grass roots and revise its by-laws to make this action binding on our Party.
Partial Birth Abortion – We oppose partial birth abortion. We recommend that Congress eliminate from all federal court jurisdictions all cases involving challenges to banning Partial Birth Abortion.
Right To Life – All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We affirm our support for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution and to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection applies to unborn children. We support the Life at Conception Act. We oppose the use of public revenues and/or facilities for abortion or abortion-related services. We support the elimination of public funding for organizations that advocate or support abortion. We are resolute regarding the reversal of Roe v. Wade. We affirm our support for the appointment and election of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We insist that the U.S. Department of Justice needs to prosecute hospitals or abortion clinics for committing induced labor (live birth) abortion. We are opposed to genocide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. We oppose legislation allowing the withholding of nutrition and hydration to the terminally ill or handicapped. Until our final goal of total Constitutional rights for the unborn child is achieved, we beseech the Texas Legislature in consideration of our state’s rights, to enact laws that restrict and regulate abortion including:

1. parental and informed consent;
2. prohibition of abortion for gender selection;
3. prohibition of abortion due to the results of genetic diagnosis
4. licensing, liability, and malpractice insurance for abortionists and abortion facilities;
5. prohibition of financial kickbacks for abortion referrals;
6. prohibition of partial birth and late term abortions; and
7. enactment of any other laws which will advance the right to life for unborn children.

Harassing Pregnancy Centers – We urge legislation to protect pregnancy centers from harassing ordinances to require pregnancy centers to post signs in violation of their Constitutional rights. We further oppose any regulation of pregnancy centers in Texas which interfere with their private, charitable business.
Parental Consent – We call on the Legislature to require parental consent for any form of medical care and/or counseling to minors. We urge electoral defeat of judges who through judicial activism seek to nullify the Parental Consent Law by granting bypasses to minor girls seeking abortions. We support the addition of a legislative requirement for the reporting of judicial bypasses to parental consent on an annual basis to the Department of State Health Services and such reports shall be made available to the public. Further, we encourage the Congress to remove confidentiality mandates for minors from family planning service programs operating under Title X of the Public Health Services Act and Medicaid.
Protection of Women’s Health – Because of the personal and social pain caused by abortions, we call for the protection of both women and their unborn children from pressure for unwanted abortions. We commend the Texas Legislature for the passage of the Woman’s Right to Know Act, a law requiring abortion providers, prior to an abortion, to provide women full knowledge of the physical and psychological risks of abortion, the characteristics of the unborn child, and abortion alternatives. We urge the state government and the Department of State Health Services to ensure that all abortion providers are in compliance with this informed consent law and to ensure that all pregnancy centers and other entities assisting women in crisis pregnancies have equal access to the informational brochures created by the Department of State Health Services.
Alternatives to Abortion – We urge the Department of State Health Services to provide adequate quantities of The Woman’s Right to Know Resource Directory to anyone that works with pregnant women.
RU 486 – We urge the FDA to rescind approval of the physically dangerous RU-486 and oppose limiting the manufacturers’ and distributors’ liability.
Morning After Pill – We oppose sale and use of the dangerous “Morning After Pill.”
Gestational Contracts – We believe rental of a woman’s womb makes child bearing a mere commodity to the highest bidder and petition the Legislature to rescind House Bill 724 of the 78th Legislature. We support the adoption of human embryos and the banning of human embryo trafficking.
Fetal Pain – We support legislation that requires doctors, at first opportunity, to provide to a woman who is pregnant, information about the nervous system development of her unborn child and to provide pain relief for her unborn if she orders an abortion. We support legislation banning of abortion after 20 weeks gestation due to fetal pain. *
Unborn Victims of Violence Legislation – We urge the State to ensure that the Prenatal Protection Law is interpreted accurately and consider the unborn child as an equal victim in any crime, including domestic violence.
Abortion Clinics – We propose legislation that holds abortion clinics to the same health regulations as other medical facilities and that subjects clinics to the same malpractice liabilities. We oppose any public funding for Planned Parenthood or other organizations/facilities that provide, advocate or promote abortions.
Abortion Requirements for Hospitals – We propose legislation that entitles hospitals to refuse to perform abortions because government has no moral authority to require such an abortion.
Conscience Clause – We believe that doctors, nurses, pharmacists, any employees of hospitals and insurance companies, health care organizations, medical and scientific research students, and any employee should be protected by Texas law if they conscientiously object to participate in practices that conflict with their moral or religious beliefs, including but not limited to abortion, the prescription for and dispensing of drugs with abortifacient potential, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, eugenic screenings, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. We call on the Texas Legislature to pass legislation to strengthen and clarify the current conscience clause in the Occupational Code to include the above-mentioned persons and practices. We further encourage legislation that requires hospitals and clinics to inform all health care personnel of their right to refuse to become involved in abortion or euthanasia, and their protection from prosecution and retaliation under Texas law.
Fetal Tissue Harvesting – We support legislation prohibiting experimentation with human fetal tissue and prohibiting the use of human fetal tissue or organs for experimentation or commercial sale. Until such time that fetal tissue harvesting is illegal, any product containing fetal tissue shall be so labeled.
Stem Cell Research – We oppose any legislation that would allow for the creation and/or killing of human embryos for medical research. We encourage stem cell research using cells from umbilical cords, from adults, and from any other means which does not kill human embryos. We oppose any state funding of research that destroys/kills human embryos. We encourage the adoption of existing embryos. We call for legislation to withhold state and/or federal funding from institutions that engage in scientific research involving the killing of human embryos or human cloning.
Human Cloning – Each human life, whether created naturally or through an artificial process, deserves protection. We confirm that somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is the process by which a human being is cloned, and that SCNT creates a unique human being with the same properties of a human embryo created through the union of sperm and egg. We seek a ban on human cloning for reproductive purposes (where a cloned human embryo, created through SCNT, is implanted in a womb and the human clone is birthed). We also seek a ban on research cloning (where a cloned human embryo, created through SCNT, is created, grown in the laboratory, and then destroyed when its stem cells are extracted for research purposes). Furthermore, criminal penalties should be created and experimenters prosecuted who participate in the cloning of human beings. No government or state funding should be provided for any human cloning.
Patient Protection – We support patients’ rights by calling on the state legislature to amend the Advance Directive Act to establish due process of law and ensure that a physician’s decision to deny lifesaving treatment against the patient’s will or advance directive is not due to economic or racial discrimination or discrimination based on disability. We also support the passage of legislation to amend the Advance Directive Act by requiring hospitals intending or threatening to withdraw life-sustaining treatment against the patient’s wishes or their advance directive to continue all treatment and care for such patients pending transfer to another facility.

