May 15, 2001

Eagle Eye on Austin

HATE CRIMES BILL SIGNED INTO LAW BY GOVERNOR PERRY
With a whisk of his pen Friday, Governor Rick Perry signed into the law the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act increasing penalties for those who intentionally select victims based on prejudice or bias against race, color, disability, religion, national origin, age, gender, or sexual preference. Perry stated, "With my signature, Texas now has stronger penalties against crimes motivated by hate. This law sends a signal to would-be criminals that if you attack someone because of their religion, race, or gender, you face stiffer penalties." Although no one can argue with Governor Perry that hate need not be tolerated in the state of Texas, his statement ignores two very real aspects of the Hate Crimes Act that very few Texans would be able to stomach.

First, Governor Perry neglected to mention the fact that "sexual preference" made the list of protected categories. Homosexuals should not be targets of hate-motivated crimes, nor should their sexual behavior qualify them for favored status under the law. By affording them such status, however, the Hate Crimes Act gives homosexuals access to a plethora of rights reserved for politically defined "minorities." Among these special rights is a new mandate found in the Hate Crimes Act that requires the Attorney General to develop curriculum for public schools that explains the state's position on hate crimes. Since "sexual preference" is afforded a place in our new hate crimes law, it will be afforded a place in the AG's curriculum, and will exhort public school students to greater levels of acceptance and tolerance for the "homosexual lifestyle."

In addition to opening the door to all kinds of mischief in our public school system, the Hate Crimes Act will cause irreparably harm to civil society in general. By punishing criminal thoughts, the Hate Crimes Act slowly moves our government and culture down the path of soft totalitarianism. The ultimate end of hate crimes is not the elimination of hatred, but the sterilization of our sense of responsibility and self-government. Out of necessity we delegate to our public officials coercive power to police criminal behavior, but the task of bringing our thoughts, beliefs, and emotions into line lies solely with us. We the people must engage each other in and through our churches, synagogues, schools, civic associations, and at the kitchen table in order to produce a society free from hatred. By ceding this responsibility to the government, we surrender our right and duty to govern ourselves.

At the end of the day, Governor Perry may come to rue his decision to affix his name to the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act as its promise of love and tolerance gives way to the reality of politically correct intolerance and deepened social divides.

DEMOCRAT REDISTRICTING PLAN PASSES IN THE HOUSE, BUT REPUBLICANS DECLARE VICTORY
In an ironic political twist, House Republicans last week managed to lose the vote on their redistricting plan and still declare a smashing legislative victory. Although authored by Republican Delwin Jones (Lubbock), House Bill 150 has been referred to as the "Laney Plan" in acknowledgement of the fact that nearly every House Democrat supported it, while all but Laney's most loyal lieutenants on the GOP side opposed it. The House approved the plan on a close 76-71 vote on Monday, but not before nearly all of Laney's Republican supporters, and even a few disgruntled Democrats, fell off the merry bandwagon.

Many attributed the closeness of the vote to massive amounts of grassroots lobbying against the Laney Plan. Activists from across the state, organized by a group called the Hounds, mounted a massive telephone campaign to wavering Republican House members urging them to close ranks with their party mates. The effort paid off when, at the close of voting on HB150, only four Republicans had crossed party lines. These defections, in turn, where largely offset by three Democrats who cast protest votes against their own party's plan. This surprising show of party cohesion combined with Democratic disunity allowed Republicans to build a solid block of opposition to the Laney Plan, and will provide political cover for Rick Perry to veto the plan if it manages to escape the Senate and make it to his desk.

Republicans Voting For the Laney Plan:
Warren Chisum - Pampa
Delwin Jones - Lubbock
Tommy Merritt - Longview
Gary Walker - Plains

TEACHER HEALTH INSURANCE BILL HEADS TO CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
Dealing with the supposed teacher health insurance crisis was said by many lawmakers to be one of the most important tasks of the 77th Legislature. Although we know that they didn't really mean it (redistricting is THE issue), legislators from both chambers have managed to pass viable state sponsored health insurance packages. While the two plans are radically different in both method of funding and scope of coverage, they are conspicuously identical on one point: neither plan relies on money from the Permanent School Fund (PSF) to pay for itself.

