80th Legislature: Pre-Filing Fun Includes Vouchers, Anti-Immigrant Sentiment, Lit Cigarettes & More

Sit back, grab a cup of coffee (or a strong drink), because it’s time for some fun with the bills that have been “pre-filed” in anticipation of the 80th Session of the Texas Legislature in January.

More than 1,400 bills were sent to the Texas Legislative Council for drafting, and so far, I’ve only been able to drudge through about 50 that have been pre-filed in the House (needless to say, this is an ongoing project).

Anyway, one look at the first few bills can tell you what kind of legislative session the 80th will be: an anti-illegal immigrant session combined with another dose of the “morality” issues dished out back in the 78th and rehashed in the 79th.

So, let’s get started.

House Bill 10. By Norma Chavez, this bill is one strange bird. Brace yourself, but it’s an Indian Casino bill. Yep. It takes some figuring out, though, because this bill could have two purposes. It’s either designed to create an “after the fact” loophole for anyone charged in connection with the illegal Tigua casino, “Speaking Rock,” some years ago. But, I don’t actually remember any individuals being charged with gambling violations.

So, I think this very well may be a back-door way to leagalize Indian casinos in Texas. What better way than to amend the Penal Code to make it an affirmative defense to a Gambling offense to be participating in activity that is permitted by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act?  Could this mean that a constitutional amendment or other legislation may be coming forth on Indian gambling? Or, is this the vehicle by which Indian gaming will be legalized in Texas? Only time will tell!

House Bill 18: By Frank Corte, this bill would create a pilot voucher program. The problem is it’s one heck of a massive “pilot” program.

Check out the guidelines that define an “eligible child:”

(a) A child is eligible for a voucher to be used to pay the costs of attending a private school if the child:
(1)  is educationally disadvantaged;
(2)  is eligible to attend school under Section 25.001  in a school district that is among the six largest districts in membership for the 2007-2008 school year, as determined by the commissioner;
(3)  was enrolled in a public school district during the preceding school year or is enrolling in prekindergarten, kindergarten, or first grade for the first time; and
(4)  either:
(A)  failed to perform satisfactorily on the most recent assessment instrument administered to the child under Section 39.023(a), (b), (c), or (l); or
(B)  is eligible under Subchapter G to attend another public school in the district in which the child resides or to receive a public education grant to use to attend a public school in another district, but has had an application to attend another school in the child’s district or in another district rejected.

There is no fiscal note on this bill yet (I can hardly wait for that, or any other analysis, but you can bet your bottom dollar that this encompasses a lot of students. This is probably the biggest “pilot voucher” bill ever filed.

House Bill 19: Another “voucher” bill by Frank Corte. The problem? This one is disguised and is one of those “warm fuzzy” bills that’s going to make voting against it tough. In fact, I can already see Republican mailers with sad-looking handicapped children that say “My State Representative Doesn’t Want Me To Go To A Good School Because I’m Handicapped!”

Anyway, this bill creates a program by which students who are handicapped or disabled can receive vouchers. Of course, it never uses the word “voucher” (”school choice” is much more vogue). And, it never says anything about private schools, although a private school voucher program for disabled students is clearly what is intended:

3)  “Qualifying school” means a nongovernmental community-based educational establishment that exists for the public good and provides for the education needs of elementary and secondary students with disabilities. The term does not include a school that provides education in a home setting or that limits enrollment to relatives of the school’s staff.

Um hum. The only thing it excludes are home-schoolers and, I guess, private schools someone would set up in their living room. This is the only aspect accountability in the whole bill.

House Bill 21: Yet another Corte bill, this one dealing with abortion. This one repeals Section 171.013 of the Texas Health and Safety code which talks about distribution of “information” materials relating to abortion. The thing about HB 21 is that, in order to understand its impact, you’ve got to read the section it repeals and other Health and Safety Code sections relating to abortion. Previously, women had the option of viewing the “informational” materials (which, let’s be frank, are designed to discourage women from the procedure). Now, instead of informing the woman of her right to review the materials, a few strike-outs and additions mean that physicians or their agents are required to provide the “informational” materials to women in order for an abortion to be performed consentually.
House Bill 22: Another abortion bill by Corte. This one is somewhat puzzling. It appears to amend the Health and Safety Code to direct the appropriate licensing authorities that they do not have to license a facility that would otherwise qualify for a license to perform abortions if they don’t want to:

Sec. 245.0035.  EXEMPTIONS FROM LICENSING REQUIREMENT. The following facilities need not be licensed under this chapter:
(1)  a hospital licensed under Chapter 241 (Texas
Hospital Licensing Law);
(2)  the office of a physician licensed under Subtitle B, Title 3, Occupations Code, unless the office is used for the purpose of performing more than 50 abortions in any 12-month period; or
(3)  an ambulatory surgical center licensed under Chapter 243.

The phrase “need not,” is the kicker here. It doesn’t say they “may not,” or can’t be licensed, but rather leaves it entirely to the licensing authority’s discretion of whether or not to grant the license. This will effectively make it more difficult for a facility to offer the procedure and make it much more difficult for a woman to have the procedure as less facilities will ultimately exist as a result of this.  Face it, folks: this bill tells the licensing authority, “hey, if you don’t want to allow a hospital to perform abortions, then don’t, because we don’t care!”

