AUSTIN, TX — Did you know that State Rep. Drew Darby (TX-72), who as a Republican represents one of the Top 7 most conservative Texas House districts in Texas, voted to fund children’s hospitals to perform transgender surgeries on teens and pre-teens? That is the narrative put forth by conservative political consultant Luke Macias.
According to an opinion piece written by Macias and published in Michael Quinn Sullivan’s Texas Scorecard, Darby and 10 other “RINO” Republicans in the House voted against denying funding for “gender affirming” mental health care to Texas children. The previous sentence is a run-on of double negatives that when translated could mean Darby voted for the use of State money to fund transitioning the gender of children.
But did Darby really vote in favor of State funding for gender transition surgeries for children?
Texas House Bill HB 1898 was passed this past session to provide funding for mental health services for Texas children’s hospitals. According to Rep. Jacey Jetton (TX-26), a Republican who wrote and sponsored the original legislation, the bill will finance children’s hospitals to provide services and a bed to any child who arrives at an emergency room after an attempted suicide or with suicidal thoughts. A children’s hospital is a hospital that is designated as such by the feds and does not file Medicare claims.
“This bill does not pertain to gender modifications of any type,” Jetton said during the House debate.
Jetton stressed to colleagues in the House during the floor debate that the bill was difficult to put together with many stakeholders. Any modification of the bill as it was would jeopardize its passage. The bill was sponsored by three Republicans and two Democrats. Darby was a cosponsor of the bill.
Jetton’s remarks were in response to Republican and Fort Worth Rep. Tony Tinderholt (TX-94) who introduced an amendment to HB 1898 that would prevent funding children’s hospitals that provide psychological or behavioral support for gender transitioning procedures. His amendment was one sentence long:
“The commission may not award a grant under the grant program to a children's hospital that provides services, medications, or procedures for transitioning a child's biological sex as determined by the sex organs, chromosomes, and endogenous profiles of the child or affirming the child's perception of the child's sex if that perception is inconsistent with the child's biological sex.”
Here is a snippet of the House floor debate on the Tinderholt amendment to HB 1898:
Tinderholt’s amendment was offered on April 18 and a little over a month later Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston was reeling from the passage of another piece of legislation that directly addressed and banned gender transition treatment for children. This was SB 14 that passed in the Texas Senate in late May (the companion House bill was voted out of committee on April 14 and passed the House on June 2). SB 14 was “Relating to prohibitions on the provision to certain children of procedures and treatments for gender transitioning, gender reassignment, or gender dysphoria and on the use of public money or public assistance to provide those procedures and treatments.”Texas Children’s CEO Mark Wallace said the passage of SB 14 and his decision to cease gender-affirming care of children because of this was “heart-wrenching.”
Darby didn’t only vote in favor of SB 14 but he was a coauthor and sponsor of this legislation. In addition, Darby voted in favor of and coauthored SB 15 that prevents biological males from changing their gender in order to compete against biological women in sports. Finally, Darby voted in favor of SB 12 that ceased sexualized drag queen shows (including transgender or promotions of gender transitioning) in front of minors.
On the day Tinderholt presented the amendment to the funding bill — HB 1898 — for children’s mental healthcare services at children’s hospital, his amendment failed to pass by a vote of 52 to 90. Six were absent or voted present. There were 26 House Republicans voting no. Then, after the vote was taken, 16 Republicans switched their votes to favor the Tinderholt amendment and two more Republicans switched their vote from absent to Yes. Instead not passing the amendment by a comfortable 52-90-6 margin, the margin narrowed to 70-74-4.
HB 1898 eventually passed in the House 128-6.
Macias is engaged in somewhat an insincere crusade against Darby and 10 other Republicans, claiming their vote against the Tinderholt amendment was akin to supporting State funding of gender change surgery for children. Rather than gaslight Republican voters, Macias should admit that the hard-crafted legislation HB 1898 was aimed to treat teen suicide but it was almost hijacked by his culture war hijinks.
Subscribe to the LIVE! Daily
Required
Comments
What else do expect from these right wingnuts? Drew Darby and the large majority of our nation drive down the middle of the road. You know, where sensibility, tolerance, acceptance that your prejudices do not define the rest of us are what we take away from our Bible classes. We need more Darbys, not more Tony Tinderholt radical extremists.
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkGus, you and I knew Drew back in the day. He always exhibited intelligence and a thoughtful attitude about things even when we were kids. I agree with you that we need more Darbys today, especially with the horrible herd of MAGA nutjobs out there.
If Drew is indeed a RINO, the term must stand for Realistic Intelligent No-nonsense Objectivity.
Bravo to you.
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkAll this infighting and the Chinese are pooping on other planets. SMDH!
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkChina is mostly pooping in Africa these days. Slowly, they've begun pooping in strategic parts of the American cultural, economic, and topological landscape. In time they will poop on you. This is the plan - and perhaps it's ultimately for the best.
Recently, several highly credible members of the intelligence community were called before congress for a hearing concerning an element of the US government which has come into the possession of advanced technology of "non-human origin" as well as "non-human biologics" which were piloting advanced craft. The pentagon says the claims are bunk.
Are members of the intelligence community lying to congress despite the consequences? Is this a "psyop" being run on the American people for some obscure strategic reason? Or, alternatively, is military leadership instead lying to the American people and to congress about its lengthy and sustained misdeeds?
Either way, something is amiss at the highest levels of the American government.
We should ask ourselves about other issues that have arisen at these high levels. How did a treasonous individual under the control of a foreign power manage to become president of the United States without the FBI or CIA being able to prevent this or stop it once it happened? Are they incompetent? Alternatively, did they act in a partisan manner and attempt to oust a duly elected president? Are they corrupt?
Either way, are we supposed to take the word of individuals who sold a country on war over "WMD" in Iraq that never materialized? That abandoned Afghanistan like your homie's dad who went out for cigs and never came back? Do we take the word of people that set the intelligence community's sights on its own citizenry but doesn't know when a foreign nation is operating illegally in its own downtowns?
Are we really to believe that the Butthurt sector of American government customer service (Democrats) would never rig an election against a member of its Douchebag (Republicans) customer service sector in the name of the mighty mantra of "cover thee thine own arses?" (Huge Republican supporter, btw.) Even when that Republican, that leader, did what his constituents wanted (kind of) and in a highly entertaining way?
At the end of the day, all of our problems may just be a glimmer in a distant sky on a world where beings far beyond our capabilities first set out to find the source of all this trouble.
If we can't or won't address the obvious, if people abdicate their responsibilities as citizens, if those in positions of power are no longer held accountable, we are apt to lose our freedom, and our collective power, and the sway that our values have held over the world. And that's okay in the bigger picture.
The whole wide world and the void of the vast skies above it will still be here whether America is united, divided, or fighting things out the hard way.
It is unfortunate that those who are likely to take up the reigns of global leadership are apt to do worse to their troublesome minorities than the US government ever did to its indigenous population - and that their norms would become the global norm... But that's just the tragedy of one world in one portion of its history. Just a glimmer in a distant sky...
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkPost a comment to this article here: