Show Us What Democracy Looks Like

This is what democracy looks like!

I’ve spent more time in the Texas Capitol in the last month than in the entire 19 years before that, and though there were times when I was tired or sick or hungry or on the verge of tears or actually crying, I never once regretted my choice to spend that time in the Capitol.

Thousands of us fought for our rights together; some of us sitting, some of us standing, but all of us together. There is no law, no piece of legislation, and no GOP campaign slogan that can wipe those memories from my mind. There is no law that can silence the women of Texas, and we will not go back.

Watching an ophthalmologist claim to be qualified to make decisions about reproductive healthcare; watching a couple in blue giggle every time a Democratic Senator explained the prevalence of child rape in America; watching women in blue claim that we were plotting to violently attack those on the other side of the aisle; watching women in blue hide their newborns from women in orange; watching Sen. Hegar table every amendment without debate and claim that he hadn’t heard testimony from rape survivors at the committee meeting; watching DPS confiscate tampons and pads from women entering the gallery; watching DPS take water and hard candy away from diabetics trying to control their blood sugar levels; watching Lt. Gov. Dewhurst adjourn for a two minute break to circumvent Senate rules, and watching 19 Republicans and 1 Democrat vote to deprive millions of Texan women of a Constitutional right and access to affordable healthcare: I would imagine it stretches the limits of anyone I know. It certainly stretched mine beyond belief.

At the same time that these things were happening, I was watching something else, too. I was watching a pro-life Senator stand up defiantly in opposition of HB2 because it wasn’t a bill designed for the health and safety of women and children; watching a woman in blue hold hands with a women in orange during incredibly emotional testimony; watching women who fought for Roe v. Wade 40 years ago fight for our right to control our own bodies all over again; watching feminists and activists from across the country send messages of support, food, and coffee as needed; watching those in the gallery tell us that they could hear us chanting and that we were keeping them strong; watching Texans refuse to allow HB2 to pass without forcing the GOP to look at us, to hear us; watching mothers and children and grandchildren put themselves at the front and center of a debate about our bodies. I was watching Texas women and the men who truly respect them fight to have their voices heard.

Whose choice?
OUR CHOICE!

Let this summer spark a lifetime.

HB2* y Mujeres de Color

Escrito por Alexis Kostun y traducido por Nancy Cardenas 

Los medios de comunicación nacional perdieron su oportunidad de cubrir el debate SB5 y el filibustero en tiempo real. A pesar de haber sido contactados por cientos de activistas a favor del aborto, las cámaras no empezaron a rodar hasta después de la noche del martes. Ahora que la batalla contra las leyes restrictivas sobre el aborto en Texas está recibiendo la atención nacional, Senadora Wendy Davis está en el centro de casi todos los informes. Aunque la senador Davis tomó una posición increíble para las mujeres de Texas, su historia no es la única historia.

En la Cámara, la batalla para retrasar una votación sobre SB5 fue controlado casi en su totalidad por las mujeres de color. Representantes Dukes, Farrar, González, Allen, González y Thompson fueron los responsables de ofrecer enmienda después de enmienda a SB5 – todas rechazadas sin debate. El patrocinador del proyecto de ley en la Cámara de Representantes, Jodie Laubenberg, no sólo se negó a responder preguntas sobre el proyecto de ley, pero se negó a tomar el micrófono para entrar en su Moción para cada enmienda. Como resultado, los legisladores demócratas se quedaron debatiendo ellos mismos sobre el fondo de las enmiendas propuestas.

Representante Mary  González, quien introdujo enmiendas que proponían retrasar la aplicación de la ley de Texas hasta que se reduje el embarazo adolescente de repetición de 15%, dijo que “he visto las facturas donde no se permiten enmiendas porque no sería aprobada por el Senado de nuevo, pero nunca he visto a alguien que se niega a responder a las preguntas. Fue muy decepcionante que el representante Laubenberg nos obligó a nosotros debatir sobre un tema tan importante”.

El SB5 debate en la Cámara se prolongó hasta casi las 4 am del lunes por la mañana, muy reñida por los representantes demócratas mujeres que intentaron a la fuerza hacer Rep. Laubenberg y sus colegas a participar en un debate real, basada en hechos reales sobre el proyecto de ley. El debate en la Cámara continuó en la madrugada del lunes, dejando el Senado sin opción que aceptar el proyecto de ley hasta el martes debido a un período de 24 horas requerido de espera. No es un logro pequeño, este retraso de 24 horas significa que sólo 13 horas de tiempo legislativo quedaron en el período especiales de sesiones – una cantidad de tiempo que el senador Davis factiblemente pudo prolongar con un filibustero.

A pesar de los esfuerzos de los representantes demócratas en la Cámara para ayudar el senador Davis, hubo poca conversación sobre el papel que jugaron las mujeres de color en la batalla contra SB5. La mayoría de la cobertura mediática de la SB5 batalla se centró en un solo relato: el de filibustero senador Davis “y el hashtag # StandWithWendy tendencias a nivel mundial.

“Creo que no se trata de si o no fuimos entrevistadas. Representante Dukes, Representante Farrar y yo sin duda fuimos parte de la conversación. El problema con los medios de comunicación nacionales es su incapacidad para ir más allá de una sola identidad. Recogen las legisladoras para centrarse en, legisladores demócratas, y nunca entretienen la idea de que somos mujeres de color “, dijo González.

El comentario de González que “los medios no se aplica una lente intersectorial” para cuestiones no sólo se refleja en la falta de discusión sobre las mujeres de color que son cruciales para prevenir el paso de SB5 – es paralelo en la forma en que los medios de comunicación nacionales hablan del impacto potencial de la SB5 y otras restricciones al aborto.

