By 7 PM, there was a line of people setting up to spend the night in front of the Supreme Court of the United States building. They hope to be able to watch the Court proceedings on Wednesday when the Texas abortion law, HB2.
Here’s the coverage from Brian Rosenthal of the Houston Chronicle, about Texans, like me, who travelled to DC for the hearing. I’m quoted as ‘helpful about the future of the law in the last few paragraphs.
Beverly Nuckols, 60, a New Braunfels family doctor who flew in for the arguments, said she was happy that a long and just process finally could be coming to an end.
Nuckols said was hopeful about the ruling because she was confident in the law.
“I believe we will get a tie,” she said.
There’s a cold wind blowing in a formerly hot place!
The Houston Chronicle and the Detroit News have both come out in favor of Republican candidate for President, Mitt Romney!
“Every time I go on the radio, you ask the questions that the Dewhurst campaign want you to ask.”
This, from the guy who got caught red-handed trying to influence debate questions by a fellow candidate in order to team up against Lt. Governor Dewhurst!
Listen to the radio confrontation between Ted Cruz and Texas Senator Dan Patrick on Patrick’s “The Bell and Patrick” radio show, for yourself:
Mr. Cruz argued with Patrick for 30 minutes on the Baker and Patrick Radio Show that airs on KSEV radio in the Houston area at 4 PM, week days. He unfortunately began with the flat statement that Senator Patrick had endorsed Dewhurst in the Senate race. You would think that a man would know that sort of thing, right? As Patrick said, if he’d done so, it would be public knowledge.
Cruz actually claimed that all Republicans and Democrats play a “game” with legislation they don’t want to pass, by entering into a conspiracy to pass a bill in one chamber in Session, and then in the other the next, but cheat to keep them from passing to law.
Senator Patrick spent quite a bit of time explaining the complicated workings of the Texas Senate, especially the work on the Sanctuary Cities Bills (SB 29 and HB 41) during last Summer’s Special Session of the 82nd Texas Legislature.
The two discussed the “Rose Bush Rule,” which requires 21 members of the Senate to vote in favor of bringing any issue up for a vote. Patrick reminded Cruz that the Senate members, not the Lieutenant Governor, vote on the rules of the Senate. Patrick also explained that the Lieutenant Governor has the authority to suspend that rule in a Special Session, but not in a Regular Session.
Cruz asked Patrick whether Patrick would have been able to pass Sanctuary Cities if he had been Lt. Governor. Patrick said, “No,” because “the only thing you can do is pass it out of the Senate.” Patrick said that Dewhurst had warned the Democrats in the Regular session that if they blocked the bill in the Regular Session, he would suspend the 21 vote rule in the Special Session. Patrick reported that Dewhurst did suspend the rule as he said, in order to pass the Sanctuary Cities Bill with over two weeks left in the SS and spoke of the frustration of having the Bill sit in Committee in the House.
He also told Cruz that all 19 Republican Senators had met on the issue and decided to pass SB29 as a separate Bill, rather than to try to tack HB41 as an amendment to the School Finance Bill. They were concerned that the school funding bill would be held up, preventing schools from knowing their budget until August.
Cruz ignored Patrick’s admonition to campaign on his own merits and plans, returning again and again to statements about what people “intend,” “know,” or ” believe.” Cruz accused Patrick and others of working against him, assigning underhanded motives to them, such as how much “better” for Patrick it will be to get Dewhurst out of Austin.
The creepiest bit of Cruz’ argument was this line, delivered with a strategic lowering of the voice at the last: “You have been acting as a surrogate for Lt. Gov. Dewhurst and I have seen you do it.”
I’ve described Cruz’ reactions to me when I was still a supporter asking him to cut back on the negative campaigning. At our County forum in February and then in New Braunfels. At the New Braunfels meet, he couldn’t walk away so he engaged me in debate. He kept coming at me for twenty minutes although others had questions.
Here’s a news report about another episode of over-reacting to questioning by another woman in Fort Worth at the RPT convention.
Cruz is not a “fighter” in any good sense of the word. Rather than a champion or defender, he’s a bully and a brawler. When faced with even mild opposition, he goes out of his way to prove the other person absolutely wrong. As Patrick said, he can “make numbers lie,” and has no problem with stretching the truth if it has what he calls “a basis in fact.” He sprinkles his speeches with dramatic descriptions of imagined conspiracies such as the ones above, and the notion that “Austin” Republicans had all agreed to make sure that “no one with a ‘z’ in his name is elected to State-wide office.”
For other summaries of the episode, each with their own twist, see the Houston Chronicle and Texas Tribune. But listen to the actual recording if you want the real story.
Governor Rick Perry was grilled by Wolf Blitzer on CNN‘s Situation Room on Wednesday, December 7, with frequent interruptions and repetitious questions. (Full transcript, here.) “Blitz” once again earned the nickname given to him by Herman Cain.
The Houston Chronicle, which leans far to the left, reported on the interview in a blog entry entitled, “Perry talks about pain meds, gay Scouts and the VP job”
[Perry] Asserted that his July spine surgery, which he noted involved the use of his own stem cells, was “incredibly successful.”
Blitzer’s question included the issue of pain medication, and Perry said, “I’m back running again, three to four miles, four to five times a week and I was off for 10 weeks. I probably took pain medication for the first 10 days, two weeks. And after that, the surgery has been awesome. … You guys are a bigger pain than the back surgery.”
But of course, the real problem for both Blitz and the Chronicle’s blogger is the Governor’s statements concerning pro-life, faith-based Catholic hospitals and adoption services, the lawsuits against the Boy Scouts who refuse to admit openly gay scout leaders and the limits on Catholic aide to victims of human trafficking. The Chronicle and Blitz each call these acts of “discrimination.” Blitz even asked Governor Perry whether “separation of church and state, does that mean anything to you?”
Perry pointed out the difference between “freedom *of* religion” and “freedom *from* religion. The question should be whether the First Amendment phrase “and the free exercise thereof” means anything.
Under the Bush Administration, Catholic Charities and hospitals weren’t forced to provide adoption services for homosexual couples or to pay for abortifacients like EllaOne or refer to abortionists in order to provide adoption assistance or prenatal care.
The Obama Administration is doing just the opposite. On top of the policies of the States of Illinois, Massachusetts, and others that are limiting Christian, pro-life adoption agencies, the Obama Administration is moving forward on regulations to severely restrict conscience.
Must every agency that receives tax money provide an absolutly full range of services? Lay aside the fact that adoption and abortion are not compatible with one another. It seems evident that birth mothers and and adoptive parents that go to Catholic charities and adoption agencies would have a pretty good idea about the philosophy of the group based on religious tenets.
That’s probably the fear of the prospective gay adopters: as the Governor says, “People will vote with their feet.” Why would a prolife Catholic girl who finds herself an unplanned pregnancy – who admittedly has most become pregnant by committing what she considers a sin – “choose” to have her baby raised in a home that doesn’t share her values? And why on earth would she ever “choose” to seek care for herself and her baby from a doctor who also kills the babies of other women?
The advocates for choice must, in fact, hate choice – they certainly fight to prevent it, even to demand that we act against our own “choice” and conscience.