Initially, I was going to make this Update 4 to my previous post which I continue to update with relevant information, but I decided this one warranted its own post.
Judie Brown of American Life League has written an article entitled "Death: The Definitive Painkiller." She notes that the use of the term "palliative care" used to just mean providing comfort and relief to a suffering or dying patient, but in more recent times it is used to mean, basically, euthanasia. (I have come to learn this as well. "Comfort care" may very often be code for "snowing" a patient - that is, providing so much morphine they die. It's a way of getting around the prohibition against active euthanasia and speed the effects of passive euthanasia at times. More on that another time.)
Mrs. Brown writes about death by organ donation and how that plays into these euthanasia cases as well. Read that. It's truly stunning. Bobby Schindler has been bringing awareness to this issue this week as well. At some point I'm going to discuss that. There was a bill brought up this session in Texas to make organ donation automatic and opt-out only. I don't think it has gotten anywhere, but we are going to have to confront this issue very soon as politically unpopular and as misunderstood as it might be. Organ donation plays a roll in a too many of the euthanasia cases we see. We have to confront realities and bring truth and light into the darkness.
Getting back to the article, Mrs. Brown then writes about SB 2089 and provides cites, among others, to this blog for which I am honored and grateful. It made me aware of this fact: The nation is watching Texas. Will it do the right thing? That's entirely up to the Senate right now and, frankly, they need to have a fire lit under them. That's where you come in!
“been accurately described by people across the political spectrum as ‘death panels.’ The patient and his or her legal surrogate have a mere 10 days to arrange an emergency transfer to another facility that would be willing to continue treatment. Such a transfer is often extraordinarily complicated in such cases, and there are no practical means under the 10-Day-Law for a typical patient to stop the ticking clock on their own.”
She wrote and tweeted:
She stated also:
Too many within the healthcare community embrace philosophies and practices that threaten those patients who truly need relief from suffering so that they can live the balance of their lives in comfort rather than literally being put down like dogs by any means possible.
Note that this is in the example of the definition of euthanasia I so often cite to on this blog, straight out of Merriam Webster's Dictionary. But people are not dogs and ought not be treated as such.
She then reminds us:
We must be clear: Ventilators and feeding tubes keep patients comfortable. They are not extreme. But perhaps the unspoken idea here is that palliative medication, when given in very high doses, represents a better use of resources and a quicker way to end a life deemed without quality or purpose.
Recall that Mrs. Jones has a ventilator and is on dialysis. Neither is extreme. But Memorial Herman wants her dead anyway, despite the fact that other facilities will take her once her funding is approved which will take a few more days than the 10 it gave her to get out or be dead. On what rational, moral basis is this justified? It's not ethical either. But some people call things what they clearly are not. Some people lie. Some people distort. But all people deserve better and need to know the truth. Read the rest of her article. It is enlightening and information from another source that you can use to educate yourself and promote the true cause of life from conception until natural death.
Why do I spend so much time on this? Is it really that important? Yes. Because, as Wesley J. Smith wrote an hour ago:
Once euthanasia consciousness grabs a culture by the throat, it never stops squeezing.
The plain and simple fact is that Texas has a law that allows involuntary passive euthanasia right now. It is unconstitutional. It has no due process rights for patients and that law is used by hospitals to sentence them to death. We can't have that and call ourselves pro-life. And, it won't stop there. The Culture of Death never stops. and the Culture of Death is alive and well and is here in Texas. It has taken hold of and is promoted by groups that call themselves pro-life and yet promote euthanasia and by an organization that speaks for and lobbies for the entirety of the Catholic Church in Texas and all of its bishops. So far, I've not seen a single bishop break ranks and speak out in favor of SB 2089 except for Bishop Gracida who the rest ignore (to their shame!). Silence is complicity. The Catholic Church has had too much of that. It's time for them to speak out now and actually promote the Culture of Life that Roman Catholic Church doctrine teaches. Every single one of us needs to promote the Culture of Life and light and truth in this dark, fallen world. We have an unceasing duty and moral obligation to do this. In this context, lives depend on it.
Please continue to contact your senators and let them know that you support SB 2089 and want it brought for a floor vote immediately. Session is over in about 19 days. We are close. That's why TAL, the TCCB, and others are fighting it so hard. We have to fight back.
