Debra Danburg was my Representative for ten years when I lived in Montrose and was a strong advocate for campaign finance reform. Great big honkin' liberal. Nice short story about her liberalness here:
Danburg: Montrose's Davy. However, I agree with TexasLinda
Personally, I prefer candidates to tell me why they think they deserve my vote, not why the other guy doesn't.
The e-mail also contained the information that follows. Sorry, couldn't find it on the internet or I would have posted a link.
================================================
Bob Gammage & Choice - The Truth - A Woman's Right to Choose
Overview
Bob Gammage has a strong record of supporting a woman's right to choose. In fact, he was pro-choice before there was a choice. In 1971, as a member of the Texas House, Gammage supported legislation, HB 1092, by Representative Sam Coats (D-Dallas) which would have overturned Texas' statute criminalizing abortion.
As a senator in the 1973 legislative session, Bob Gammage almost single-handedly led the fight to extend the right of 18, 19 and 20 year old women to choose an abortion without parental consent, as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark decision Roe v. Wade. Gammage didn't just introduce legislation to allow the right to choose. In the Senate and in conference committee with House members, Gammage repeatedly held off attempts to kill, dilute, or change the meaning of the legislation against its original intent.
In the Texas Senate, anti-choice conservatives first sought parliamentary tactics to kill the bill, such as moving consideration of the bill until after the session or striking all substantive language. In failing to do this, opponents - led by Sen. Adams -- then tried to mix the drinking age with consent for abortion, forcing senators to support a change in the drinking age if they also wanted to eliminate parental consent. Gammage himself led the charge to defeat this divisive attempt, making the motion against the Adams amendment and holding the necessary votes together to eventually pass the bill from the Senate by a vote of 18-11.
In the House, the fight got tougher. Opponents not only tried to kill the bill, but actually hijacked it by adding hostile language similar to Adams' amendment that would have prohibited women between the ages of 18 and 20 from seeking an abortion without parental consent.
The House sponsor was unable to keep this anti-choice language off of the House version of the bill and Sen. Gammage moved for a conference committee to remove the hostile language. When the conference committee report was filed, the language was the same as that passed by the Senate; all anti-choice wording disappeared. All five of the Senate conferees signed the report. After one more struggle, the House finally passed Gammage's language and the bill was signed into law by the governor.
Senate Bill 123
Senate Bill 123 (63rd Regular Session, 1973) was a simply drafted bill that would extend to 18 year olds all the same rights as those enjoyed by 21 year olds. Section 1 specified that the Act "shall be construed liberally to accomplish that purpose."
The significance of the legislation was obvious. Eighteen year olds would be treated as women for the purposes of the right to choose an abortion, placing in state statute the legal precedent established by the Roe decision on January 22 of that year.
The fact was not lost on the legislature and conservatives fought hard to derail the bill.
Bill History & Votes
As introduced, Senate Bill 123 -- by Gammage, Mauzy, et al. - related to "providing that a person who is at least 18 years of age has all the rights, privileges, and obligations of a person who is 21 years of age."
On February 27, 1973 SB 123 was reported from the Senate Committee on Jurisprudence. However, Chairman Charles Herring neglected, or intentionally, failed to fill in the blanks recommending that the legislation "do," or "do not pass." (Committee vote not printed in bill file.)
On March 1, 1973, Senator Moore moved to set discussion on SB 123 for a time certain, 10 am, June 2, 1973 (end of session), thereby killing the bill. The motion failed on a point of order raised by Sen. Ogg that the motion was not a valid motion as the Senate would not be in session. The President sustained the point of order.
Senator Moore then moved that discussion on the bill occur on May 16, 1973. Senator Ogg made a substitute motion to set discussion at 11:30 am, March 5, 1973. The motion to set the bill for discussion May 16 failed 12-19: Gammage NAY
On March 5, 1973, Senator Adams raised a point of order on further consideration of SB 123, stating that four member objected to consideration of the bill and two members were not on the floor of the senate at the time the motion was made to suspend the rules to consider the bill. The President overruled the point of order, stating that the bill was legally laid before the Senate, since there were only 4 members who objected to its consideration. The last roll call indicated that there were no members absent on the day the bill was brought up.
Senator Creighton moved to amend SB 123 by striking all below the enacting clause. Senator McKnight moved that the Senate stand adjourned until 10:30 the following day. The motion to adjourn failed 14-16: Gammage NAY
Senator Creighton renewed his motion to amend SB 123 by striking the enacting clause. Senator Gammage moved, with unanimous consent, to postpone consideration of the bill until 11:30 am,March 11, 1973.
On March 11, 1973, Senator Gammage moved to table the Creighton amendment. The motion to table prevailed 19-11: Gammage YEA
Senator Gammage moved to table a motion by Senator Adams to amend SB 123 by bundling alcohol with abortion. The amendment would have added new Sections 3 and 4 to the bill to maintain the prohibition on 18 year olds from consuming or selling alcohol and to maintain state laws prohibiting people under 21 from obtaining medical treatment without parental consent. The motion to table the Adams amendment to maintain current law on alcohol consumption and consent to abortion for persons under the age of 21 amendment prevailed 17-13: Gammage YEA
The motion to pass SB 123 to engrossment prevailed 19-11: Gammage YEA
On April 24, 1973, the Senate voted to take up SB 123 on third reading. Sen. Mengden (Gammage's name on the amendment was crossed through) amended Section 2 of the bill with the following language: "It is specifically provided, however, that with respect to property held by a custodian under the Texas Uniform Gifts to Minors Act on effective date here of and the proceeds and reinvestments thereof, the custodian may elect not to have the provisions of this Act apply by so notifying the minor in writing, but such election may be revoked at the election of the custodian."