Un requisito de SB5 es que las clínicas de aborto cumplen los mismos estándares como Centros de Cirugía Ambulatoria (ASC) obligaría a 37 de 42 proveedores de abortos en Texas que cierren, dejando sólo cinco clínicas abiertas para cubrir 268.581 millas cuadradas. Estas clínicas ofrecen no sólo servicios de aborto, pero el control de natalidad, pruebas de detección de ETS, exámenes de cáncer, pruebas de VIH, pruebas de embarazo, la pastilla del día después, y otros servicios de salud. Para las mujeres en las principales áreas metropolitanas como Austin, San Antonio, Dallas y Houston, esta disposición de la ley no podría ser desastrosa. Sin duda, sería más difícil programar un aborto antes de la marca de 20 semanas con cientos de mujeres de los pueblos más pequeños que acuden a las mismas clínicas, pero no sería una clínica dentro de una unidad de tres horas. Para las mujeres que viven en las ciudades fronterizas, las zonas rurales y ciudades como El Paso, no habrá clínicas en el área inmediata, obligando a las mujeres a elegir entre un viaje de varios días costosos a San Antonio o un viaje a la frontera de forma considerable arriesgado aborto en México.

El aborto en México es un asunto peligroso: legal y accesible sólo durante las primeras 12 semanas de embarazo en la Ciudad de México y el aborto ha sido prohibida en 18 estados mexicanos. Los estudios indican que sigue el castigo para un aborto en México depende del estado en el que una mujer se somete al procedimiento. En los pasados cinco años, 127 mujeres han sido arrestadas por el aborto. El aborto es ilegal en muchos estados del país, las mujeres suelen acudir a las farmacias que no hacen preguntas antes de recetar misoprostol, los mercados de pulgas, donde las pastillas son a veces disponibles, o a clínicas de aborto no regulados.

Las mujeres de color y las mujeres que viven en las zonas rurales se verían afectados por SB5 y leyes similares mucho más que cualquier otro grupo demográfico. La legislación que trata de ofrecer cuidados de salud asequibles a las mujeres de las zonas rurales o las mujeres con ingresos bajos no sólo es impopular en la legislatura de Texas – es imposible salir de la comisión. La legislación que se ocupa de embarazo en la adolescencia y su objetivo en reducir los embarazos no deseados es “completamente fuera de la mesa para el Partido Republicano”, dijo González.

Pero en un mundo (este) en Texas, es actualmente el cuarto más alto de la nación en términos de embarazos en los adolescentes. La falta de voluntad de los republicanos para mirar la interseccionalidad entre raza, la pobreza, y la educación contribuye directamente al problema. En 2010, el 78% de las adolescentes embarazadas en Texas eran mujeres de color. Ofreciendo opciones de salud preventivas para reducir los embarazos no deseados, tanto en adolescentes y adultos, puede parecer de sentido común – pero no es simplemente una opción en la legislatura de Texas, dominada por los republicanos.

Nancy Cárdenas, activista de los derechos de las mujeres del Valle, hizo el viaje a Austin para contribuir a las audiencias y debates de SB5. “Es difícil escuchar los hombres republicanos imponer su agenda religiosa ostensible en proposiciones como SB5. Están bajo la impresión de que las mujeres que deciden tener abortos estén confundidas. Abortos todavía van a suceder. Las mujeres no necesitan ser guiados por los republicanos a través de una de las decisiones más difíciles de su vida. Deben de tener confianza en las mujeres “, dijo Cárdenas.

González comentó que “presentó dos proyectos de ley en sesión ordinaria para resolver esto, y ni siquiera pude obtener una audiencia del comité. Para ellos, está tan lejos de la realidad. 20% de mi distrito no graduaron de la secundaria, y mucho de eso se debe a los embarazos de adolescentes. Esas cosas están correlacionados – No puedo ignorarlo. Afecta no sólo el porcentaje de embarazo en la adolescencia, pero el acceso educativo, acceso a la salud y la estabilidad económica. ”

La actitud de los republicanos exacerba los problemas estructurales ya existentes que hacen que sea más difícil para las mujeres de color acceder a abortos seguros. Durante el filibustero de SB5, casi ningún medio de comunicación que habla en española cubrió los eventos de la semana. Univisión transmitió un informe sobre SB5, pero estaba lejos de la cobertura imparcial o equilibrada. Univisión aviso a las mujeres del Valle de llamaran las diócesis local para obtener más información sobre SB5. “La ausencia de medios de comunicación de lengua en español durante todo el proceso de los debates SB5 es alarmante, y la falta de atención de los medios sobre la mujer en la casa de representantes es aún más sorprendente”, dijo Cárdenas. “Los medios de comunicación siempre han encontrado una forma de excluir a las mujeres de minorías de los focos en cual tienen todo el derecho de estar. Aunque en Austin sabemos de estas mujeres bien, sus acciones son lanzados a un lado por los medios de comunicación”.

Había miles de activistas a favor del aborto presentes en las audiencias del comité y debates, pero pocas mujeres de color hablaron durante las oportunidades de testimonio público. Cárdenas señaló que “la ausencia de mujeres del Valle y El Paso durante las protestas es de ninguna manera o forma un ejemplo de desinterés. Sólo demuestra que las mujeres de las zonas rurales no pueden acceder a las únicas ciudades que se quedarán con los centros que proporcionan importantes exámenes de salud y abortos seguros. Si las mujeres del Valle y El Paso no podían hacerlo por los debates sobre la pieza más restrictiva de la legislación anti-aborto que se ha propuesto en la Legislatura de Texas, no van a poder pagar el viaje a Dallas, San Antonio, Houston o para un aborto seguro y legal”.

