Goodness, I escape to the mountains in Arkansas for a week and all hell breaks out in Texas. Go figure. Worse than the mob that took over the Texas Senate last week protesting some very commonsense restrictions on abortion was the response of the man currently holding the office, David Dewhurst, and the three dwarfs trying to unseat him: Dan Patrick, Jerry Patterson, and Todd Staples.
First, Dewhurst. He’s pointing so many fingers that it’s hard to tell what he really thinks. Which is common with Dewhurst these days. First he blamed House Speaker Joe Straus for not sending the bill over to the Senate sooner. Then he blamed obstructionist Democrats. Then he blamed the unruly mob. Then he blamed the press.
But the plain fact of the matter is that the blame, if any, lies squarely at Dewhurst’s own feet. He is the one that hired the idiotic staffer that sent out this tweet inciting the mob. He is the one that instead of firing the guy let him double down. He is the one that left the building for a nice little steak dinner. He is the one that lost control of the Senate floor Tuesday night. He should man up and own his ineptitude as he makes up for it by passing these restrictions with the gift of a second attempt from Gov. Perry.
The three dwarfs couldn’t help themselves and jumped into the fray.
Sen. Patrick says this:
“The Lieutenant Governor gave the Senator in the pink tennis shoes 12 hours to speak last Tuesday. It’s time he gave me or another conservative pro-life Republican a few minutes to move the question and pass the bill”
Click here to read his entire blame piece.
Land Commissioner Patterson says this:
Democracy took a hit last night in the Texas Senate.
Who is to blame for this breakdown of decorum and procedure in the state’s highest legislative chamber?
Everybody is pointing fingers this morning, but in the end, the responsibility for the Texas Senate falls on one man.
The Lieutenant Governor of Texas is solely responsible for the Senate.
Click here to read his entire blame piece.
Agriculture Commissioner Staples reportedly sent out a fundraising email:
“Dewhurst clearly displayed failed leadership in the Texas Senate in front of a worldwide audience.” Targeting the incumbent for dropping the ball on “a chance to pass key pro-life legislation,” he then asked for a contribution to his election campaign.
Even Railroad Commissioner Barry Smitherman got in on the act and he isn’t even running for Lt. Gov.:
Couldn’t sleep last night. So painful watching #sb5 die. MJ was in the Capitol with polite prolifers. Time for new leadership. #txlege
At this point, it isn’t even clear that Dewhurst makes it into the runoff. The three dwarfs are going to look like giants to him come election night. Voters proved last year that his record doesn’t matter and his lack of leadership on this issue (and others), as well as his continuing inability to hire the right campaign staff are pushing voters to look away again. If Dewhurst wants to win, he needs to stop acting like a desperate politician on his last legs and start acting like the Lt. Gov. of Texas. Voters want someone that has a bold vision for the future and not someone that cowers in the corner pointing fingers every which way but at himself. Remember, when you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at you.
![packard_DSC_4434](http://www.bigjollypolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/packard_DSC_4434-500x333.jpg)
First of all, it IS the fault of the House (particularly Speaker Straus). They dilly-dallied & the bill was given to the Sen in filibuster range, when Dewhurst CLEARLY told them not to do that.
Secondly, since you were in Arkansas… you apparently did NOT see that the occupy wallstreet type mob DID disrupt decorum & stopped the legislative process. As Gov. Perry said this never has happened in Sen. history and DAVID is NOT to blame.
Your comments are as asinine as the dwarfs' criticisms. Voters are not upset w/Dewhurst AND there won't be a runoff because Dewhurst is gonna beat them all outright. Period. As even the early polls show Patrick, Staples & Patterson are trailing Dewhurst already & they will stay that way becoause Texans won't fall for their crap. Patrick whines & flip-flops all over the place. Staples & Patterson are on record (both interviewed at separate times by Evan Smith) as having NO reason why Dewhurst should be replaced AND they have no words when asked what they can do better. With all of that, I can't wait for the debates!! Dewhurst will clean their clock.
Blame whoever you like for whatever you like. I’ve read the bills. I find no “common sense” in them.
I’m critical of my few liberal friends who think that regulating firearms to the point of making them inaccessible will magically stop gun related deaths. I’m equally critical of my conservative friends who think that regulating abortion to the point of making them inaccessible will magically stop abortions.
I’m “Pro-Reality.”
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=671652186183643&set=a.196117727070427.60065.100000166035841&type=1&theater
Unfortunately Bob, I think your time in Colorado smoking the crazy stuff has removed “reality” from your awareness. The idea that a surgical abortion should be treated differently from any other surgery, in terms of cleanliness and ability to react to emergencies, comes not from reality but from…what? Hatred of women? Hatred of children? What? I don’t get it.
And neither do the vast majority of Texans. That is reality and that is why these bills are going to pass. Did you know that nationally, 71{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} oppose second trimester abortions? And 86{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} oppose third trimester abortions?
