Texas House procedural vote on rules amendment perfectly demarcates true pro-life from anti-life legislators

State Representative Bryan Slaton (left), Republican of Royse City.

The Golden Hammer Staff Reports

Austin, January 15 – Does naming a bridge or road seem more important than protecting an unborn child?

An amendment to the Texas House Rules became a defining vote on whether members of the Texas House of Representatives truly give due to the anti-abortion Legislative Priority of Texas Republicans who listed such legislation as one of their top priorities for the 87th Texas Legislature. State Representative Bryan Slaton of Royse City, who defeated entrenched Republican Dan Flynn in the Republican Runoff Election on July 14, 2020, authored the amendment which would have provided,

“It shall not be in order for the House…to consider any bill or joint resolution that designates by name a part of a highway system, including a bridge or street, if the House has not previously voted on a house bill or joint resolution after the start of the 87th Legislature that would abolish abortion in the State of Texas by ensuring the right to life and equal protection of the laws to all preborn children located in the State of Texas from the moment of fertilization.”

The amendment didn’t require passage of pro-life legislation but only required a vote on such a bill or joint resolution before the House could consider any legislation which designates by name a part of a highway, bridge or street. In other words, those House members who voted against Representative Slaton’s amendment made naming highways, bridges, and streets a higher priority than protecting the life and equal protection of the laws for unborn children!

Representative Slaton’s amendment to the Texas House Rules, which failed to pass despite the Republican majority in the Texas House of Representatives.

Representative Slaton’s amendment to the Texas House Rules died on a 41 Yea to 99 Nay vote.

The following are the 41 Texas House members who voted FOR Representative Slaton’s amendment to the Texas House Rules:

Yeas – Ashby; Bailes; Bell, K.; Biedermann; Burns; Cain; Capriglione; Cason; Cook; Craddick; Cyrier; Frank; Gates; Harless; Holland; Krause; Lambert; Landgraf; Leach; Middleton; Murr; Noble; Parker; Patterson; Paul; Price; Sanford; Schaefer; Shaheen; Slaton; Slawson; Smith; Stucky; Swanson; Thompson, E.; Tinderholt; Toth; VanDeaver; Vasut; White; Wilson.

The following are the 99 Texas House members who voted AGAINST Representative Slaton’s amendment to the Texas House Rules, declared the naming of roads a higher priority than protecting the unborn, and are clearly NOT Pro-Life:

Nays – Allen; Allison; Anchia; Anderson; Beckley; Bernal; Bonnen; Bowers; Buckley; Bucy; Burrows; Button; Campos; Canales; Clardy; Cole; Coleman; Collier; Cortez; Crockett; Davis; Dean; Deshotel; Dominguez; Dutton; Ellzey; Fierro; Frullo; Geren; Gervin-Hawkins; Goldman; González, J.; González, M.; Goodwin; Guerra; Harris; Hefner; Hernandez; Herrero; Hinojosa; Howard; Huberty; Hull; Hunter; Israel; Jetton; Johnson, A.; Johnson, J.D.; Johnson, J.E.; Kacal; King, K.; King, P.; Klick; Kuempel; Leman; Longoria; Lopez; Lozano; Lucio; Martinez; Martinez Fischer; Metcalf; Meyer; Meza; Minjarez; Moody; Morales Shaw; Morales, C.; Morales, E.; Morrison; Muñoz; Murphy; Neave; Oliverson; Ordaz Perez; Ortega; Pacheco; Paddie; Perez; Ramos; Raney; Raymond; Reynolds; Rodriguez; Rogers; Romero; Rose; Rosenthal; Sherman; Shine; Stephenson; Talarico; Thierry; Turner, C.; Turner, J.; Vo; Walle; Wu; Zwiener

Present, not voting – Mr. Speaker(C)

Absent, Excused – Bell, C.; Darby; King, T.; Larson; Smithee; Thompson, S.

Absent – Guillen; Schofield

The names above in bold are Republicans who voted CONTRARY TO THE ABORTION LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TEXAS! There were thirty-five (35) Republicans who voted against the Legislative Priorities of the Republican Party in the first day of voting of the 87th Legislative Session. If those Republican had voted with the Republican Party Platform and Republican Legislative Priorities, the measure would have passed.





You must be logged in to post a comment Login