Pretty disgusting. But even more disgusting that these kooks were doing this in Hood County (In Decordova is who attends this type of meeting
AUSTIN, Texas – Leaked video shows Hood County Constable Scott London, Hood County GOP Chair Steve Biggers and Hood County GOP Chair candidate Greg Harrell attending a meeting held by Abolish Abortion Texas (AATX) where they supported the death penalty for women who seek abortions or use IVF, including pregnant minors. London and Harrel have also signed onto a pledge from the same group vowing to abolish all circumstances of abortion care in Texas.
The video was obtained by Hood County Democrats Chair Adrienne Quinn Martin and took place at a True Texas Project chapter’s meeting in Granbury, Texas. The event was hosted by Monica Brown–who is known for her attempts to ban books she deems inappropriate–and originally streamed from her Facebook page in January.
Wrote about the bigoted actions to ban books in Granbury last year-wonder what happened to the Federal investigation into what Granbury ISD was doing. Also, I remember reading about a kook, Karen Lowery on the Granbury ISD school board that snuck into the school library at night to remove books -she was censured. Hood County is the kind of place that, at least since 2015, has tried to ban books, and the citizens of Granbury fight back (videos). Texas Lege passed a law in 2023 that required book vendors to rate the explicitness of sexual references in materials sold to schools; the 5th court of appeals blocked part of the law as being unconstitutionally vague). Sadly, one (and probably both) of the candidates for our District in Somervell believes in book bans, in this case DeWayne Burns. Saying again if parents don’t want their children reading books they don’t agree with, that is a parental decision, not a community decision to foist what could be bigoted views on every Texan. And personally, as has been said many times, that would lead to the bible being banned since it has plenty of explicit sexual references, including this one (which I find nasty)
Paul Brown, who is the Director of Policy for Abolish Abortion Texas (AATX) said that IVF is a form of abortion and that when a fertilized egg is destroyed it should be considered murder, saying “Their lives [women] don’t matter any more than the babies’ they are killing.”
Brown also said how the group is against basic contraception pointing to the emergency contraception pill Plan B, saying that it “terminates or kills a baby prior to implantation – which is an abortion”
Brown went on to say that they will “never be okay with abortions in the instance of incest or rape” with several audience members suggesting that pregnant woman and doctors who perform abortions should be “held accountable” to the highest extent of the law.
The True Texas Project, which is a separate group that hosted the event, has hosted several events with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Senator Ted Cruz, was labeled as an extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and has deep ties to white nationalist Nick Fuentes.
About Nick Fuentes, the GOP party in Texas and Nazis.
Have to laugh when I see this type of fallacy, ie, Who is a True Texan? Does a *True Texan” agree that IVF is bad and abortion is murder where the woman should get the death penalty? Of course not. Trying to apply a test to say who is really a *true* Texas versus false ones on the basis of an idea, albeit a fact challenged and wacky one that tries to impose said ideas on OTHERS IN TEXAS is a variation of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, which I’ve seen more often with christians.
Person #1: No Texan believes that IVF is okay
Person 2: But my Texas friend had IVF done and agrees with it.
Person 3: No TRUE Texas gets IVF.
The no true Scotsman fallacy occurs when someone tries to deflect criticisms of their argument, which is in the form of a generalization. Under this fallacious reasoning, any example that would serve as evidence contradicting the initial generalization is automatically dismissed from consideration as not being representative.
The no true Scotsman fallacy is an informal logical fallacy because the flaw lies in the content of the argument: it rests on a sweeping generalization, which is a problem in itself since it doesn’t allow any exceptions, and the speaker tries to defend this generalization by shifting the definition of what or who truly belongs to this generalized claim.
The no true Scotsman fallacy is thus a combination of other fallacies: it is a form of equivocation because it rests on shifting the meaning of a term and begging the question because it is a statement that assumes its own truthfulness. No true Scotsman is also related to stacking the deck fallacy, deliberately discounting all counterarguments.
