Left of College Station

The following is the third installment of a leftofaggieland series: The Issues We Face, an in depth look at the issues that progressive activist will face in the coming year and the coming 111th Congress and 81st Texas Legislature.

Possibly the most difficult task for progressive activist is continuing the movement to abolish the death penalty, particularly in a state that has executed more people than any other in the United States since 1976. There is a particular urgency to this issue; every battle fought is literally a battle for life and death. Organizations such as the Innocence Project of Texas have worked to save lives; Texas has wrongfully convicted 32 people which is more than any other state in the country.

On Friday’s episode of Meet the Bloggers there were several activist and progressive bloggers who discussed the death penalty including Mike Farrell, President of Death Penalty Focus, and Liliana Segura, rights and liberties blogger at AlterNet.org. This discussion ranged from the racial inequality that is present in the justice system to the inhuman and uncivilized nature of the death penalty.

The United States has prided itself on being an example for the rest of the world, yet this country is the only developed western nation that has not abolished the death penalty and finds itself in the company of nations that we often point to as the most egregious human rights offenders.  There are four countries that executed more people in 2007 than the United States (42): Pakistan (135), Saudi Arabia (143), Iran (317), and China (470); the United States and those four countries represented 88% of all the executions carried out throughout the world in 2007.

Legislation and the Death Penalty

State Senator Rodney Ellis (D-6) pre-filed SB 167, which would restrict the use of the death penalty from being carried out on a defendant “who at the time of commission of a capital offense was a person with mental retardation.” Texas has executed nine defendants who where mentally retarded, and there have been 44 defendants who have been executed in the United States that where mentally retarded. The Supreme Court decision on Atkins v. Virginia determined that execution of mentally retarded defendants violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments, however the decision did not excluded offenders with severe mental illness. At 25 least defendants with documented diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other persistent and severe mental illnesses have been executed in Texas.

HB 304 was pre-filed by State Representative Harold Dutton (D-142); this legislation would change the “law of parties.” The “law of parties” allows the state to prosecute multiple defendants for the same crime; and essentially allowing the state to seek the death penalty for someone who was party to but did not actually commit a capital crime (similar laws are in place in 24 of 36 American death penalty states). The bill pre-filed by Rep. Dutton would change the law so that a “defendant who is found guilty in a capital felony case only as a party…may not be sentenced to death, and the state may not seek the death penalty in any case in which the defendant’s liability is based solely on that section.” (Section 7.02)

Rep. Dutton also pre-filed HB 298, and this bill would restrict the admissibility of certain evidence in capital cases in which the state seeks the death penalty. Testimony of an informant or alleged accomplice the defendant would not be admissible if it is “given in exchange for a grant or promise by the attorney representing the state or by another of immunity from prosecution, reduction of sentence, or any other form of leniency or special treatment.” Also, statements made by the defendant to another person who they where incarcerated with would only be admissible if “corroborated by an electronic recording.”

HB 297 would make the three previous bills unnecessary. This bill which has also been pre-filed by Rep. Dutton would abolish the death penalty in Texas. Dutton introduced the same bill in 2007, HB 745, but the bill did not make it out of committee.

Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (TCADP) has released its annual Report on Death Penalty Developments in 2008, which details capital punishment in Texas over the last year. The report discusses the case of Joe Medellin, a Mexican national who was executed by the state of Texas who ignored a International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling and the pleas of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Texas lawmakers, law professors and religious leaders. Also in the report where reviews of stays of executions, commutations, death sentences, exonerations, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and legislative developments. The report concluded that the number of executions in Texas declined slightly only because of the de facto national moratorium that existed until April 16^th, and that the rate at which Texas executed after that date appeared to “exceed all pervious measures.” However, the report also concluded that the number of new death sentences reached the lowest level in more than thirty years and those juries and prosecutors have continued to use life in prison without the possibility of parole more and more.

The following is the second installment of a leftofaggieland series: The Issues We Face, an in depth look at the issues that progressive activist will face in the coming year and the coming 111th Congress and 81st Texas Legislature.

The environment is a critical issue that facing progressive activist; this issue includes global climate change to protecting our environment here in Texas. The most dangerous thing about climate change and the affect that we are having on our environment is that it is unprecedented and unpredictable; there are not models that can predict what may happen in the future and if we do not act we will find out what the worst possible outcomes may be.

According to the Department of Energy Texas produces and consumes more electricity than any other State; however, Texas also leads the Nation in wind-powered generation capacity. With the resources that Texas possesses it is in the unique position to be one of the leaders of alternative energy, and it could also be one of the leaders in addressing climate change.

As Katherine Haenschen of the Burnt Orange Report reported, lawmakers such as Phil King are standing in the way of progress and are disseminating false information about pollution and climate change.

While the “clean coal” lobby spends millions on advertising, without actually having one “clean coal” power plant, and oil companies continue to spend minuscule amounts on alternative energy research, we must continue to pressure our legislatures to mandate the production of alternative energy and the reduction of green house gas emissions.

Environmental Legislation

In the Texas House of Representatives, Representative Brandon Creighton (R-16) has pre-filed two bills pertaining to injection wells. Creighton has not had a favorable record on environment issues, and in 2007 voted for 33% of legislation supported by Environment Texas, 32% of legislation supported by the Texas League of Conservation Voters, and just 12% of legislation supported by the Sierra Club.

HB 177 will create testing requirements for certain commercial injection wells; the applicant for an injection well will be required to “perform on-site monitoring wells to monitor and analyze groundwater quality” and “conduct shallow soil tests.” Also, the applicant must “submit to the commission a report of groundwater and soil quality on a regular schedule as required by commission rules; and immediately when a change in quality is detected.”

HB 178 (and the companion bill pre-filed by State Representative Robert Nichols (R-3) SB 274) proposes a prohibition on permits for injection wells in specified areas; however, written into the bill are loops holes that could render the prohibition little more than a limitation. The proposed bill would prohibited a permit for an injection well within 2,640 feet (only half a mile) of a residence, church, school, day-care center, surface body of water used for public drinking or water supply, or a dedicated public park. However, the prohibition “does not apply if the residence, church, school, day-care center, surface water body used for a public drinking water supply, or dedicated park is located on property that is owned by the permit applicant and that is adjacent to the well for which the application is filed.” A “local government to petition the commission for a rule that restricts or prohibits the siting of a new injection well in an area specified by the petition,” however, a local government cannot petition the commission if an application for an injection well has already been filed.

State Senator Rodney Ellis (D-13), who until recently had an below average record on environmental issues but in 2007 received a 100% rating from the Sierra Club and 86% rating from Environment Texas, has pre-filed SB 119 which would require the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to implement to the low-emission vehicle program that is “consistent with the California Low-Emission Vehicle program and would apply “only to motor vehicles with a model year of 2012 or later.” Ellis also pre-filed SB 132, which would require vehicles that are sold or registered in Texas to have a “label that clearly, distinctly, and legibly discloses the emission standards that are applicable to the vehicle…and any related air pollution emissions information specified by the commission.” These labels will include a smog index, a global warming index, and a “brief explanation, prepared by the commission, of the indexes required by this section, including the identification of motor vehicle usage as a primary cause of global warming, and of how emissions of gases from motor vehicles may be reduced.”

State Senator Mario Gallegos (D-6), who has an excellent record on environmental issues and received perfect ratings from both the Environment Texas and the Sierra Club in 2007, pre-filed two bills that would affect laws that regulate emissions of air contaminants. SB 171 creates standards by which the TCEQ will measure emissions of air contaminants, standards that will take “into consideration all acute and chronic health effects on a person resulting from exposure to an air contaminant.” The bill also requires the TCEQ to “assemble a panel of independent, nationally recognized experts in the fields of toxicology, epidemiology, medicine, and public health to review the commission's effects screening levels and to recommend standards to the commission that comply with the requirements” set forth in the legislation. Also of note is that the panel will “provide opportunities for public comment in conducting the review.” The time line of the proposed legislation is to have the panel assembled by January 1, 2010, and that the panel should make recommendations to the TCEQ by July 1, 2011 to be implemented by October 1, 2011, and owners or operators of emissions sources will have until January 1, 2013 to comply.

SB 173 would create regulations for monitoring air contaminant emissions, including requiring the owner or operators of an emissions source to “provide for daily fence-line monitoring of air contaminant emissions from the major source; and make and maintain records on the measurement and monitoring of the emissions.” The owner or operator would also have to designate an independent consultant approved by the commission to certify to the commission that the major source is in compliance.” However, one of the more important pieces of this legislation would be the creation of an “Air Pollutant Watch List,” and would publish notice of and allow public comment on “addition of an air contaminant to or removal of an air contaminant from the air pollutant watch list; or an addition of an area to or removal of an area from the air pollutant watch list.”

The task before us is great, because of the enormity of a global problem.

“We seem incapable of grasping what is at stake here, and perhaps it is because so much is at stake.” –Jeff Goodell (Author of Big Coal)

The following is the first installment of a leftofaggieland series: The Issues We Face, an in depth look at the issues that progressive activist will face in the coming year and the coming 111^th Congress and 81^st Texas Legislature.

Reproductive rights will continue to be an important issue and the public debate may intensify in the next year, despite electing a pro-choice President, having Democratic majorities in both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate, and defeating anti-choice legislation in California, Colorado, and North Dakota. The defeats that the anti-choice movement has been handed this year will galvanize the activist in that movement, even though for the first time in eight years the anti-choice movement will be on the outside looking in.

