Guidance Counselors: Just so we're clear....
It may have been easier if they’d just come clean about all their motives – but Rep. Kelly Hancock’s guidance-counselor bill just barely made the grade today and eeked by on a close vote.
Last week it died by one vote. Today it got a 73-73. On verification, after a few machine malfunctions and ghost votes by members who haven’t been on the floor in a week, the bill passed 74-69. He must have been shocked that a pro-life bill got such a cool reception.
Maybe that's because nobody told anyone it was a pro-life bill.
The bill requires guidance counselors in large school districts to report which outside services – counseling, mental health, doctors, etc. – they’re referring students to each year. Now, the names of the students are confidential, and supporters of the bill say it gives more accountability in the school districts. Opponents say it ruins the confidentiality of students and discourages girls from reporting violence, along with other privacy concerns.
Here’s the kicker, though: The supporters include the Texas Eagle Forum and the Texas Catholic conference – a combination that, when in the context of health services for young people, screams two words: Pregnant teens.
This is a pro-life bill, as confirmed by Mr. Hancock’s own single, vague remark on the mic – largely overlooked by other reps on the floor - regarding the importance of knowing whether counselors are following the “abstinence-only” education policies of the schools. This comment was buried in arguments that its intent was more transparency - which I've no doubt is *also* the case.
Ding-ding-ding. The bill would show anyone with access to those reports whether a school counselor or district is referring girls to Planned Parenthood, or whether they’re referring them to the “crisis pregnancy centers.”
Just thought I’d throw that out there, since nobody mentioned it on the floor and the Eagle Forum types didn’t actually testify in committee, so it’s doubtful that the abortion angle to this bill has ever been mentioned in the public forum.
I may have missed it. But if I did, than others did, too. And whatever side of this issue you fall on, it’s pretty key to know what exactly your lawmakers are thinking when they pass, you know, new laws and stuff.
And what those new laws would be used for.
My question is, whose brilliant idea was it to hide the pro-life argument here? Did Texas become pro-choice without my knowledge? I would think that once supporters turned it into an abortion vote, it would be a lot harder to vote against for a lot of people. Just guessing.
Here’s my second question. Why is Kelly Hancock, in his moderate district, carrying bills for the hard right? Did I miss something?