Texas Attorney General candidate Rep. Dan Branch filed a “friend of the court” brief in the battle over HB2 implementation. HB2 is the contentious pro-life legislation that was passed by the Texas Legislature in the second special session of the 83rd Legislature earlier this year. Federal District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled two parts of that bill unconstitutional:
- A requirement that physicians performing abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic in which they perform abortions.
- A requirement that physicians follow FDA protocol when administering “pill-induced” abortions.
A three person panel of the Fifth Circuit stayed (overturned) Yeakel’s ruling, allowing the legislation to take effect. The full Fifth Circuit will hear the case in early 2014. It is for that hearing that Rep. Branch filed his Amicus Curiae in support of the legislation. I want to highlight a few sections of the brief.
Remember all the noise from the left that HB2 was about politics and not health and safety?
In their challenge to H.B. 2, Plaintiffs have called into question the motives and sincerity of the Texas legislators who supported this bill. As a member of the Legislature who specifically asked the Governor to place these issues on the legislative agenda for the special session—and who of course voted in support of H.B. 2—I submit this amicus brief in response.
…
The Supreme Court has long recognized the critical role that states play in safeguarding the health and welfare of their citizens. In recognition of that great responsibility, the Texas Legislature passed H.B. 2 to protect the health and well-being of all of its citizens
…
Moreover, the ruling below is particularly flawed because of its failure to adhere to the Supreme Court’s repeated admonitions that courts should defer to the judgment of the democratically elected representatives of the people when engaging in rational basis review
I like that Branch took this on in his first argument. Too often we see judges trying to overrule the will of the people. As Branch says, “courts should defer to the judgment of the democratically elected representatives of the people”.
Branch continued this theme in his next argument about admitting privileges not being a burden:
But not only was the district court wrong in its ultimate factual conclusion, it was not the court’s place to question the judgment of the Legislature in the first place. The elected representatives of the people of Texas determined—after a great deal of reasoned deliberation—that an admitting-privileges requirement would further safeguard the health of all Texans. That analysis is entitled to the utmost deference from the courts.
I like that Branch specifically supports the process of elected representatives making law, not judges. He rejects the notion that it was politically motivated and demonstrates that the court had no valid reason to interject its own “feelings” and “beliefs” on the issue.
As I read and learn more about each of the candidates for Attorney General, one thing is becoming increasingly clear – Branch is truly the most qualified for the position. As he stated in his remarks at the Downtown Houston Pachyderm Club, it isn’t enough to pass bills – you have to pass bills that will pass constitutional muster and go into effect. HB2 is an example of his work – he was instrumental in writing it and including language in it that ensures that it will be upheld all the way through the Supreme Court if need be.
It isn’t enough to want to “be tough on Obama”. The next Attorney General has to be competent enough to get the job done. I don’t want to criticize the other guys, they seem to be nice men and are certainly “conservative”. I just think it is time Republican primary voters went back to the model of choosing the most competent person for the job instead of who can yell “I’m the most conservative” the loudest.
Here is a short video on Branch and the Voter ID law:
bob42 says
Giving birth at home can be very risky to mom and baby. Do Texas republicans want to require midwives to have hospital admitting privileges? Where is the bill for that?
Let’s be honest. HB2 was at least partially politically motivated, and it’s not at all about health and safety. It’s mainly about social conservatives’ desire to regulate safe and legal abortion out of existence.
“Truth Matters.”
David Jennings says
Comparing a natural function such as child birth to a surgical procedure such as abortion is apples and oranges Bob and I think you know that. I don’t know if politics played a part in this, what I do know is that the politicians that voted on this said that it did not and so because truth matters I didn’t insert my opinion in there , mine is simply based on what the legislators said was the reason that they pass this bill.
bob42 says
The fact that childbirth is a “natural function” doesn’t mean that there are no risks involved (ask a midwife.) So it’s not an “apples and oranges” comparison at all. Additionally, asking those who strongly assert that HB2 was all about the “health and safety of women” about the risks of homebirths is a fair and reasonable inquiry.
I support a woman’s choice to give birth at home, btw. And you can click on my name to see the current state regs pertaining to licensed midwives.
Again, where’s the bill requiring midwives to have hospital privileges?
Ross says
The Legislators who voted for HB2 only care about one thing – controlling women’s lives. To a person, they could not care less about the health of the women affected by this legislation. If they did care, they would provide more access to health services for the poor of the state.
Branch is wrong about courts deferring to legislators. Courts are there to keep legislators from enforcing their unconstitutional beliefs on others.
I am still trying to understand how the legislators who profess to care oh so much about children can continue to shortchange children by cutting spending on items that ensure children have a future.