Friends, a Texas woman - right this second - is being victimized by the Texas Advance Directives Act. Her 10-day clock has started ticking. Texas Right to Life has the full story because they are helping her. In that article, there is a video of Mr. Jones testifying in favor of SB 2089 in April. Watch it. Listen to what he's gone through. No patient or family victimized by TADA testified against SB 2089. Think about that.
Mrs. Jones is conscious, on dialysis and a ventilator. Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital in Houston wants to kill her against her and her husband's wishes.
Right now, the Usual Suspects, Texas Alliance for Life, the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, Texans for Life Coalition, the Texas Medical Association, the Texas Hospital Association, etc., are still waging war against SB 2089 which would end this 10-day deadline, thereby giving patients like Mrs. Jones treatment until transfer is possible.
The Usual Suspects right now are telling people - publicly - that this law will take away patient rights which means that they are also claiming that patients have rights now. Follow the #SB2089 thread on Twitter. But here are some screenshots to give you a taste and note that they never answer my questions:
Their tweets and representations are that families force patients to undergo painful interventions and suffering indefinitely. Their tweets are that families and the patient cannot determine when they will cease life-sustaining care and when they wish to continue. Of course, if you read this blog, if you've read the current law, if you've read SB 2089 - which have all been linked to in my previous posts and are here again because I want you to have that information - then you know better. You can see that they are lying right now and the consequences are disastrous.
Mrs. Jones is on dialysis and a ventilator. People live for a long time on dialysis. People can live a long time on breathing assistance. (NOTE: ventilators do not breathe for you; they aid in breathing, the body still has to perform respiration on its own and breathe out). This is not necessarily painful or causing them unnecessary suffering. TAL claims this sort of care has no medical benefit. That's untrue. There is medical benefit to providing a patient air and dialysis, it is sustaining their lives. It's not complicated.
But here's the thing about suffering and determining what life-sustaining care to continue: that is for the patient or their family to decide (because the family best knows how the patient would want to face their serious illness, injury, or death). People often need medical interventions but that does not mean they are always "terminal." Now, their lives would certainly be prematurely terminated without this intervention which is apparently what these organizations support. And, even terminal patients deserve air and other life-sustaining interventions as their diseases or conditions overtake them.* Withdrawing that life-sustaining care hastens their death prematurely, and, in these cases, against their will. That is the result of it. If the care was not actually sustaining life, it would not be an issue. (See Wesley Smith's testimony. As he noted, the care is not being withdrawn because it is not working, but because it is.) But the point is that someone else has determined that time is up for these people and their life-sustaining care must be withdrawn. That, my friends, is involuntary euthanasia. That, my friends, is what these organizations support.
(NOTE: If the patients or families agreed with the withdrawal of care, the TADA Sec. 166.046 procedure would not have to be invoked because there would be no disagreement.)
More to the point - this law - which is supported by people who claim to be religious and pro-life is being used to kill a conscious woman against her will. Just as it was used to sentence Chris Dunn to a premature death had he not sued to challenge the law.
I find it rich that TAL and the TCCB claim that this is all about doctors' consciences (when, as I've written before, it is clearly not and that could be addressed simply by transferring care to another doctor or facility) and yet their consciences are untroubled by withdrawing air and kidney aid from a conscious woman and allowing her to die as her kidneys fill up with waste, her system is poisoned, and she chokes for lack of air. Really? That's the morally superior position, the one that assuages consciences? Don't buy it.
These organizations are behaving like vultures. I'll just say it that bluntly. That is the only logical conclusion given facts like these. Look at Mrs. Jones and Chris Dunn. People conscious and begging for their lives are being killed and these orgs say nothing about it, do nothing about it, support it, and lie about the reform bills that could change it. They continue to support the current law and oppose treatment until transfer and any due process rights for patients. If you call them on it directly, they slink away and never answer these questions. (I engage with them only to demonstrate this to others; I am under no illusion that I can change their minds. But the grassroots need to see this issue for what it is and these orgs for who and what they are. That is best demonstrated in their own words. Go to the thread and read it for yourself.)