Legislating Choice:

There are four bills in the Texas legislature that have been pre-filed that concern reproductive rights. Vince at Capitol Annex reported on the “informed consent” bills that have been filed in both the Texas House and Senate, and pointed to studies that showed the literature that women are subjected to are flawed and have to potential to misinform women:

“An analysis of these state-developed materials demonstrates that they do not always measure up to the gold standard of informed consent. Particularly with regard to certain hot-button issues, the information presented is either out-of-date, biased or both. In some cases, the state goes so far as to include information that is patently inaccurate or incomplete, lending credence to the charge that states' abortion counseling mandates are sometimes intended less to inform women about the abortion procedure than to discourage them from seeking abortions altogether.”

HB 36, authored by Representative Frank Corte (R-122), was pre-filed last month and would remove the exception of a medical emergency from the current consent law; meaning that even if condition exist that necessitates the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death the pregnant woman must be subjected to “informed consent.” The bill states that the pregnant woman must be informed of the medical risk of abortion when “medically accurate” including the false claim of the “possibility of increased risk of breast cancer following an induced abortion and the natural protective effect of a completed pregnancy in avoiding breast cancer.”

Another bill that was pre-filed in the State Senate is SB 182, authored by Senator Dan Patrick (R-7); the bill is identical to HB 36.

Corte also authored HB 44, which would require a pharmacist inform a customer seeking to purchase emergency contraception that it will “prevent the fertilization of an egg; or the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.” This would legalize intimidation of customers seeking a legal contraceptive, like what has recently been reported in an incident at an Oxford, Mississippi Walgreens. Also, businesses which sell emergency contraception would be required to post the following sign:

“If you believe that life beings at fertilization – the point where the sperm and egg unite – then you need to know that emergency contraception may either function as a contraceptive to prevent the egg and sperm from uniting or prevent the implantation of your already fertilized egg in your womb. The pharmacist dispensing this drug is required to explain to you how the product may help to prevent your pregnancy.”

HB 109, authored by Representative Larry Phillips (R-62), would authorize the Department of Transportation to issue “Choose Life” license plates, and establish a “Choose Life” account to donate money to an eligible organization to “provide counseling, training, advertising, and pregnancy testing.” The organizations that are eligible cannot “provide abortions or abortion-related services or make referrals to abortion providers; is not affiliated with an organization that provides abortions or abortion-related services or makes referrals to abortion providers; and does not contract with an organization that provides abortions or abortion-related services or makes referrals to abortion providers.” This bill is specifically design to support crisis pregnancy centers which studies have shown to be ineffective and offer little or no actual medical services.

Public’s View on Abortion:

Abortion was not a major issue in this year’s election, in fact social issues where not the wedge issues that they have been in previous elections. According to a Gallup Poll only 13% of those surveyed held the opinion that a candidate must share their opinion on abortion to gain their vote, while 37% felt that abortion was not a major issue and 49% viewed abortion as just one of many important factors. It is likely that the voters that make up the 13% are either steadfastly pro-choice or pro-life, and those groups are on the left and right flanks of both party and do not decide elections.

In CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (Aug. 29-31, 2008) conducted this year 53% of those polls identified themselves as pro-choice while 44% identified themselves as pro-life. However the same poll conducted a year prior found that 45% of those polled identified themselves as pro-choice while 50% identified themselves as pro-life. Whether or not someone identifies themselves as pro-choice or pro-life does not begin to delve into the complexity of the issue. According to a Gallup Poll 40% of Americans view abortion as morally acceptable while 48% percent believe it is moral wrong, which means that whether or not someone self identifies as pro-choice or pro-life does not necessarily correspond to a clear distinction of their view of the morality of abortion.

While the views of the public on abortion as a moral issue may be ambiguous, the majority of Americans do share the few that abortion should remain legal. In an ABC News/Washington Post Poll (Aug. 19-22, 2008) 54% of those polled agreed that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while only 18% agreed that abortion should be legal in all cases. In fact over the last twelve years that same poll has found that on average %18.6 of those polled felt that abortion should be legal in all cases. In a Quinnipiac University Poll (July 8-13, 2008) when asked if “in general, do you agree or disagree with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a woman's right to an abortion” 63% of those surveyed agreed.

So while much of the public may grapple with the moral implications of abortion and to what extent abortion should be legally made available, the majority of the public believes that abortion should not be made completely illegal.

The framing of the abortion debate by the anti-choice movement may change, because the anti-choice movement is driven by the far right conservatives. How the Republican party emerges after the defeats of the last two elections will in part determine the direction that the anti-choice movement takes. If the intellectual conservatives and the moderates in the Republican Party take control of the direction that the GOP it is possible that the anti-choice movement will lose influence and become less of a factor. However, if the ultra conservatives gain control then the wedge issues and the far right fridge elements will push the debate.

The shape of the abortion debate and reproductive rights will change in the next year, and it will continue to change as medical and technology advances pose new moral questions. The pro-choice movement must now focus on preventing the eroding of reproductive rights and continue to protect choice. This is the fundamental tenant of the pro-choice movement; the choice should remain.