Court Rules Public School Can’t Farm Out to Christian School »« No, Sarah Palin is Not Running for Senate

Houston, We Have a Moron

The Texas state legislature is, predictably, chock full of ignorant wingnuts spouting all manner of nonsense. This is the home of Warren Chisum, who a few yeas ago sent out a memo to his colleagues urging them to visit the site fixedearth.com, which promotes geocentrism. It appears that Jodie Laubenberg wants his title as the dumbest legislator in the state.

You may remember Laubenberg as the ignorant dolt who claimed recently that women who are raped don’t need access to abortion because they administer rape kits at the hospital that cleans them all out and prevents pregnancy. But as ThinkProgress points out, this is hardly her only boneheaded statement.

She accused Texas’ budget board of using “government math” when it pointed out that cutting family planning funds would lead to more unplanned births.

In 2011, when the Texas legislature approved deep cuts to family planning programs, the state’s Legislative Budget Board warned lawmakers that decision would have some financial consequences. The government estimated that funding affordable contraception would save Texas $80 million in its next two-year budget because fewer babies would be born to low-income women enrolled in Medicaid (a health outcome that the Health Department regularly measures). “We’re going to save on the non-babies that are being born? We’re going to prevent baby births?” Laubenberg responded. “This has got to be government math.”

She argued that low-income pregnant women shouldn’t get government-sponsored prenatal care because their fetuses aren’t born yet.

Laubenberg has been arguing in favor of her proposed abortion restrictions under the logic that life begins at conception. “If you believe that (a fetus) is a human being, then that human being also has rights, and we must protect that baby’s rights,” Laubenberg said earlier this month. But she doesn’t necessarily take that stance when it comes to poorer women’s fetuses. In 2007, she proposed requiring pregnant women to wait three months before becoming eligible to receive prenatal and perinatal benefits under the Children’s Health Insurance Program. When Democratic Rep. Rafael Anchia pointed out that change would kick more than 95,000 low-income women — and their unborn children — out of the government program, Laubenberg responded, “They’re not born yet.” When Anchia suggested her amendment wasn’t pro-life, Laubenberg yelled at him — but later withdrew her amendment.

Houston, we have a moron.

Comments

  1. steve84 says

    Very inconsistent. Usually they only care about the pre-born, but don’t give a shit once they’re out of the womb.

  2. says

    It’s an ideology clash: “We have to protect the baybees!!!!” vs. “We can’t let them damn freeloaders have a cent of government support!!!!”

  3. Chiroptera says

    Why, it’s almost as if it’s not about protecting babies at all and really about punishing women!

  4. chilidog99 says

    Why, it’s almost as if it’s not about protecting babies at all and really about punishing women . . . for having sex!

    Fixed that for you . . .

  5. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    It appears that Jodie Laubenberg wants his title as the dumbest legislator in the state.

    Lots of competition for that title!

  6. Lyle says

    @timpayne #3:

    A belligerent dullard? She’s not a moron, just a typical female Republican.

    A belligerent dullard? She’s not a moron, just a typical female Republican.

    FTFY.

  7. says

    This is exactly like Rand Paul the other day complaining about the CBO’s report on immigration saving the government money in the long run. It’s like these fiscal conservatives don’t understand the concept of preventative measures. They are so stuck on lowering their own taxes that they can’t see past their own face.

  8. patricksimons says

    In the words of Isaac Asimov, America has a culture of ignorance. This is what you get when belief and supernatural thinking are given equal footing with science and facts.

  9. F [is for fluvial] says

    Oubache:

    Fiscal conservatism, which at some times more than others, was more of a real thing, is more often just a cover for the socially conservative*.

    *I’ve always thought “conservative” is a weird term, but I think I’ve figured out that they are trying to conserve some mostly-imaginary spacetime and a weird set of rules against reality. They never seem to oppose any actual bad ideas put forward by liberals. (A job attended to by other liberals, mostly.)

  10. says

    @18:

    What they are attempting to conserve is their (completely undeserved) social primacy and white supremacy. I really think that “reactionary racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, RWA/MRA dickhead” would be a much more accurate label; but, “fucker” works for me, if it works for other folks.

  11. dogmeat says

    This is exactly like Rand Paul the other day complaining about the CBO’s report on immigration saving the government money in the long run. It’s like these fiscal conservatives don’t understand the concept of preventative measures. They are so stuck on lowering their own taxes that they can’t see past their own face.

    The AZ state government is a perfect example of this phenomenon. They refuse to spend dimes on prevention and maintenance, preferring to spend dollars on repairs.

Leave a Reply