March 12, 2001

Eagle Eye on Austin

BILL SEEKS TO INVOLVE CITIES IN REGIONAL COMMUNES
When most Americans hear the words “School-to-Work,” they erroneously conjure in their minds a beneficent government program designed to move highly trained, competent students from the classroom into high-paying, socially beneficial jobs of their choice. Regrettably, nothing could be farther from the truth. In reality, School-to-Work (STW) has much more in common with the German apprenticeship/European feudal system than the traditional liberal arts curriculum many Americans assume is taught in their public high schools. Implemented at a federal level through President Clinton’s Goals 2000 and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, STW programs funnel children into employer dictated career tracks as early as grade 8. The net effect of these programs is (a) the substitution of training and skills development for academic learning, and (b) the subjugation of the needs and dreams of students to the cold logic of economic trends in the workplace. STW came to Texas in 1995 with the creation of the Workforce Development Commission, an action initiated by Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) and signed by then Governor George W. Bush. Since that time, federal government grants have fueled the proliferation of STW programs across the state by funding the creation of Workforce Development Boards to manage the program at a local level (this is what’s called “local control”). 

Some Texas lawmakers, however, are not satisfied with simply using federal money to wreck the state’s school system; they now want to procure local funds to fuel the STW fire. The Better Jobs Act, filed by Ruth Jones McClendon (D-San Antonio) in the House and Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) in the Senate, would allow municipalities to create Municipal Development Corporations to provide “job training programs, early childhood education, after-school programs, scholarships for higher education, and literacy programs,” all in the name of creating a more skilled workforce. These entities would be funded directly by local taxpayers through sales and use taxes and the sale of revenue bonds by municipalities. These “local communes” would operate in conjunction with local Workforce Development Boards, extending the reach of federal edu-crats directly into the pocketbooks of taxpayers at the local level. 

The Better Jobs Act is an example of ambitious—and reckless—public policy. By providing education services for young children, after school programs for secondary students, and child-care and job training programs for adults, this legislation would institute government run “cradle to grave” job training. Such programs have a long and unmeritorious history in places like the Soviet Union and Communist-era Eastern Europe, and serve only to imprison citizens in a world of low-paying jobs and even lower expectations. Americans have long believed that their children deserve an education that prepares them for success in whatever field they choose to enter. Funneling children into workforce training programs deprives them of the right to dream, and robs them of the education they need to become healthy, well-rounded citizens.

**ACTION ITEM**

Please call your state representative and ask him to oppose the Better Jobs Act (HB1439 in the House, and SB607 in the Senate) 

Capitol Switchboard: (512) 463-4630

For additional resources on School-to-Work:
http://www.texaseagle.org/torch/11-96.html#stw 
http://www.texaseagle.org/torch/05-97.html#stw 
http://www.texaseagle.org/torch/04-98.html#stw 
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1997/apr97/psrapr97.html 

LEGISLATION FILED BY ARLINGTON REPUBLICAN WOULD “LEGITIMIZE” GESTATIONAL AGREEMENTS
With the rise of modern genetic technology, a host of new “family arrangements” are now possible. Among these arrangements is a practice known as “surrogate motherhood.” The mechanics of surrogate motherhood are simple; an infertile couple signs a contract called a gestational agreement with a woman who has had a previous successful pregnancy to carry an “implanted embryo” to term, and then turn the child over to the couple in exchange for monetary compensation. In this world of “wombs for rent,” the implanted embryo is often the result of in-vitro fertilization involving some combination of the intended parents gametes, and genetic material scavenged from an egg or sperm bank.

Although this practice has been taking place for over a decade, many states question the validity of gestational agreements when faced with custody disputes between the surrogate mother and the intended parents (and in some cases, the sperm or egg donor). The difficulty courts have had in interpreting these contracts stems from their unique nature, and the fact that selling children is illegal in the United States. Representative Toby Goodman (R-Arlington) intends to clear these difficulties up with legislation aimed at regulating the terms and conditions of gestational agreements, and providing guidelines to courts regarding the determination of custody for these “commodity babies.”

Texas Eagle Forum is opposed to the practice of surrogate motherhood for a number of reasons:

• Child-selling is illegal. By paying a woman to act as a surrogate mother, intended parents are in effect participating in the purchase of a child while simultaneously reducing the surrogate mother to a "womb for hire."
• Surrogate motherhood is a method commonly used by homosexual "couples" to "have" children—a fact that only highlights its fundamentally illicit nature.
• Adoption is a time-honored solution for couples unable to have children of their own but who want to raise children. Surrogate motherhood is unnecessary when one considers the vast numbers of children in orphanages and foster programs worldwide who wish to be adopted.
• Surrogate motherhood promotes eugenics by allowing parents to pre-select favorable traits for their “designer babies.”

In short, the practice of surrogate motherhood, while cloaked in the veil of compassion, threatens the traditional family by undermining the natural bond between mother and child while reinforcing the dangerous belief that children are nothing more than commodities for parents to enjoy. By regulating this practice under law, the state would be lending its imprimatur to this harmful and unnecessary industry. 

**ACTION ITEM**
Please contact your state representative and urge him to vote against the Gestational Agreement legislation, HB1246.

Capitol Switchboard: (512) 463-4630

For additional resources on gestational agreements and surrogate motherhood:

	Example of surrogate motherhood services offered to gay parents. http://www.gayparentingmag.com/Advertisements/advertisements.html#surrogateparentingservices
	See question #4 for example of eugenics in action http://www.surrogacyagency.com/eggdonor/edfaq.htm
	Article on the “Baby M” case. http://www.op.org/DomCentral/study/kor/87030807.htm
	Good teaching document from the Catholic Church on this difficult topic. http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/part2.htm

RESOLUTION BY CONSERVATIVE LAWMAKERS WOULD HELP CORRAL STATE SPENDING
A measure proposed by two conservative state lawmakers would put the state on a strict spending diet. HJR66, authored by Rep. Carl Isett (R-Lubbock) and Rep. Talmadge Heflin (R-Houston) would give teeth to the Texas Tax Relief Act of 1978 by limiting the annual rate of growth of all state appropriations to the rate of growth of total personal income in the state. Current law limits the rate of growth of only those state tax revenues not dedicated by the Constitution, leaving over 50% of state appropriations free from any limit other than the imagination of state legislators. In addition to reining in dedicated state spending, HJR66 requires the state Comptroller to certify that the state budget does not exceed spending limits before it can go into effect, and allows lawmakers to circumvent spending limits only in emergency cases by a 2/3 super-majority vote. 

Rep. Carl Isett notes that putting the state on a real budget makes sense, particularly because taxpaying families have the same obligation. “Texas families are forced to live on a budget, and I believe they expect the same out of their state government. This legislation doesn’t say that state government can’t grow, it only says it should not grow faster than the economy. It’s just common sense,” said Isett. Although we at Texas Eagle Forum would like to see Texas government spending SHRINK, HJR66 represents a crucial step on the road to securing limited, local government, and enforcing badly needed fiscal discipline on a spend-happy state legislature. 

**ACTION ITEM**
Please call your state representative and voice you opinion about HJR66.

Capitol Switchboard: (512) 463-4630

Brief Notes From Near and Far

U.S.S. REAGAN STANDS TALL AND PROUD AS NAVY’S “90,000 TONS OF DIPLOMACY”
With the traditional shattering of a champagne bottle against a deck rail, former first lady Nancy Reagan christened the U.S.S. Reagan as the Navy’s ninth Nimitz-class aircraft carrier on Sunday, March 4, 2001. The massive ship, scheduled for completion in 2003, will replace the aging U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, and will initiate a transition to a new class of “Smart Carriers,” the first of which will be completed in 2008. The 90,000 ton U.S.S. Reagan, or CVN-76, will house 6,000 personnel and carry a full contingent of 80 aircraft. Once the ship is operational, it will join the world’s largest fleet of primary warships and the only fleet of carrier battle groups. The only non-U.S. carrier in operation today is a decrepit cold war relic owned by the Russian Navy. 

Although a number of monuments and buildings have been named in honor of President Ronald Reagan, the commissioning of a battle carrier in his honor is probably the most fitting tribute that can be paid to this great American patriot. More than any other person, Ronald Reagan advocated “peace through strength.” While economists and academics were lamenting the decline of American power and idealism, Reagan optimistically proclaimed that America’s best days were yet to come. Displaying vision and courage, he initiated an arms race with the Soviet Union that ultimately bankrupted the evil empire, while simultaneously reviving American exceptionalism by calling the United States a “city on a hill.” His most significant accomplishment, however, is one that cannot be measured in a chart or graph, or quantified in any way. Through the power of vision and unyielding optimism, Reagan helped restore Americans’ sense of confidence in both their nation and military. It is only fitting, then, that our Navy’s newest and proudest vessel bear the name of the man who led the way in restoring our military’s place of honor in the world.