Note that some of the 2010 language was removed and that the * the portion that I’ve printed in red was an amendment made after the substitution.

Susurrus – Or, “How to divide a Party”

Okay, I’ll admit it: I like the word, “susurrus,” and look for excuses to use it. A better term would be “whispers from the crowd that are going around” or . . .

There are rumblings that the 2012 Republican Party of Texas Platform is “pro-amnesty.”  the ones saying this have a history of assuming the worst and getting attention because they accuse.

The wording in the RPT 2012 platform (on page 21)  titled, “The Texas Solution” plank isn’t “pro-amnesty.” It is a little wimpy and *too easily interpreted* to allow amnesty –  especially if someone  or some group chooses to interpret it that way.

I, too, wanted to see changes in the wording of “The Texas Solution” that would ensure that no one claimed that we in the RPT approve amnesty of any kind.  The term “illegal alien” should have been used instead of “undocumented individuals” and the plan should specifically require guest workers to return to their country of legal residence to apply for guest worker visa.

However, the most important fact is that the Platform was passed after the Delegates had plenty of time and warning to read the planks and even some advance warning about what to read and why. The amendments failed in Sub-Committee, in the larger Platform Committee (on both Wednesday and on Thursday) and then, at the General Session when voted on by the Delegation.

The good news is that the Platform isn’t law. It is a list of those things we in the RPT believe. We do believe in “solutions,” not just complaints and criticisms. We will insist that our elected officials not –  in any way, shape or form –  promote “amnesty.”

spelling change 6/10/12 “Susurrus”