The Right Wing’s Assault On Joe Straus

The rightwing has begun a full-fledged assault on State Rep. Joe Straus (R-San Antonio), the consensus candidate for Speaker of the Texas House as ordaned by 11 so-called “Anybody But Craddick” Republicans.

The uprising of social and religious conservatives could mean an early end to Straus’ candidacy (we’ll get into that more later).

Leading the charge is none other than Wallbuilders founder and former Vice Chair of the Republican Party of Texas David Barton.

In two separate to supporters, reproduced at a the Republican blog My Call To Rise, Barton has called on conservative Christians to call their State Representatives and express their desire to have installed a socially conservative speaker and lambasted Straus’ voting record:

It is crucial that you call your State Representative immediately and demand that he/she not participate in this coup. Ask for an answer. Let him or her know that if he joins in this effort, you will take it as a message that he is opposing everything you care about and the traditional values of life and family for which you stand.

[...]

As a follow up to the message you received earlier about the Texas Speaker, the first step has been taken to install an anti-life, anti-family Texas House Speaker. The 11 dissident Republicans selected Rep. Joe Straus as their candidate for Speaker, and that selection is expected to be supported by 64 anti-life and anti-family Democrats.

Unfortunately, Rep. Straus (who has been in office for only two sessions) has developed a clear voting record that demonstrates overt hostility toward unborn life and traditional family values.

Barton then let forth an all-out assault on Straus’ voting record.

Rep. Joe Straus Supported:

* Making it easier to perform late-term, third-trimester abortions (SB 419, vote 672, 2005). And in the 2007 session, he received a 100 percent voting record from the radical pro-abortion group NARAL, and the pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood contributed to his reelection campaign
* Homosexuals as foster parents (SB 6, vote 327, 2005)
* Expanded casino gambling (HB 10, vote 939, 2007)
* Increased gaming and gambling (HB 2265, vote 749, 2007)
* Increased sale and consumption of alcohol during Sunday morning church hours (HB 168, vote 357, 2005)
* Making it easier to sell alcohol without community approval, as is currently required (SB 1626, vote 852, 2005)
* Increasing state budget spending by an amazing 19 percent over only two years (SB 1, vote 946, 2005)

Rep. Joe Straus Opposed:

* Using statistically-proven methods to strengthen marriage and reduce divorce by encouraging pre-marital counseling (HB 2685, votes 384, 437, and 1407, 2007)
* Parental rights, opposing a bill to let parents know the service-referrals that school counselors are making for their children (HB 2136, vote 592, 2007)
* School choice (HB 1, vote 235, 2007)

Given Rep. Straus’ voting record over the past two sessions, it is unlikely that pro-life and pro-family measures will move through the Texas House of Representatives should he become the Texas House Speaker.

Being aware of Straus’ 100 percent NARAL Pro-Choice Texas rating following the 2007 session, it isn’t surprising that the right is using the abortion issue against him. And, it is also unsurprising that Barton and company are manipulating his voting record to the fullest extent possible.

The vote in question was a vote to table an amendment to an amendment to a bill reauthorizing the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, Texas State Board of Physician Assistant Examiners, and Texas State Board of Acupuncture Examiners. Although the vote in question was on an abortion-related amendment, it was hardly a scene that is much of a pro-choice victory.

All of this requires some explaining. First off, there was an amendment to the bill which would have essentially outlawed all abortions after the third trimester except in the case when a woman’s life was in danger; it made third trimester abortions a “prohibited practice” for physicians. An amendment was added to that amendment which would added an additional exception for third trimester abortions if the fetus had brain damage.

Following that amendment, the following language would have been the specific language making third trimester abortions prohibited practices except in certain cases:

performs an abortion on a woman who is pregnant with a viable unborn child during the third trimester of the pregnancy when the abortion is not necessary to prevent the death of the woman or when the viable unborn child does not have a severe, irreversible brain impairment.

The amendment to the amendment to add the brain damage language was adopted without a recorded vote, although a handful of right-wing Republican members recorded “no” votes anyway.

The next amendment, the one that Barton is calling Straus out for, could almost be called a “lipstick on a pig” amendment. It added an exception for health risks to the mother (a good thing from a pro-choice standpoint, but not something the pro-life crowd should really get up in arms about), and softened the brain damage exception to allow for other fetal abnormalities (which is more offensive to the pro-life crowd).

Straus voted against a motion to table that amendment. Yes, it was a small victory for choice (a bigger victory would have been striking the entire amendment, but this is, after all, the Texas Legislature we’re talking about), but it wasn’t exactly a stunning blow to the pro-life crowd either.

So, on that one, Barton is using the key issue for the religious right, and turning a tempest into a teapot. It is very, very, very difficult to say that Straus’ vote supported making it easier to get a late term abortion in Texas.

Does any of this really make Straus more friendly to pro-choice Texans or Democrats? It is a dubious statement to say that it does. Remember that, once in the chair, a Speaker often changes his spots.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It