For more stories on the U.S.S. Reagan, try these links:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200103\NAT20010305c.html 
http://www.nns.com/reagan/ 

Commentary - “Is This Enlightenment?” by Joe Fitzgerald

Of the many radical movements that have traipsed across the landscape of American politics in the last forty years, few have matched the radical nihilism of the “gay-rights movement.” Demanding rights above and beyond simple equality and fairness, radical gay rights activists have agitated for the complete destruction of America’s traditional moral cultural norms in favor of a laissez-faire amoralism. Unfortunately, few among our society’s opinion makers have denounced the radical gay agenda and exposed its inherently destructive nature. Joe Fitzgerald, a columnist for the Boston Herald, is one of those few brave souls. In an article for the Boston Herald dated March 5, 2001, Fitzgerald took the gay rights movement to task for advocating public lewdness. In the spirit of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whose speech on intolerance was re-printed in last week’s update, Fitzgerald refused to be intimidated by “venomous attacks” from the Left. Re-printed below is the Fitzgerald’s article as it appeared in the March 5, 2001 edition of the Boston Herald.

Cops ordered to look away from public sex, what next?
by Joe Fitzgerald
Monday, March 5, 2001 

He doesn't waste words, but U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas doesn't mince them either, as he illustrated again in warning a Washington audience that intimidation is a favorite tool of activists, ruthlessly employed to silence their critics. ``Today,'' he noted, ``no one can honestly be surprised'' by ``venomous attacks'' unleashed on anyone daring to invoke moral principles in confronting what they know to be wrong, inviting the wrath of those who reject values and beliefs.

What he said was so correct it needs no endorsement here; it just comes to mind while waiting in vain for political, religious and community leaders to weigh in on last week's shameful State Police announcement that rest-stop sex will no longer be suppressed by troopers on patrol.

This, of course, was hailed as a sign of enlightenment by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, who had filed a suit alleging harassment by a trooper because he'd been keeping close rein on a plaintiff previously convicted of engaging in sex with another man in woods bordering a Wareham rest stop.

Harassment? Please.

That trooper should have received a commendation in behalf of every motorist to whom ``rest'' is not defined as an open invitation for lecherous advances by strangers.

Is that hateful? No.

Is it hateful to tell this same crowd to keep its hands off kids in movie theaters? No.

It is hateful to say the public has a right to be protected and shielded from deviance? No.

Hardly a week goes by without a letter or call arriving here from a reader pleading for intervention: The mother fearful of letting her kids attend a local Showcase Cinema; the widow whose husband's grave is regularly desecrated by evidence of nightly cruising; the businessman with obvious reasons to be fearful of fluids on the bench at the sauna in his health club.

Do none of these people have rights?

Or are we to believe they're hateful, too?

Why does every gay spokesman have to be a champion for irresponsibility?

Are there any who'll say the police were right in keeping rest areas free of predators, free of exhibitionists, free of anxieties for law-abiding citizens who simply wanted to be left alone?

A few years ago, in the aftermath of a Gay Pride March so offensive even its organizers had to apologize, a man named Richard, then 47, called, clearly distressed.

``I'm with you 100 percent,'' he said of a column here that drew the wrath of parade officials. ``My parents always knew I was gay but it's taken me years to let the rest of the family know. I was at my aunt's house when TV coverage of the parade was shown. She asked, `Are these your new friends, Richard?' I was mortified. Those people did not represent my homosexuality, my pride, or my friends' pride.''

Fair enough.

So where are the gays who'll thank cops for maintaining public decorum?

Whether it's a highway rest area or a public library restroom, why shouldn't the best interests of the public prevail?

Hateful? No.

When an evangelical Christian club at Tufts was threatened with extinction for denying leadership to an avowed homosexual, its director, Curtis Chang, stood alone in the eye of that storm.

``What bothers me most,'' he said at the time, ``is the silence of other religious groups and church leaders who privately tell us they agree with our stance but are afraid to say so publicly.''

Afraid of what, ``venomous attacks'' by those who laugh at common decency as well as common sense?

Does it feel any better to surrender?

Because that's exactly what we're doing as a society, not losing the cultural war, but forfeiting it day by day with decisions like this, ordering cops to look the other way.

This is enlightenment?

No. This is madness.

Source: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/fitz03052001.htm 

Please contact us if you would like to request information, or place a friend on our e-mail list.

Phone: 972-250-0734
Fax: 972-380-2853
e-mail: ryanbangert@texaseagle.org
web: www.texaseagle.org