But I know. You discount majority opinion when it conflicts with yours. As I headlined a previous post, you prefer back-alley type abortions when you denounce attempts to clean up the very profitable abortion industry. Why shouldn’t a portion of their profits be put into upgrading their facilities? They don’t “have” to close, they choose to close rather than invest in better facilities.
Don’t become like your buddy Coby. Mean, bitter, everything sucks – that is his approach to life. Step out and find happiness somewhere. If it’s on a mountain in Colorado smoking weed, fine, but admit that the purpose of the drug is to skew reality.
Three little dwarfs? Some one needs to do something about Sleeping Beauty. This dewsaster has yet to fully unfold. This will play out in the national press as another Republican war on women. Wendy Davis will be a star and win whatever office she runs for. Probably the Lt. Gov. The Republicans would be better off admitting they got whupped by a girl and dropping this bill.
err, missed the metaphor. Snow White. Both work though.
Hey, you can’t say dwarf! They’re “little persons”!
Gotta disagree with gto on this one. This is one case where the “progressive” chant about a “war on women” and whines about bullies picking on poor Wendy Davis just ain’t gonna work. This is common sense legislation that the vast majority of Texans support, not to mention dozens of other states and Godless European nations have similar or tougher restrictions.
The second thing that springs to mind is what the heck does my fiscally conservative position on the failed, stubborn, social conservative authoritarian policy of cannabis prohibition have to do with abortion? But I’ll save that easier argument for another day. Texas republicans can’t handle that sort of rational debate today.
You have asserted, twice, that anyone who isn’t balls to the wall pro-life, to the degree of government forcing raped women to carry their rape baby to term is somehow supporting of dangerous back alley abortions. You have not provided any evidence to substantiate that claim. Don’t feel alone, no one else can either.
I do understand the emotional aspects of the issue, but still patiently await a rational explanation of this statement. “Texas Senate passes women’s health protections – Democrats prefer back alley”
I think that it is blatantly dishonest to claim that the bills before the lege in this special session “protect” women’s health. A rational examination of the legislation’s likely outcomes (and goals) arrives at an entirely opposite conclusion.
Bob, first, I didn’t say that your personal “war” against the “drug war” had anything to do with abortion. I said that your choices for recreation have skewed your reality – because you claimed to be “pro-reality”. Texas Republicans can handle any rational debate. Pulling a red herring like that out of your whatever shows that you have a problem with rational debate.
Second, I have asserted far more that twice that pro-abortion fanatics prefer back alley conditions for abortions versus commonsense, rational regulations of abortion providers. I think that point has been proven over and over and over again. The evidence is staring you in the face and you refuse to see it. The evidence is a mob that caused a riot at the Texas Capitol last week solely because Texas Republicans tried to IMPROVE conditions for women seeking abortions. Why do you not care about the treatment women receive when seeking an abortion? Is it so important to you that they “rid” themselves of their child that you would knowingly put the life of the mother in danger?
I’m not the emotional one here. You are. Take a look at what you’ve written versus what I’ve written. You are relying solely on emotion.
You can “think” whatever you wish in regards to the motivations behind the bills but that doesn’t make your thoughts fact. I’m quite certain that some people want these bills to pass because they think that clinic operators will close rather than upgrade their facilities. I’m not one of those people. I’m confident that the clinics will invest the funds necessary to come into compliance with the bills because they want to continue to make money off of abortions. A rational examination of the legislation’s likely outcomes would take this into consideration and would assuredly arrive at the same conclusion that I have.
The one area that is problematic is the 20 week cutoff. It might be ruled unconstitutional because it is in conflict with the Roe v Wade cutoff of 24 weeks, although other rulings might allow it to remain at 20 weeks. Viability at younger ages continues to improve as science and medicine improve, so my guess is that the Roberts court will allow it. But that is a debate that is down the road and should be based on science, not the emotions of either side. The idea that people would storm the Texas Capitol in support of killing a five month old child that differentiate between her mother’s voice and the voices of strangers is ghastly and gives credence to those that argue that our culture has deteriorated to an almost unrecoverable point. That is why they fight so hard – not that they are “authoritarian”.
I take a lot of heat from my fellow conservatives because I think that abortion has to remain legal for those very rare cases in which a mother has to choose between her own life or that of her child. But commonsense regulations of the industry are necessary.
I’m grateful that you and a few other reasonable republicans are standing up and fading the heat from the extremists that rule that political party in your state. I’m a recovering republican because I no longer have any patience for their irrational authoritarianism. It’s ridiculous.
I do not think a woman who is pregnant as a result of being raped should be forced to carry and give birth to her attacker’s baby. I’m pro-reality. If that makes me anti-republican, I’m cool with that.
Dude. It’s time you gave up the charade of being a “recovering republican”. You’ve never been anything other than what you are – a confused libertine who knows a couple of worn out jokes.