Hay una cosa que todos los activistas a favor del aborto y los legisladores estén de acuerdo. Limitar el acceso al aborto no deja que suceda, pero lo hará más peligroso. “Yo tal vez puedo entender a la gente que son” pro-vida “, pero lo que es más frustrante es que no hay ni una posibilidad de compromiso de las mujeres rurales, las mujeres en la frontera, o de la violación y sobrevivientes de incesto,” dijo González. “Si usted ha sido violada, usted debería ser capaz de decidir el resultado de esa situación. Se trata de un derecho constitucional, y el Partido Republicano no participará en una conversación seria sobre la manera de abordar problemas como los embarazos de adolescentes”.

* Las entrevistas realizadas para este artículo son de las discusiones de SB5, pero no hay ninguna diferencia sustantiva entre las normas contenidas en SB5 y HB2.

The Impact of HB2* on Women of Color

The national media missed its chance to cover the SB5 debate and filibuster in real time. Despite being contacted by hundreds of pro-choice activists, the cameras didn’t start rolling until after Tuesday night. Now that the battle against restrictive abortion laws in Texas is receiving national attention, Senator Wendy Davis is at the core of almost every report. Though Sen. Davis took an incredible stand for the women of Texas, her story is not the only story. 

In the House, the battle to delay a vote on SB5 was controlled almost entirely by women of color. Representatives Dukes, Farrar, Gonzalez, Allen, González, and Thompson were responsible for offering amendment after amendment to SB5 – all rejected without debate. The bill’s sponsor in the House, Rep. Jodie Laubenberg, not only refused to answer questions on the floor about the bill, but refused to take the mike to enter her Motion to Table each amendment. As a result, Democratic legislators were left debating themselves on the merits of proposed amendments.

Representative Mary González, who introduced amendments that proposed delaying implementation of the bill until Texas reduced its repeat teen pregnancy rate to 15%, said “I have seen bills where they didn’t allow amendments because it wouldn’t pass the Senate again, but I’ve never seen someone refuse to answer questions. It was very disappointing that Rep. Laubenberg forced us to debate ourselves on such an important issue.”

The SB5 debate in the House stretched on until almost 4 a.m. on Monday morning, hard fought by female Democratic Representatives attempting to force Rep. Laubenberg and her colleagues to engage in real, fact-based debate on the bill. The House debate continued into early Monday morning, leaving the Senate unable to take up the bill until Tuesday due to a required 24 hour waiting period. No small accomplishment, this 24 hour delay meant that only 13 hours of legislative time remained in the special session – an amount of time that Sen. Davis could feasibly filibuster.

Though the efforts of Democratic Representatives in the House were crucial to Sen. Davis’ filibuster, there was little conversation about the role that women of color played in the battle against SB5. Most media coverage of the SB5 battle focused on a single narrative: that of Sen. Davis’ filibuster and the globally trending hashtag #StandWithWendy.

“I don’t think it’s about whether or not we were interviewed. Representative Dukes, Representative Farrar and I were definitely talked about. The problem with national media is its inability to move beyond a single identity. They pick women legislators to focus on; Democratic legislators; they never entertain the idea that we’re women of color,” said González.

González’s comment that “the media doesn’t apply an intersectional lens” to issues isn’t just reflected in the lack of discussion about the women of color who were crucial to preventing SB5 passage – it’s paralleled in the way that national media outlets talk about the potential impact of SB5 and other restrictions on abortion.

The SB5 requirement that abortion clinics meet the same standards as Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs) would force 37 of Texas’ 42 abortion providers to close, leaving only five clinics open to cover 268,581 square miles. These clinics provide not only abortion services, but birth control, STD screenings, cancer screenings, HIV testing, pregnancy testing, the morning after pill, and other healthcare services. For women in major metropolitan areas like Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston, this provision of the bill might not prove disastrous. Certainly, it would be more difficult to schedule an abortion before the 20 week mark with hundreds of women from smaller towns flocking to the same clinics, but there would be a clinic within a three hour drive. For women who live in border towns, rural areas, and cities like El Paso, there would be no clinics in the immediate area, forcing women to choose between a costly multi-day trip to San Antonio or a trip over the border for a considerably riskier abortion in Mexico.

Abortion in Mexico is a dangerous proposition: legal and accessible only during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy in Mexico City, abortion has been outlawed in 18 Mexican states. Studies indicate that although punishment for an abortion in Mexico depends on the state in which a woman undergoes the procedure, 127 women have been prosecuted for receiving an abortion over the last five years. Because abortion is illegal in so many Mexican states, women often turn to pharmacies that don’t ask questions before prescribing Misoprostol, to flea markets, where the pills are sometimes available, or to unregulated abortion clinics.

Women of color and women living in rural areas would be affected by SB5 and bills like it far more harshly than any other demographic. Legislation that attempts to offer affordable healthcare to women in rural areas or women with low income is not only unpopular in the Texas legislature – it’s impossible to get out of committee. Legislation that addresses teen pregnancy and aims to reduce unwanted pregnancies is “completely off the table for the GOP,” González said.

But in a world (this one) where Texas is currently ranked 4th highest in the nation in terms of teen pregnancies, the GOP’s unwillingness to look at the intersectionality between race, poverty, and education contributes directly to the problem. In 2010, 78% of pregnant teens in Texas were women of color. Offering preventative healthcare options to reduce unwanted pregnancies in both teens and adults might seem like common sense – but it’s simply not an option in the GOP-dominated Texas legislature.

Nancy Cardenas, a women’s rights activist from the Valley, made the trip to Austin for the SB5 hearings and debates. “It’s hard to hear male Republicans impose their blatant religious agenda on bills like SB5. They are under the impression that women who choose to have abortions are confused. Abortions will still happen. Women do not need to be guided by Republicans through one of the most difficult decisions of their lives. Trust women,” said Cardenas.

González commented that she “introduced two pieces of legislation in regular session to solve this, and it wouldn’t even get a committee hearing. To them, it’s so far removed from their reality. 20% of my district didn’t graduate high school, and a lot of that is because of repeat teen pregnancies. Those things are correlated – I can’t just ignore it. It impacts not only teen pregnancy rates but educational access, healthcare access, and economic stability. ”

The attitude of the GOP exacerbates the already existing structural problems that make it more difficult for women of color to access safe abortions. During the SB5 filibuster, almost no Spanish-speaking media covered the week’s events. Univision broadcast one report on SB5, but it was far from impartial or balanced coverage, urging women in the Valley to call the local Dioceses for more information about SB5. “The absence of Spanish speaking media throughout the process of the SB5 debates is alarming, and the absence of media attention on women in the House is even more striking,” said Cardenas. “The media has always found a way to exclude minority women from the spotlight they are entitled to. Although in Austin we know these women well, their actions are tossed aside by the media.”

There were thousands of pro-choice activists present for committee hearings and floor debates, but few women of color spoke during the opportunities for public testimony. Cardenas pointed out that “the absence of women from the Valley and El Paso during the protests is in no way shape or form an example of disinterest. It only proves that women from rural areas cannot access the only cities that will be left with centers that provide important health exams and safe abortions. If women from the Valley and El Paso could not make it for debates about the most restrictive piece of anti-abortion legislation that has been proposed in the Texas Legislature, they will not be able to afford the trip to Dallas, San Antonio, or Houston for a safe and legal abortion.”

There’s one thing that all pro-choice activists and legislators can agree on. Limiting access to abortion won’t stop it from happening, but it will make it more dangerous. “I can maybe understand people who are ‘pro-life’ but what’s more frustrating is that there’s not even a possibility of compromise for rural women, women on the border, or rape and incest survivors,” said González. “If you’ve been raped, you should be able to decide the outcome of that situation. This is a Constitutional right, and the GOP won’t engage in a serious conversation about how to address problems like teen pregnancies.”

*Interviews done for this piece were about SB5, but there is no substantive difference between the regulations contained in SB5 and HB2.

House Committee Hearing on HB2 & Diverse Needs of Texan Women

There has been some truly incredible testimony tonight at the Senate committee hearing, and there are many quotes that I would like to honor and remember as the days of the second special tick by, but that testimony — though moving and brilliantly compelling — isn’t what I wanted to share with y’all. A “pro-life” young woman stood up tonight and remarked that she didn’t need “reproductive justice or free birth control,” and the privilege in her statement was absolutely stunning. I don’t mean to attack this one young woman; her sentiment is shared by many. But there are some fundamental problems that were evident in her testimony that reflect a larger lack of understanding on the part of “pro life” activists who seek to curtail our access to affordable abortion care.

It was obvious from her testimony that though she talked about “crisis pregnancies,” she had no understanding of what it really means to be pregnant with nowhere to turn. Nor did this young women understand that just because she “doesn’t need free birth control,” that doesn’t mean that there aren’t women who do desperately need free or low-cost birth control. I work two jobs during the summer and one during the year, paying for a private school in Washington state, rent, utilities, and all other bills. I’m lucky enough to have supportive parents who help me when I can’t quite cover everything — but I certainly can’t afford the $100 per month sticker price of my birth control prescription. Keep in mind that I’m a white, middle class, young woman — and without clinics like Planned Parenthood, birth control would be unaffordable for me.

Now think about all of the factors that complicate access to birth control — both in terms of financial resources and community support — and it’s not hard to understand why so many women are fiercely defending their right to affordable and accessible health care; their right to make their own healthcare decisions. Women of color in Texas often grow up in conservative communities, where abortion and birth control are taboo subjects for young women. On top of that, there are far fewer free or low-cost clinics in rural and border areas than there are in major metropolitan areas like Houston, Dallas, and Austin. It’s curious to me — and I know I’m not the only one — that women of color are already operating with far fewer choices than their white counterparts in big cities. Certainly there are women of color in these big cities as well — but the number of women of color disproportionately affected by bills like HB2 is astronomical. When posed as a question to GOP committee members, the disproportionate effect of HB2 on young women of color has been dismissed time and time again by pointing out that “it’s possible that some clinics will stay open.” If those speaking in favor of HB2 were truly pro-choice, they would understand that sometimes a woman’s life depends on her ability to access affordable birth control. Sometimes a woman’s life depends on her ability to access affordable abortion services. For many women in abusive relationships, the windows of opportunity to seek abortion services are few and far between — often forcing women past the 20 week mark. I challenge Rep. Laubenberg or any of her anti-choice colleagues to look a young woman in the eyes and tell her that she can’t have an abortion because the only day she could get to the clinic without notice from her abusive partner was past the 20 week mark.

Once you factor those things into your determination about whether or not sexual healthcare is easily accessible for all women in Texas, factor in other circumstances that can prevent a woman of any race from being able to access abortion or preventative health care: rape, incest, a significantly lower income than the national average, less information about safe birth control choices, abusive partners, and physical or mental disabilities. Women seeking birth control or an abortion likely often already have young children — remember that most women who get abortions are already mothers, many of whom have decided that they don’t have the ability or desire to care for an additional child. Should HB2 pass, you would be asking mothers to place their own welfare, and that of their children, below the welfare of a cluster of cells that might, one day, become a person. Should HB2 pass, you’re asking those same mothers to forgo affordable birth control or cancer screenings  because the clinics that once provided those services also provided abortions.

Just because that young woman and her “friends in blue” can afford to pay sticker price for birth control, HPV screenings and vaccines, STD testing, pregnancy tests, condoms, and other preventative healthcare doesn’t mean that all — or even most — women in Texas can afford those services. That Texas is ranked the 4th highest in the US for teen pregnancies should tell you something: abstinence-only education and inaccessible birth control just isn’t working. We should be wary when the bills we pass become law without any consideration for the diverse needs of the women of Texas.