House Bill 23: Yet another reprodructive rights bill by Corte. This one, however is possibly the dumbest of the group. It’s an emergency contraceptive bill. It not only requires businesses selling EC (pharmacies) to post an as asinine sign, but also require all sorts of idiotic information to be dispensed to the person wanting the drug, and requires the recipient to SHOW A PHOTO ID.

This is so asinine, it deserves quoting in its entirety (keep in mind all of this is new language):

Sec. 172.002.  DUTY TO INFORM. (a) Before a pharmacist may dispense or distribute emergency contraception, the pharmacist must inform the recipient that emergency contraception may prevent:
(1)  the fertilization of an egg; or
(2)  the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.
(b)  A pharmacist must provide the information required by Subsection (a) orally and in writing.
Sec. 172.003.  SIGN REQUIRED. A business establishment at which emergency contraception is dispensed or distributed shall display a sign, in clear view of each cash register in the establishment, that is at least 18 inches high by 24 inches wide and that, in block letters in a font that may be read clearly, reads in English and Spanish:
“IF YOU BELIEVE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT FERTILIZATION––THE POINT WHERE THE SPERM AND EGG UNITE––THEN YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION MAY EITHER FUNCTION AS A CONTRACEPTIVE TO PREVENT THE EGG AND SPERM FROM UNITING OR PREVENT THE IMPLANTATION OF YOUR ALREADY FERTILIZED EGG IN YOUR WOMB. THE PHARMACIST DISPENSING THIS DRUG IS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN TO YOU HOW THE PRODUCT MAY HELP TO PREVENT YOUR PREGNANCY.”
Sec. 172.004.  PREREQUISITES TO SALE. (a) Before dispensing or distributing emergency contraception over the counter, a business establishment must:
(1)  require the person obtaining the drug to:
(A)  display a driver’s license or other form of identification containing the person’s photograph and indicating that the person is 18 years of age or older; and
(B)  sign for the purchase; and
(2)  make a record of the transaction, including:
(A)  the name of the person obtaining the drug;
(B)  the date the drug is dispensed or distributed; and
(C)  an acknowledgment that the pharmacist provided the person obtaining the drug with the information required by Section 172.002.
(b)  The business establishment shall maintain each record made under this section until at least the second anniversary of the date the record is made.

How stupid is this? Where do I start? How would you like your seven year old asking you, “mommy, how does the sperm fertilize the egg?” while you’re standing in line at Walgreens? You have got to be kidding me.

What is the purpose of requiring a photo ID? Total and complete humiliation?

And, if someone is getting emergency contraception, what are the actual odds that they don’t know it will stop their egg from being fertilized?
House Bill 28: This bill by Leo Berman (R-Tyler), one of the Legislators people think of when they talk about the “furniture in the Legislature”, is one of the most hateful bills of several anti-immigrant pieces of legislation prefiled.

This bill actually denies citizens who are the children of illegal aliens state benefits and licenses.

What? What! What? You heard me right. After this bill becomes law, any child born IN TEXAS to parents who are illegal aliens after the effective date of the law will be ineligible for:

Sec. 2352.003.  ELIGIBILITY.  An individual to whom this
chapter applies is not entitled to and may not receive any benefit provided by this state or a political subdivision of this state, including:
(1)  a grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license provided by an agency of this state or a
political subdivision of this state or by appropriated funds of
this state or a political subdivision of this state;
(2)  employment by this state or a political
subdivision of this state;
(3)  a retirement payment or other benefit received on account of the status of the individual as a former employee or officer of this state or a political subdivision of this state;
(4)  public assistance benefits, including welfare
payments, food stamps, or food assistance from this state or a political subdivision of this state;
(5)  health care or public assistance health benefits;
(6)  disability benefits or assistance;
(7)  public housing or public housing assistance;
(8)  instruction in primary or secondary education;
(9)  instruction from a public institution of higher
education; and
(10)  an unemployment benefit.
For one thing, I wonder how on earth this could ever be tracked.

First and foremost, though, this denies an entire generation of children (and even more, probably) benefits throughout the entire term of their lives. Think about it: the Mexican immigrant who is here illegally now, who has child on or after the effective date of this bill in Texas dooms their child to the fate outlined above even though they came to this country for more opportunity? You have got to be kidding me.

There is probably little worry about this bill, though, because I don’t see a way that it is constitutional. It denies rights to the unborn, number one. Number two, it tinkers with federal programs like food stamps and public housing.  Number 3, it deprives the unborn of licenses (law license, plumber’s license, whatever) that they might need to earn their living.

Surely, this bill will go nowhere. It punishes an entire class of people who are in no way responsible for their lot in life and is born in a climate of anti-immigrant hate.

House Bill 30: Another frightening bill is House Bill 30, another Berman bill. This bill would allow counties under 300,000 in population to, with signatures of a mere 10 percent of the registered voters who participated in the most recent gubernatorial election, hold an election to consolidate the school districts within its boundaries into one consolidated county independent school district.

This is something I’ve feared would become law for a long time. There are many closet proponents of going back to the system of consolidated county school districts in Texas because they believe it will be less costly and mean less infrastructure (read: less administrator salaries).
What people don’t realize is that, with the signatures of a bunch of Radical Right-ers an election could be held (that people would fail to remember to vote in) that could cause small cities and towns to lose their school districts because they don’t have the voting power within their communities to defeat the measure.

This is a bill that could destroy the autonomy of communities and town across the state.