Bob, I’ve been thinking about the abortion issue recently and have shifted my position a little. I think the Repubs have this mostly right this time. Twenty weeks seems logical as long as abortions remain available and affordable. That’s enough time for a woman to make the decision to have an abortion. And DJ’s point about clinics bringing their facilities up to standards seems like a good thing. Amniocentesis is usually performed between week eleven and twenty.
Wiki:
Before the start of the procedure, a local anesthetic can be given to the mother in order to relieve the pain felt during the insertion of the needle used to withdraw the fluid. After the local is in effect, a needle is usually inserted through the mother’s abdominal wall, then through the wall of the uterus, and finally into the amniotic sac. With the aid of ultrasound-guidance, a physician punctures the sac in an area away from the fetus and extracts approximately 20 ml of amniotic fluid.
If used for prenatal genetic diagnosis, fetal cells are separated from the extracted sample. The cells are grown in a culture medium, then fixed and stained. Under a microscope the chromosomes are examined for abnormalities. The most common abnormalities detected are Down syndrome (trisomy 21), Edwards syndrome (trisomy 18), and Turner syndrome (monosomy X). In regard to the fetus, the puncture heals and the amniotic sac replenishes the liquid over the next 24–48 hours.[3][4]
I still contend that abortion should not be outlawed. Forcing a woman to have a baby is not the right way to go.
Safe, legal, and rare is the path of least harm in this emotional, contentious, and overly politicized issue. The fact of the matter is 2nd trimester abortions are already the rarest form, and almost always occur in the presence of severe and fatal fetal abnormalities or a clear health risk to the mother. It is correct to foresee a constitutional challenge for the 20 week aspect of the legislation, but that is actually its least insidiously authoritarian aspect.
The premise that by simply limiting access to safe early term abortions (which is the logical outcome of the legislation) abortions will magically cease is as ridiculous as the republican party of Texas’ platform plank that arrogantly, ignorantly, and stubbornly insists that comprehensive sex education should be prohibited in public schools. As a result of social conservative’s delusions about “abstinence only” sex ed, Texas ranks third in the nation in rates of unplanned pregnancies, which are strongly correlated with high rates of abortion.
“Texas ranks third in the nation in rates of unplanned pregnancies, which are strongly correlated with high rates of abortion.”
Wrong. Do you not expect your “facts” to be checked? Texas is 10th. Among others, “progressive” bastions such as California, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and Washington DC all have higher rates.
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/state-data/state-comparisions.asp?id=11&sID=801
You are right, Mark. Depending on the year one directs their focus, Texas consistently does worse than 40 to 47 other states in rates of teen pregnancy. Are you proud of that?
I looked at the most recent data available. That’s what you do when you want to describe what’s happening now in the most accurate terms. And since many “progressive” Shangri-Las have higher rates of unplanned pregnancies than Texas, that pretty much disproves your delusion that there’s a correlation between the type of sex ed and unplanned pregnancies. Further, Texas doesn’t mandate “abstinence only” sex ed. The law states that it must include abstinence only, parents must be notified of the curriculum, and that they can opt out. That pretty much blows up your entire argument.
Let’s take a look at that “insidiously authoritarian aspect” of Texas code on sex ed:
Wow! How insiduously authoritarian can Texas possibly get??? How dare those state legislators allow the parents of school children have an actual voice in their children’s education!
I have no problem with that text. Parents do have the right to opt their kids out of any form of sex ed offered by public schools.
The trouble is, most districts do not even offer “Abstinence Plus” curricula, to ANY students, preferring instead to mandate the known counterproductive “Abstinence Only” and “Abstinence until marriage” flavors of misinformation preferred by the social conservative authoritarian Texas republican party platform:
In other words, “You will do it our way, or you will not do it at all.”
Texas has received more federal funding for this unrealistic and failed form of sex “education” than any other state. When at least two districts have applied for federal funds to teach comprehensive sex ed, (which is PRO-abstinence, btw) and which is known to reduce the rate of teen pregnancies, births, abortions, and STD transmission, those applications were stopped at the state level, by sexually hung-up social conservative republicans.
I have no doubt that the legislation will pass. Congratulations.
I’m also certain that the social conservatives republicans’ relentless support of failed and counterproductive social policies will ensure that yours remains an indelibly red state, forever. 😉
The advisory boards are mandated to be made up of a majority of parents of children in the district and who are not employed by the district. You can’t get any less authoritarian than having parents decide how their children are educated. Once again, you demonstrate that it is YOUR dogma that is the real authoritarianism here. The platform isn’t law, it’s a statement of position(s). As has been demonstrated time and again, not every plank in the platform is popular enough with the state legislators for them to turn them into law.
And why do you continue to ignore the fact that those “progressive” swamps where abstinence-only is not mandated have the highest unplanned pregnancy rates? Clearly your weird libertine philosphy is not the answer, otherwise, states like California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii (and DC) would have lower rates.