Texas Politics: Getting Ready for the Second Special

Did y’all think this was all going to die down after the first special?

Think again.

Lt. Gov. Dewhurst has now made the following threats:

• He will arrest any members of the media he believes were “inciting the mob” or “inciting the riot” (shockingly, when everyone backlashed, he withdrew this threat and decided that the TX Press Corp hadn’t incited a riot)
• He will close the gallery and/or completely clear it
• He will arrest House Dems who were on the Senate floor Tuesday night

Now that @DavidHDewhurst has said he won’t arrest media, the rumor is he’ll have House D’s who were on the Senate floor jailed #txlege

— Scott Braddock (@scottbraddock) June 29, 2013

No, not Dem Senators. @Jordan_Stewart. I’m hearing from House members who were on the Senate floor Tuesday night. #txlege

— Scott Braddock (@scottbraddock) June 29, 2013

while at the same time:

• Claiming that he used/ will use “time honored Senate rules” to pass anti-abortion legislation
• Encouraging anti-abortion advocates to show up to the gallery & committee rooms.

If Lt. Gov Dewhurst is going to shut down the gallery, why do anti-abortioners (“pro lifers”) need to show up in full force? My guess is that he’ll allow the gallery to be filled and then claim that we’re violating the rules of decorum, having troopers escort all in orange out of the gallery, and allow those in blue to stay — claiming that they’re following the rules of decorum.

Lt. Gov. Dewhurst would never be able to arrest his direct opponents in the Senate, so his second best option is (apparently) to start arresting House Dems for what he will probably claim is an illegal presence on the Senate floor during Senate proceedings.

If y’all want to keep up with this on Twitter, SB5 has become SB9 and HB2, meaning you should check out the following tags:

• #SB9
• #HB2
• #KBV2
• #standwithwendy
• #txlege

and follow:

• Jessica Luther (@scaTX) <– Seriously, Jessica for everything. Her blog is here.
• Virginia Pickel (@tootwistedtv)
• Dan Solomon (@dansolomon)
• Scott Braddock (@scottbraddock)
• Nancy Cardenas (@nancycardenas91) <– #txlege updates in Spanish// informacion sobre #txlege en Español!
• Me! (@alexisjkostun)
• Andrea Grimes (@andreagrimes)
• Lilith Fund (@lilithfund)
• Planned Parenthood (@PPact)
• Planned Parenthood Greater Texas (@PPGreaterTexas)
• NARAL Pro Choice TX (@naraltx)

There is a lot of activity as we get ready for the second special but the most important thing to remember is that we’re not going anywhere and that means pacing ourselves through the next 30 days. Jessica Luther has posted a comprehensive schedule of what’s planned so far here.  Virginia and I are working on a list of all members of the House & Senate with their FB pages and Twitter handles so that it’s easy for you to contact your reps and let them know you don’t support these bills.

If you’re available, I’m re-posting the following call to action from Texas Dems:

Texas Democratic Party needs people to phonebank Democrats with a high pro-choice rating. We are trying to get as many people out to the Stand Up Monday – Rally at Texas Capitol at 12pm. If you are able to phonebank either at the TDP headquarters or from home, please contact our Vice-President, Pedro Villalobos (pedro.villalobos09@gmail.com).

Texas Politics: Women of Color & SB5

This is an incredibly written piece over at La Burquena that voices many of the concerns I had watching media coverage of SB5. Rep. Farrar, along with other women of color in the House, was largely responsible for stringing the debate out so long . And in the Senate, I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t consider Senator Van de Putte a personal hero after watching her return from her father’s funeral to help put an end to SB5 — and then asking the magic question that ignited the Capitol. Please read this wonderful article!

That said, I’d like to recognize the women of color Representatives and Senators who were key in helping to block SB5. Wendy’s filibuster success (if only temporary given the 2nd special session) could not have happened without the bill first being stalled in the House, which was delayed primarily by women of color, including Representatives Jessica Farrar, Senfronia Thompson, Dawnna Dukes,Mary Gonzales and Alma Allen. Further, Senators Judith Zaffirini and Leticia Van De Putte were essential in relieving Senator Wendy Davis of speaking for periods of time as their wisdom allowed them to delay the vote with parliamentary inquiries and points of information. Although I am not sure of the exact amount of time the delays took up, my guess is a couple of hours, which is a couple of hours in which the bill may have passed had it not been for their efforts.

So why not start a #IStandWithVanDePutte or #IStandWithZaffirini hashtag?  Weren’t their GANAS just as powerful that night as Wendy’s? They called out sexism on the Texas Senate floor, one of the most conservative states in the nation. In an effort to show my respect for them, I believe their actions at least deserve a space in this blog.

Texas Politics: Women of Color & SB5

This is an incredibly written piece over at La Burquena that voices many of the concerns I had watching media coverage of SB5. Rep. Farrar, along with other women of color in the House, was largely responsible for stringing the debate out so long . And in the Senate, I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t consider Senator Van de Putte a personal hero after watching her return from her father’s funeral to help put an end to SB5 — and then asking the magic question that ignited the Capitol. Please read this wonderful article!

That said, I’d like to recognize the women of color Representatives and Senators who were key in helping to block SB5. Wendy’s filibuster success (if only temporary given the 2nd special session) could not have happened without the bill first being stalled in the House, which was delayed primarily by women of color, including Representatives Jessica Farrar, Senfronia Thompson, Dawnna Dukes,Mary Gonzales and Alma Allen. Further, Senators Judith Zaffirini and Leticia Van De Putte were essential in relieving Senator Wendy Davis of speaking for periods of time as their wisdom allowed them to delay the vote with parliamentary inquiries and points of information. Although I am not sure of the exact amount of time the delays took up, my guess is a couple of hours, which is a couple of hours in which the bill may have passed had it not been for their efforts.

So why not start a #IStandWithVanDePutte or #IStandWithZaffirini hashtag?  Weren’t their GANAS just as powerful that night as Wendy’s? They called out sexism on the Texas Senate floor, one of the most conservative states in the nation. In an effort to show my respect for them, I believe their actions at least deserve a space in this blog.

Texas Politics: Special Session Logistics

History of Special Sessions

Historically, special sessions are only called in order to address emergency issues that hadn’t arisen during a regular session. If, for example, a natural disaster, hit Texas and legislators needed to allocate funds for local disaster relief efforts, a special session might be called. Unlike in other states, only the governor can call a special session. Gov. Perry’s insistence on calling repeated special sessions to address anti-abortion legislation clearly doesn’t reflect an emergent issue in Texas. Instead, it’s a way to circumvent the 2/3 vote rule* in a regular session of either the House or Senate. Normally, a bill has to receive votes from 2/3 of the body in order to pass. In a special session, legislators have the ability to suspend the rules, meaning that only a simple majority has to vote for the bill in order for it to pass. Legislators testified on the House and Senate floor this week that they had never seen such blatant disregard for House and Senate tradition — something that might seem insignificant to an observer, but really changes the entire game. Technically, there is no rule in either the House or Senate rules that mandates that a special session be called for emergency purposes only, but it has been the “Senate tradition” or “House tradition” that these sessions are called only in response to emergent situations, or to reconcile a bill that absolutely must pass before the start of the next regular session. For example, budgets are often hotly debated and sometimes no resolution is reached by the end of a regular session. In that case, there is a valid justification for calling a special session — the state can’t function without that piece of legislation. 

Ignoring the purpose of special sessions isn’t the only problem with Gov. Perry calling another special, however. I know that many have been wondering about the cost of special sessions as we head into 2013’s second special. Members of the Texas legislature get paid $150 per day for food and other living expenses. With 181 members of the House & Senate, that number adds up pretty quickly — $27,150 per day, or $814,500 total. Now I’m the first to admit that math isn’t my specialty, but when you add the cost of the second special session that is rapidly approaching, Perry’s claims that he wants to save protect the Texas economy and cut down on unnecessary spending (the GOP response when anyone proposes an SB5 amendment that would offer preventative women’s healthcare services that are so desperately needed) don’t seem to hold up.

Moving Forward

Luckily, the GOP can’t pick up where they left off on Tuesday night — they have to start the whole process over again. The legislature can only debate or pass bills that are specifically placed on the call by Gov. Perry. Historically, interpretations of the rules have allowed legislators to debate topics that may be considered tangentially related to the issue that the governor has chosen to place on the call. Because Gov. Perry placed abortion on the call for the second special session, any abortion-related bill can be taken up by the Texas state legislature. Two bills have already been filed — one, SB9, by Senator Patrick, and another, HB2, filed by Representative Laubenberg. It seems that Rep. Laubenberg is unafraid of the criticism she’ll face from her colleagues in the house — after an unprecedented night when Rep. Laubenberg refused to answer questions on her own bill and refused to take the mike in order to enter her motion to table, nobody can deny that she’s persistent. 

So far, the text of neither bill has been released — but we can make some educated guesses about what the bills are likely to contain. Rep. Laubenberg originally filed HB2364 in the regular legislative session (it failed to advance through the legislative process), a bill that would have banned all abortions after week #20 of a pregnancy, while Sen. Patrick’s original bill, SB18 (also failed during the regular session), would have put in place stringent regulations on abortion-inducing medications. 

Texas Legislature Online: You can check the status & read amendments on any bill.

Procedures are slightly different, depending on whether a bill originates in the House or Senate. Once a bill is filed in the Senate, it has to be debated at a Senate Committee meeting. If the bill is passed out of the Senate Committee, it is presented for general debate, amendments, and a vote on the Senate floor. The bill then advances to the House, and the process repeats — if the bill is passed out of a House Committee meeting, it advances to the House floor. Normally, a bill passed by the Texas legislature becomes enforceable law 90 days after it passes. The legislature can add amendments to a bill that require the bill to take effect sooner or later than that 90 day period. Those of you who were watching the SB5 debate in the House, will remember that several amendments would have pushed out the date on which the law went into effect. Rep. Mary González sponsored two amendments; one would have postponed enforcement of the bill until Texas’ repeat teen pregnancy rate dropped under 15%, and the other would have postponed enforcement until 2014, giving clinics more time to adopt newly required policies. 

It’s likely that we’ll see at least a few proposed amendments on the newly filed abortion bills. Should any of the amendments be successful, they would, at the very least, offer more time to women and clinics before the strict abortion restrictions went into place. Best case scenario, the extra year or two before the bill becomes enforceable may provide Democrats with enough time to regain control of the legislature — making it possible to repeal the bills. Anti-abortion bills aren’t the only thing on the agenda for this year’s second special, however. So far, transportation and sentencing requirements for 17 year olds convicted of felonies are on the agenda along with abortion. It’s pretty unlikely that the GOP will repeat their own mistake and allow abortion to wait until the end of the session, but no doubt Democrats have some tricks up their sleeves to drag out the debate on transportation and sentencing. It’s also worth noting that special sessions rarely span the full 30 day period they’re allowed, often wrapping up within one or two weeks.

Texas Legislature FAQ

How many people are there in the Texas Senate? There are 31 seats in the Senate, currently divided between 19 GOP Senators and 12 Democratic Senators.

How many people are there in Texas House?  There are 150 seats in the House, currently divided between 95 GOP Representatives and 55 Democratic Representatives.

How often does the legislature meet? Texas legislature is one of only a handful of states that meets biennally — five month sessions every other year. Because the legislature meets for such a short period of time, it does make special sessions more likely than they would normally be.