Senator Adams moved to set SB 123 as Special Order for May 14, 1973. The motion to move discussion of the bill to May 14 failed 12-18.
On April 24, 1973, SB 123, as amended by Sen. Mengden, finally passed the Senate 18-11.
On May 7, 1973, the House State Affairs Committee passed SB 123 13-3 (7 absent) without amendment. The House sponsor was Rep. Joe Allen of Harris.
On May 10, 1973, Rep. Williamson moved on Second Reading to amend SB 123 to maintain the prohibition on 18 year olds from consuming or selling alcohol. Rep. Allen moved to table the amendment. The motion to table the alcohol prohibition amendment failed 65-70.
Rep. Williamson offered a floor substitute to SB 123, adding a new Section 3: "This Act shall not be construed as permitting persons under the age of twenty-one years to purchase alcoholic beverages or to consent to abortion procedures." Rep. G. Jones moved to table the substitute. The motion to table the requirement for consent for abortion for women under the age of 21 prevailed 76-62.
Rep. G. Jones offered the following substitute for the Williamson Amendment, amending SB 123 by adding a new Section 3: "This Act shall not be construed as prohibiting the Legislature from defining crimes or establishing penalties based on age which may treat persons <18-20> differently than those who are <21 years of age>." Rep. Williamson motion to table the G. Jones amendment to allow flexible sentencing for persons under age 21
failed 65-66. The vote to table failed once more in a verification vote, 64-64. Vote No. 8, p. 3387]
Rep. Davis raised a point of order against further consideration of the G. Jones amendment on the grounds that it is not germane to the Williamson amendment. The Speaker overruled the point of order.
Rep. G. Jones' substitute amendment on flexible sentencing for persons under age 21 failed 24-114.
Rep. Williamson amendment to maintain current law on consent failed 63-73. Vote No. 10, p. 3389]
Rep. Williamson re-offered his abortion consent amendment to amend SB 123. Rep. Bock moved that consideration of SB 123 be postponed until May 15. Rep. G. Jones moved to table the Bock motion. The motion to postpone was tabled 72-69. The vote to postpone failed once more on a motion to verify the vote by Rep. Sherman 72-69.
Rep. Williamson offered a substitute for his abortion consent amendment to reflect that the provisions of the bill would maintain the provisions of the penal code, as well as requirements relating to consent for abortion. Rep. G. Jones' motion to table the substitute amendment passed 65-64. The motion to table was upheld in a verification vote 66-62.
Rep. Geiger's motion to table the (original) Williamson amendment failed 64-69. Vote No. 13, p. 3392]
The (original) Williamson amendment to maintain the prohibition on purchasing alcohol by persons under the age of 21 and the requirement for consent before an abortion for women under the age of 21 was adopted 71-63. A motion to table a motion to reconsider the vote on the Williamson amendment by Rep. Williamson passed 68-66.
Rep. Vick moved to amend SB 123 and add language prohibiting "removing the defenses available to who may under other laws" avoid contractual obligations. A point of order raised by Rep. Washington that the amendment was not germane was overruled. Rep. Geiger's motion to table the Vick amendment on contractual obligations carried 104-35. Vote No. 16, p. 3395]
Rep. Geiger's motion to move the previous question and to pass SB 123 to third reading carried 87-50.
SB 123 passed to third reading 107-30, as amended.
A motion to table a motion by Rep. Johnson to reconsider the vote by which SB 123 was passed to third reading passed 72-67.
SB 123 passed on third reading 111-22.
The House granted (only one "nay" recorded: Rep. Cavness) the Senate's request for a conference committee on SB 123 and appointed Reps. Joe Allen, Geiger, Williamson, Weddington and Martin to the committee.
On May 17, 1973, all the Senate conferees - Gammage, Mauzy, Harrington, Andujar and Braecklein - filed the Conference Committee Report on SB 123 in the Senate. The conference language stripped out the Williamson prohibitions on alcohol purchases and abortions without consent and replaced it with language passed by the whole Senate.
While the Senate adopted the CCR for SB 123 , opponents in the House weren't going down without a fight. Only three -- Allen, Geiger and Weddington -- of the conferees in the House had signed the conference committee report. On March 19, 1973, Rep. Williamson raised a point of order against considering the CCR on the grounds that the posting provisions for meetings were not compiled with and that the meeting place was not announced. The speaker overruled the point of order.
Rep. Joe Allen moved to adopt the Conference Committee Report to SB 123. Rep. Williamson made a substitute motion to not adopt the CCR and to appoint a new conference committee. Rep. Geiger's motion to table the Williamson motion to not adopt the CCR passed 70-51.
Rep. Rosson's motion to table the motion to adopt the conference committee report failed 44-80.
The Conference Committee Report to SB 123 was then approved by the House 81-44.
*****************************************************************
* (c) 2006 - Pol. Adv. Paid for by Bob Gammage *
* P. O. Box 13226 Austin, TX 78711 *
* Richard D. Arellano, Ph.D, Treasurer *
* Contributions are not tax deductible for income tax purposes.
*
*****************************************************************
--------------------------------------------------
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
