Here are the Burka Blog | Texas Monthly email updates for you. Click here to start your FREE subscription
What should be required reading for Republicans? This story from Politico about how female voters see the party:
A rather ridiculous piece of writing appeared recently in Forbes, under the byline of one Patrick Gleason, who allegedly covers the "intersection of state and federal policy and politics." Gleason attempts to make the point that the Texas House of Representatives is controlled by a "left-of-center speaker." This commentary has all the earmarks of a Michael Quinn Sullivan put-up job. Gleason writes,
The governor has a first-class legal team, but some of its arguments concerning the indictment sound more like rhetoric than law.
Such as "an unconstitutional attack on Perry's rights"
And ..."defies common sense"
And ..."a violation of the Texas and U.S. constitutions"
And ... "an improper attempt to criminalize politics"
And ... "based on state laws that are unconstitutional"
One of my recurring frustrations with debates over social issues is that such debates often rest on moral principles over empirical evidence, sometimes to the point where the latter are dismissed or even disdained. Philosophically, I have no objection; we should all aim to be serious about our moral reasoning, and the First Amendment protects free expression. Pragmatically, though, arguments that are primarily or exclusively based on moral principles are vulnerable and problematic. Vulnerable, because it's hard to build a lasting coalition of interest around a contentious and unverifiable premise. Problematic, because insofar as moral principles aren't derived from evidence, moral arguments aren't subject to re-evaluation in the face of contrary evidence. They're not even subject to evidentiary standards in the first place, which creates another practical problem: moral arguments don't anticipate or really even allow for the possibility of disagreement. They're blunt instruments. Advocates may be able to use them to ram a bill through the legislature, but they won't change anyone's mind doing things that way, and they create suspicion and hostility on both sides.
With that in mind, I wanted to point you all to the September issue of Texas Monthly, which features a chat with Kyleen Wright, the head of Texans for Life. They were one of the pro-life groups that advocated for the passage of last year's omnibus abortion bill, and as Wright explained to me, their particular priority was the provision that requires doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges. The reason, she explained, was as follows. Two women had confided in her about their distressing abortion experiences--two women who were unrelated, except that they had seen the same doctor. It occurred to her that a law requiring hospital admitting privileges would effectively provide another layer of oversight and get some of the sketchier doctors out of the business. (Worth noting, although this was cut for space in the print edition: Wright added that they had run through the finite list of doctors who provide abortions in Texas and found that most of them either already had such admitting privileges or would be easily able to acquire them.) A year later, this was her overall summary of their work on the bill, and its effects:
Smearing the prosecutor is just about the dumbest thing a defendant in a criminal case can do. The second dumbest thing is to threaten the prosecutor. Perry appeared to do just that at the end of his press conference yesterday when he said, "And those responsible will be held to account." It sounded very much like a threat.