What’s a quorum? What do we need it for? A “quorum” means that a minimum number of members have to be present for business to proceed as usual. In the Senate, 2/3 of the members of the Senate have to be present. That means that if 11 members are gone, no Senate business can occur. Sometimes one party will refuse to show up to proceedings in one house (or both) in order to prevent unwanted legislation, but it’s a pretty extreme tactic that only happens in extremely rare instances. It’s possible that Democrats could prevent a quorum by refusing to show up to the second special session. In fact, Senators Zaffirini, Whitmire, West, Van de Putte, Lucio, Hinojosa, and Ellis, are all names that you probably remember from the Senate filibuster — they were all part of the “Texas Eleven,” when Texas Democrats refused to allow redistricting legislation by fleeing Senate proceedings and hiding in Albuqurque — so it’s not out of the realm of possibility.

What is DPS? These troopers are from the Department of Public Safety. They’re basically state police officers.

Do we vote for the Governor and Lieutenant Governor on the same ticket? Okay, so nobody asked me this, but Virginia did suggest I share this info with y’all. We vote for them on separate tickets, meaning we could have a Gov. from one party and a Lt. Gov. from another (in fact, it’s happened several times before, once under Bush!)

What is the 2/3 rule in the Senate? 

*Y’all, there has been considerable confusion about the 2/3 rule in the Senate — I read the Senate rules 3 times and still couldn’t figure out why a 2/3 vote was required. Major shoutout to Ben Philpott at KUT News for finally providing the answer:

“In the Senate all bills are brought up in the order they get through committee and reach the senate floor. The first bill in line is called a blocker bill. If you want to get to something behind the blocker you have to suspend the Senate rules, which takes a two-thirds vote. And Democrats have enough votes to keep abortion skipping to the front of the line. In the first special session, the rule wasn’t in play because there wasn’t a blocker bill.

Before the first special session, Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, questioned Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst about a hypothetical second session, and if a blocker bill would be allowed. Watson asked if it would be appropriate to place a blocker bill on the call, if redistricting is passed in the first session.

Dewhurst said Senators should follow tradition and keep the two-thirds rule out of the first session because the legislature needed to pass redistricting. He then said they didn’t have to follow tradition in keeping the rule out of any future special sessions.

So, with redistricting maps passed, lawmakers might just see a few stumbling blocks in the form of blocker bills in the second special session.”

Texas Politics: An Open Letter to the Media

Dear News Outlets,

I want to clear something up — something that friends and relatives have asked me — and something that I feel has been inaccurately represented by news organizations reporting on the SB5 filibuster. There was no previously organized Democratic “scheme” to run down the last 12 minutes of the special session with help from those in the gallery, rotunda, and outside the gallery and Senate chambers. There was no concerted effort to organize the hundreds or thousands of people left in the Capitol at 11:48, no carefully organized attempt to subvert democracy.

What there was, and in abundance, was the fierce spirit of Texas women (and the men who love them). Thousands of Texas men and women gathered in the Capitol on Tuesday to send a clear message to Gov. Perry, Lieutenant Gov. Dewhurst, and every member of the GOP caucus that we would not be bullied into silence. We decided, individually and as a group, that we would no longer permit men to congregate in secret, making decisions that should be solely between a woman, her doctor, and her family.

The GOP’s claim that the cheering in the last 12 minutes of the night was orchestrated by Democratic leadership is not only irresponsible, it’s false, and I’m disappointed to see you run with that message — rather than fact-checking with any of the thousands of Texans at the Capitol. Jessica Luther was an amazing presence throughout the week, tweeting accurate information and helping organize people in real time. She summed up our disappointment in certain national media coverage eloquently:

“If you had asked me on Tuesday morning if TWO THOUSAND people would show up that night, that 200,000 would watch the livestream, that Barack POTUS Obama would tweet about us, I would have said that wasn’t going to happen. No way. No how…It feels wrong to paint it as if some mastermind created the BEAUTIFUL moments that happened on Tuesday.”

Was it strategic? Certainly. Leticia Van de Putte lit a flame: one that could not be dampened by GOP leaders demanding that we follow the rules of decorum (the same rules that Texas Republican Senators can be seen ignoring in their efforts to push SB5 through), nor by the dutiful state troopers who began to arrest those in the gallery. I was camped on the second floor, outside of the Senate gallery, and when we realized that the GOP had and would break any and every rule to end the filibuster, we realized that we could stand for Wendy, ourselves, and every other Texan woman who has a fundamental and Constitutional right to make decisions about her own body. She stood to represent the voices of thousands of Texas women, and in the last 12 minutes of the night, it wouldn’t be possible for troopers to arrest every last one of us. We stood too many, and we stood too long, to go unheard. The last 12 minutes became ours for the taking, and in Senator Davis’ words, it truly became the People’s Filibuster.  But was it planned? No. And if you ask me, it was all the more powerful in the beautiful spontaneity of our actions.

It’s no surprise that the GOP is attempting to spread misinformation: but I believe, perhaps naively, that news outlets covering the events of the last week should be doing so responsibly.

Alexis

Texas Politics: Don’t Mess with Texas Women

In the chaos of the last few days, I have gotten a better crash course in House & Senate rules, proceedings, and norms, than I ever could have imagined. At 12:30am last night, I somehow ended up in charge of the hundreds of people on the second floor (outside the Senate chamber entrance), listening to the live feed with headphones and shouting updates to those around me. A few women at the front of the crowd with me (and one very, very loud man) would quiet the floor by shouting “THERE’S AN ALEXIS UPDATE,” waiting to hear the latest news from inside the Senate gallery.

