The Texas Observer

Update (see below)
NARAL Pro-Choice America endorsed Barack Obama for president today. “Sen. Obama has a fully pro-choice record, and we are confident that as president he will be a champion for women’s reproductive rights,” the organization formerly known simply as NARAL wrote on its Web site (you can view a video explaining the endorsement on the site as well).

The endorsement elicited an immediate rebuke from Ellen Malcolm, president of EMILY’s List, which supports women candidates.

“I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton - who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade - to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process,” Malcolm said in a statement. “It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.”

EMILY’s List has, not surprisingly, endorsed Clinton. The group has given her campaign $323,567; Clinton’s fifth-biggest donor. And Malcolm stumped for Clinton around the state before the Texas primary.

Update: 

Some of NARAL’s state affiliates are angry about the Obama endorsement. The Texas affiliate is among those backing away. Here’s the statement form NARAL Pro-Choice Texas: “This decision was made internally by NARAL Pro-Choice America, based in Washington D.C., and without the consultation of the NARAL state affiliates across the country, including NARAL Pro-Choice Texas…..we will not be issuing an endorsement of a Presidential candidate. When a pro-choice nominee for President is named, NARAL Pro-Choice Texas will stand proudly with that pro-choice candidate.”

Today’s papers delivered the sad news that artistic innovator Robert Rauschenberg died Monday night of heart failure at his home on Captiva Island, Florida. Rauschenberg was 82. The New York Times‘ take is here.

Rauschenberg was best known as a hybridizer of artistic forms, working at different points in modes as varied as choreography, set design, and musical composition. Even making his name as a visual artist in the 1950s, he often blurred the lines between painting and sculpture. Critics considered him a link between abstract expressionists and the pop artists that followed. His work, however, regularly obliterated such boundaries.

Rauschenberg was born in 1925 in Port Authur, an unlikely crucible of Texas talent that also spawned Janis Joplin (born 1943). Neighboring Beaumont produced painter John Alexander (born 1945), currently enjoying a career retrospective at the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston. Rauschenberg briefly studied pharmacology at the University of Texas before being drafted into WWII. Stationed in San Diego, he saw his first paintings at a gallery there and began to consider becoming an artist. He subsequently went to Paris on the G.I. Bill and began an artistic journey encompassing stints at North Carolina’s Black Mountain College, collaborations with John Cage and Merce Cunningham, travel with Cy Twombly, and loft-sharing with Jasper Johns.

Rauschenberg’ work is viewable in his home state. It can be seen most prominently at Houston’s Menil Collection, which houses many early Rauschenberg works, and where the artist’s drawings are on display as part of the Menil’s “How Artists Draw: Toward the Menil Drawing Institute and Study Center, a show coming to the end of its run May 18, so hurry. The Dallas Museum of Art owns more than 50 Rauschenberg works, and Houston’s Museum of Fine Arts also owns major works by the artist.

The Obama campaign held a conference call this morning to echo what even most pundits said last night — that their candidate has all but sealed up the nomination.

Obama Strategist David Plouffe said Obama netted 13 delegates last night. He gained 17 in his sweep of North Carolina and limited Hillary Clinton to a win of four delegates in Indiana. That more than erases Clinton’s haul from Pennsylvania. Plouffe said Obama now leads Clinton by 172 pledged delegates (that’s the non-superdelegate kind) — the biggest advantage of the campaign. “A high water mark,” he termed it. Obama is within 172 delegates of clinching the nomination (ahem, superdelegates, please pick up the white courtesy phone).

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, one of five prominent elected Democrats who joined Plouffe on the call, described Obama’s performance last night a “giant and decisive step” toward the nomination.

One reporter asked if the campaign expected Obama to be “Swift Boated” in the fall. This seems to be a recurring fear among Democrats — that Obama will wilt under GOP attacks. Plouffe responded that Obama’s better-than-expected performance last night following a month of controversy shows that “Sen. Obama has a toughness and an ability to deal with adversity that will serve him well in the general election.”

Kerry, Mr. Swift Boat himself, chimed in with an important and oft-forgotten fact of 2004: that the Kerry campaign didn’t have the resources in August of 2004 to respond to the Swift Boat attacks. Because the Democratic National Convention was so early and the GOP’s so late, the Kerry campaign faced five weeks in which it had to conserve general election funds for October. This time, not only will Obama — like “all Democrats everywhere” — learn from Kerry’s mistakes and respond quickly, but Obama also won’t have the financial constraints of his predecessor.

Earlier this morning, the Clinton campaign held its own conference call in which they disclosed that Clinton had lent her campaign $6.4 million. Nonetheless, Howard Wolfson, her campaign spokesman said there had been zero discussion about whether to drop out. Asked if Clinton should end her campaign, the elected officials on the Obama call demurred. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri said, “There is a sincere respect for Hillary Clinton in this campaign… This is her decision.”

McCaskill then added, “We’re confident that she is going to do the right thing for the Democratic Party.”

Does Texas’ Child Protective Services have the legal authority to remove 463 children from the FLDS ranch in West Texas? Some lawyers representing the mothers and the removed children say that CPS is stretching its legal authority in this case.

Thirty-eight of the FLDS mothers filed an appeal with the Third District Court of Appeals in Austin on April 30th. They want the appellate court to return their kids. The mothers, represented by Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, contend that CPS and District Judge Barbara Walther — in seizing the children — violated the families’ due process rights.

At a hearing on April 17, CPS offered evidence of abuse against about 20 kids — and then argued that all 463 children were in danger. After that hearing, Judge Walther ruled the state could take custody of the kids.

In their brief to the appellate court, the FLDS mothers argue that the legal process at the April 17 hearing was a mess. They say they received no notice about the hearing, that some of the mothers weren’t even named in court papers, and filings weren’t made available to their attorneys, and that the courtroom was so full, most mothers weren’t even present when the custody of their kids was debated. They also argue that CPS didn’t present specific evidence to prove abuse against most of the mothers.

There is evidence that teen-aged girls were sexually abused at the ranch by older men. A CPS spokesperson says that 31 teen-age girls (ages 14-17) removed from the compound are either pregnant or have a child. Six of those girls have two kids. And two girls 17 or under have three kids. (Under Texas law, forcing a 15 year old to have sex with an older man is sexual abuse.)

Should evidence of abuse against a few families implicate everyone?

The short answer is yes. The Texas Family Code gives CPS the right to remove children in potentially abusive homes, even if they haven’t been abused yet. For example, if a mother doesn’t remove her children from a dangerous home, all the kids will be taken by CPS — even those who weren’t abused.

You can read the relevant sections of the family code here.

The law — specifically section 262 — says that a child should be removed if he or she would be in danger with the parent or guardian or if “continuation of the child in the home would be contrary to the child’s welfare.”

The key word there is “home.” The FLDS families lived on the same ranch, but in separate houses. The lawyers we’ve talked to who’ve been on the property all describe a town-like setting of separate houses and duplexes that are 1,000 to 1,500 feet apart.

These kids didn’t necessarily live in the same homes where abuse was taking place. CPS can’t remove a child just because they live next door to an abusive home. Some lawyers involved in the case believe CPS has stretched its legal authority here.

Of course this isn’t your typical subdivision. The families are all connected through a single religious sect. So does living in a tight-knit community in which kids are abused put all children at risk? The courts will have to untangle that one.

Democrat Rick Noriega’s campaign for U.S. Senate received a huge boost this morning. A new poll from Rasmussen shows Noriega within four percentage points of Republican incumbent John Cornyn (47 percent to 43 percent). The margin of error is 4 percentage points. (Hat tip to Quorum Report.)

The numbers are sure to change in the six months leading to Election Day. But the poll may help Noriega raise the campaign money he so desperately needs. Cornyn has nearly $9 million on hand – compared to just $329,000 for Noriega, according to their latest campaign filings. To have any chance of pulling the upset in November, Noriega will have to raise about $10 million. He must convince not only big donors in Texas, but perhaps more importantly, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that Cornyn is beatable. The DSCC will likely decide this summer which races it will endorse as worthy of investment both by the committee and its extensive network of donors.

For Noriega, he couldn’t have asked for anything better than the first sentence of the Rasmussen analysis:

“It’s time to add United States Senator John Cornyn to the list of potentially vulnerable Republican incumbents in Election 2008.”

Updated below

Remember Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson’s brusque promise of “No guns, no deal” on the proposed transfer of the Christmas Mountains to Big Bend National Park? Well, the AP has a story today that should cheer Yosemite Sam Patterson:

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne proposed new regulations Wednesday that would allow people to carry a concealed weapon in some national parks and wildlife refuges.

The new rules would allow someone to carry a loaded weapon in a park or wildlife refuge only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon and the state where the park or refuge is located allows guns in parks, Kempthorne said.

Park rangers, retirees, and conservation groups are agin’ the idea, arguing that it could lead to heightened danger for visitors and park personnel.

At this point the rule is far from a done deal. The public has 60 days to comment and some Democratic lawmakers are blasting the rule as ill-conceived and untenable. One sticking point is that some local and state laws place restrictions on carrying firearms. That’s probably not a problem in Texas, thanks in part to the concealed handgun law that - guess who - Jerry Patterson passed in 1995 when he served in the Texas House.

In any case, one wonders how this affects the Christmas Mountains deal. We called General Land Office spokesman Jim Suydam for comment. When we hear from him, we’ll update this post.

Update: The Land Office just released a statement welcoming the “return of Second Amendment rights to some National Parks.” Patterson is quoted as saying, “When I’m in a state or national park, I’m armed. An unconstitutional rule promulgated by a federal bureaucracy is not sufficient to deny me that right.” He encouraged freedom-loving Texans to fire away at the Interior Department with comments supporting the rule.