Throughout the session, lawmakers from both chambers submitted bills calling for a teacher health insurance plan funded in part by the PSF. The PSF is a $21 billion trust fund controlled by the State Board of Education. Every year, it spins off hundreds of millions of dollars in interest that is used to purchase textbooks for public school students. Legislators hoped to pay for teacher health insurance by dipping into the capital gains monies generated by the PSF, a move that could have crippled the fund's ability to grow over time. Tying teacher health insurance to the PSF would also have produced the unfortunate result of making a large new state entitlement program dependent upon an unpredictable source of funding.

Thankfully for the teachers and students of Texas, the PSF is safe for the time being. Since neither the House plan nor the Senate plan calls for PSF monies to be applied to teacher health insurance, the conference committee is highly unlikely to patch such a provision onto the compromise plan.

PASSING OF HOUSE DEADLINES CONSIGNS MANY BILLS TO LEGISLATIVE DUSTBIN
Due to what is commonly referred to as the "choke-down" rules of the State Legislature, a number of bills have been defeated without a single vote being cast. Among the bills that have been sent to untimely (or timely, in many cases) deaths are a number of bills that Texas Eagle Forum has tracked throughout the course of the legislative session. The following is a quick sampling of some of the more prominent casualties of legislative deadlines.

HB1296 by Ehrhardt - TEF Position: OPPOSE

This bill could easily be dubbed "hate crimes for kiddies." It called for a prohibition on all discrimination in public schools on account of a student's ethnicity, color, gender, gender identity, sexual preference, disability, religion, or national origin. Sexual preference was defined as a preference for heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. This bill is absurd for more reasons than one can count. For starters, what exactly constitutes discrimination against a homosexual student? School officials do not typically suspend students because of homosexuality, and would never think of condoning physical or verbal attacks on such students. One can only conclude that this bill was meant to place a ban on derogatory comments made against homosexuals in school. If this is the case, why not a ban on poking fun at fat kids, and kids with braces, or kids whose socks don't match? (Note: this bill is superfluous now thanks to the passage of the Hate Crimes Act)

HB 75 by Garcia - TEF Position: OPPOSE

This bill would have established report cards for parents, grading them on such things as the number of times they made contact with their child's teacher and their response to oral and written communications from their child's school. Although masquerading as a "parent accountability and involvement" bill, HB 75 would have given school districts the ability to further regulate the parent-child relationship by placing sanctions on those parents who score poorly on their "report cards." Such meddling is unneeded and dangerous.

HB 513 by Keel - TEF Position: OPPOSE

HB 513 would have legalized the use of marijuana for certain medicinal purposes. Potheads across the state rejoiced when it received press attention and a committee hearing, but were left despondent when it stalled in committee.

HJR 46 by Alexander - TEF Position: OPPOSE

HJR 46 would have raised the state gasoline tax, giving º of the total revenue raised to go toward funding teacher health insurance.

HJR 66 by Isett - TEF Position: SUPPORT

This constitutional amendment would have limited the rate of growth of state government to the rate of growth of total personal income in the state of Texas. Such a limitation would place a constitutional roadblock in the path of spend-happy lawmakers, and would allow the people of Texas and opportunity to keep a stable percentage of their earnings. Look for this bill to make a comeback next session.

HB 687 by Danburg - TEF Position: OPPOSE

A very harmful bill, HB 687 would have repealed Texas' sodomy law. Proponents of the bill argued that the sodomy law was outdated and an invasion of privacy, but failed to mention the fact that it provides a legal basis for keeping homosexual teachings out of the classroom and gives Texas some protection against same-sex marriage.

HB 3252 by Dutton -TEF Position: OPPOSE

This bill would have changed the selection process for State Board of Education members from popular election to appointment. TEF has always supported the right of citizens to elect their leaders, especially for positions that affect education.

SJR 19 by Ellis - TEF Position: OPPOSE

This constitutional amendment would have provided a means for lawmakers to harvest funds from the PSF by (a) changing the investment strategy for the PSF from that of interest-based to one of total return, and (b) using the capital gains money from the fund to pay for teacher health insurance. This proposal would have limited the PSF's future growth potential, taking textbook funds away from public school children.

Brief Notes From Near and Far

ASHCROFT TAKES CRITICISM FOR HOLDING MORNING BIBLE STUDIES
Attorney General John Ashcroft is a deeply religious man, and as a result has held voluntary morning devotionals for his staff throughout his time in public service. Unfortunately, his prominent position has opened him up to vicious attacks from those who feel that his morning devotionals violate the "separation of church and state." One Justice Department attorney who does not attend the devotionals noted, "The purpose of the Department of Justice is to do the business of the government, not to establish a religion…It strikes me and a lot of others as offensive, disrespectful and unconstitutional. . . . It at least blurs the line, and it probably crosses it." "It's alienating," another lawyer said. "He's using public spaces to have a personally meaningful event to which I would not be welcome, nor would I feel welcome." "Ashcroft has a right to pray in office, but he does not have a right to implicitly or explicitly force others into praying with him," stated Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Washington office. "Ashcroft's the chief defender of the nation's civil liberties. He can't pretend to be just another citizen leading prayers."

These vitriolic attacks should come as no surprise to those who understand the power of prayer in public places. By holding voluntary devotional meetings for his staff, John Ashcroft is violating no constitutional principle or precept, and is not engaged in instigating a 21st Century reprisal of the Inquisition of the Salem Witch Trials. He is, however, doing what our nation's leaders have done for centuries. Namely, he is seeking God's help and His divine blessing over one of our nation's most important governing institutions. Judging by all of the fuss, his efforts are making a difference.

Commentary - Motherhood Worthy of Honor, Respect -- But Still Under Attack

By Rusty Pugh and Jim Brown
May 11, 2001

Despite efforts by some to have it abolished, Americans this weekend will continue a time-honored tradition of recognizing motherhood. Red and white carnations will abound, and the telephone companies will experience one of their busiest days of the year as millions of Americans pay tribute to their moms.

Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America says the idea of Mother's Day was initiated by Anna Jarvis in the late nineteenth century as a way to recognize the influence of mothers, increase respect for parents, and strengthen family bonds. The first Mother's Day observance finally took place in 1907. Wright says Mother's Day is special because it is something everyone has in common.

"So this was done to try and honor mothers [and] the work that mothers do, and to help it reestablish bonds that Americans all hold ... in common -- and that is that we respect motherhood."

Recently, Mother's Day has come under attack from fringe elements who see it as a threat to their unorthodox lifestyle [unorthodox = homosexual/transsexual/bisexual/etc/]. Wright cited the recent decision by a New York school to ban Mother's Day as an example, calling it an attack on the respect and honor Americans have for mothers as well as an attack on the concept of family.

America: A Daycare Nation?
Meanwhile, a former feminist scholar says America is a "daycare nation" that only pretends to honor moms. According to Forbes columnist and former university economics professor Dr. Jennifer Morse, motherhood is not respected in the United States. She says too many American homes have become what she calls "laissez-faire families," whose members pursue their own individual self-fulfillment. Committed mothers, she says, provide much more than a child will ever receive from the best daycare.

"What mothers do for their children is to build the basic bonds and the basic connections with the child," Morse says, "and the mother is quite literally the child's first connection with the rest of the human race."

Morse say it is sad that we set aside one day a year intended to honor mothers when, in fact, American culture has accepted the idea that low-wage workers provide an adequate substitute for moms.

"You could say that a high-quality daycare provider could provide attachment and bonding to the baby," she says, "but I don't think most mothers would really want the daycare provider to be the primary attachment figure because this is who the child looks to for direction, for guidance, and also ... who really matters the most to the child," she says.

The former feminist says after she adopted a badly neglected Romanian orphan, she realized just how much kids need their moms. "The key thing that children need in their development is a solid set of relationships," she says.

Morse also believes children of lasting marriages do much better than children of single-parent or divorced families.

"Children of lasting marriages do better in economic terms [and] they do better in educational terms -- they do better in school, they stay in school longer, they're more likely to go to college, they have better earning prospects," she says. "The life chances of a child are largely determined by whether their parents are married ... and by whether their parents remain married."

Morse is author of the book Love & Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn't Work

Source: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/112001c.asp

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