Impacts of SB5

There are some important ramifications of each of the provisions listed above. The bill would effectively shut down 37 of Texas’ 42 clinics, leaving only five open to service a state where getting from one corner to the next is a 14 hour drive. There would no longer be clinics in rural or border areas, leaving women with limited and strained financial resources to drive from El Paso to San Antonio for an abortion. Because of the sonogram bill passed in 2011, they will have to take several days off of work (or leave and return) to fulfill the 24 hour waiting period between the sonogram and abortion. The cost of an abortion in Texas would skyrocket from about $400 to about $1,200. Add the cost of transportation and hotel for the waiting period plus the cost of lost income, many women would be nowhere close to affording an abortion. Women will not stop getting abortions. There was compelling, tear filled, and tragic testimony in both the House & Senate this weekend that told the stories of women who grew up when abortion was not affordable and accessible — those women turned to butcher shops for back alley, unsterile, illegal abortions — or they did it themselves, drinking bleach or attempting dangerous versions of the procedure with coat hangers and other household items.

The Filibuster

Wendy Davis, one of (everyone’s) my personal heroes, stood from 11am to 3am the next day in attempts to block SB5, a bill that would cut off abortions after 20 weeks, require abortion clinics to obtain “Ambulatory Surgical Center” status, and require abortion providers to obtain privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic. SB5 included other restrictive provisions as well, and included no exceptions for rape or incest.

Wendy Davis stood on the Senate floor and actively filibustered this bill for 11 hours. Normal Senate rules operate on a variation of the “three strikes and you’re out” rule; three violations of Senate rules means that the body then votes to end the filibuster (which, in a GOP dominant house, was a certainty, should Davis have incurred her three “strikes.”)

Rule 4.03 of the Senate rules reads as follows:

Although there is no Senate rule by which a member
can be taken from the floor for pursuing “dilatory tactics” (40
S.J. Reg. 882 (1927)), a Senator who has been repeatedly called
to order for not confining his debate to the question before the
Senate may be required by the Senate to discontinue his
address.
A point of order against further debate of a question by
a Senator on the ground that his remarks are not germane to the
question before the Senate is often disposed of by the chair with
a warning to the Senator who has the floor to confine his
remarks to the pending question.
When speaking, a member must confine himself to the
subject under debate. In discussing an amendment, the debate
must be confined to the amendment and not include the general
merits of the bill or other proposition.
The point of order having been raised for the third time
that a Senator who had the floor was filibustering and not
confining his remarks to the bill before the Senate, the chair
requested the Senate to vote on the point of order. It was
sustained and the Senator speaking yielded the floor (44 S.J.
Reg. 1780 (1935)).

and clearly states that only violations of germaneness can be used to end a filibuster. The  notes on this rule go on to make the distinction between germaneness violations and violations of other types even more clear:

Raising of a third point of order against further debate
by a Senator on the floor who has digressed for a third time
from a discussion of the pending amendment, after having been
twice requested to confine his debate to the amendment,
justifies the presiding officer in calling for a vote by the Senate
on the question of whether or not he shall be permitted to
resume and continue his remarks (50 S.J. Reg. 418 (1947)).

Her first violation was for germaneness, and the GOP argued that her testimony had gone so far off the topic of the bill put before the body (SB5) that it violated Senate rules. I would love to hear a coherent explanation of how Roe v Wade isn’t a germane subject when debating about a bill that places such a hefty burden on women seeking abortions clearly violates our constitutional rights to obtain an abortion, but the GOP was living in the land of incoherence last night. In fact, one GOP member asked this of Davis:

Is it your understanding that Roe v Wade provides women the right to obtain an abortion?

Strike one for GOP literacy, and sadly, strike one for Davis.

In late hours of the evening, Davis received a second strike — for receiving help from Senator Ellis as she put on a back brace. There was some pretty stunning and emotional testimony from Senators who supported and opposed the bill about the Senate tradition of filibustering — it has always been the case that the Senate has provided support to the person filibustering, even when they disagreed, often providing ice chips, orange slices, etc, and even, in at least one case, by forming a circle around the filibustering member to allow him to pee into a bucket. NEVER before last night has a filibustering member of the Senate faced such scrutiny.

It’s stunning that, in the middle of a debate about whether or not they had the right to legislate a woman’s body, they stopped to legislate whether or not the vastly courageous woman protesting this bill in front of them, representing the voice of millions of Texas women, had the right to control and make decisions about her own body.

Zaffirini, who supported the bill, rose to protest this “strike,” citing the only Senate rules that dictate a member’s conduct while addressing the body.

The rule: Rule 4.01.

When a Senator is about to speak in debate or to communicate any matter to the Senate, the member shall rise in his or her place and address the President of the Senate.

… and the only applicable note:

When a member has been recognized and is speaking on a motion to re-refer a bill, he must stand upright at his desk and may not lean thereon (61 S.J. Reg. 1760, 1762 (1969)).

There is no rule about touching another member of the body — and even if there was, it would not count as one of the three strikes.

When Davis received her third strike (only her second for germaneness) the Capitol went insane. The gallery erupted into cheers after Van de Putte’s question to the chair:

and those of us gathered on the second floor realized that if we could be loud enough, combined with those in the gallery, we could drown out the vote and run down the 20 minutes left on the clock… so that’s what we did. There was brilliant political maneuvering on the part of Senate Dems to run down the clock,  pointing out that Wendy didn’t have enough violations to justify an end to her filibuster. The loudness of everyone in the Capitol delayed the vote until after midnight. In the Capitol, we had no idea whether the vote would be considered valid, and kept cheering going until we got official word that the vote would not count.

The Senate clerk wrote down that the real vote did not start until 12:03am, but Senate Republicans actually went back and changed the time stamp on the vote in the official record. Luckily for us, over 100K people were watching the live feed, and someone leaked this photograph: 

There might be a second special session, and we’ll deal with that when and if it happens, but this should be one HUGE message to our legislature: You don’t mess with Texas women.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can’t lose. Thank you Wendy.