But let me be clear - even if Mrs. Jones were not conscious - I would not support withdrawing her care against her family's wishes in order to kill her prematurely. Her state of consciousness just emphasizes how doctors and hospitals who use this procedure, and the orgs who support and enable this, abuse and dehumanize patients and how badly they have lost their way. These orgs cannot be saved right now. But Mrs. Jones and patients like her in Texas can be. By you.
Contact your Senators right now and ask them to co-sponsor and vote for SB 2089. Ask them to push this for a floor vote in the Senate immediately. Time is of the essence for Mrs. Jones and for this session. Tell them not to be dissuaded from doing the right thing just because some other organizations oppose it. Time is running out. Tell them not to fail to do something just because not every organization agrees. Sometimes you cannot split the baby. The fact is, sometimes those who claim to be pro-life really are not. Sometimes they don't support the Constitution and due process. SB 2089 needs to be passed immediately with or without the support of the Usual Suspects.
Do not support these orgs or listen to anything they have to say. Surely, you can see that they are dangerous to every Texan. Following any religious org that supports this law could be dangerous for your soul. Distance yourself. Find the truth and pursue it and only it. Pray for all involved: Mr. and Mrs. Jones, Texas Right to Life, our state representatives, for the passage of this bill, and for a conversion of heart and mind for those who oppose all that is right and holy and pro-life. Yes, even if you have to do it through gritted teeth. Do it.
Thanks for reading!
UPDATE: Life News has picked up this story and provides more details. In pertinent part:
The hospital first attempted to invoke the 10-Day Rule on March 8, 2019, but the Jones’ lawyer negotiated with the hospital to pause the countdown. Since then, Carolyn’s health has improved and three facilities in Houston have agreed to care for her, pending Donald’s ability to secure Medicaid coverage. Donald has spent the last two months trying to clear complicated legal and financial hurdles to save his wife’s life, which the hospital has scheduled to end on Monday, May 13.
Now, he’s begging Texas legislators to eliminate the 10-day countdown for patients like Carolyn. “This law has to be changed. How can I care for my wife when I’m forced into this 10-day situation?” said Donald. “This could actually happen to anyone.”
Texans who want to help Donald and Carolyn should contact their state legislators atTexasRightToLife.com/10.
So, Mrs. Jones has actually improved since the last time this hospital invoked the 10-day deadline. Further, there are three facilities willing to transfer Mrs. Jones. This hospital will NOT have to care for her anymore if she were allowed a transfer. This hospital still seeks to kill her anyway. This is what Texas law allows and what SB 2089 would stop. SB 2089 is opposed by the Usual Suspects. This is unconscionable and outrageous. You can read the rest yourself. You should also know that TAL continues its great efforts to thwart any successful vote on SB 2089. Currently, its Facebook pages has this pinned to it.
You can see that I commented with a link to the Life News article. Let's see how long it stays there and what they have to say about it. I suspect more "untruths" shall we call them. Tell me how existing law protects patients like Mrs. Jones? What about SB 2089 takes rights away from her? It's absurd and it preys on people's ignorance. Not everyone can spend the time it takes to follow the Texas legislature. They rely on being able to trust various organizations. You can't do that. TAL and its "coalition" - the "Usual Suspects" as I've started calling them - are not trustworthy. They don't have your best interests at heart. You have all they information you need here and links to source documents. Use it wisely. Protect yourself and your loved ones. The Usual Suspects are not going to do that for you. Texas Right to Life is trying to but needs your help. Please call your Senators now. Thanks for reading this update!
UPDATE 2: And, lest you think this law only applies to the "old" (as if that would make it better), this law applies to the young as well. I blogged before about how while Alfie Evans was being euthanized in Great Britain, a child here in Texas, a six-month old, was being killed under the law. Well, he is far from alone. Read this story and tell me if you think that this law is right, moral, just, ethical, or constitutional? Tell me how you justify religious or support for it that some claim is "pro-life." Tell me why we shouldn't give families more than 10 days? That's what SB 2089 does. Thanks for reading this latest update! UPDATE 3: The local news in Houston covered Mrs. Jones story and brought awareness to both TADA and SB 2089. What you need to know out of that is that Memorial Herman admitted that physicians make the decision about care. From the article:
Now, they are dishonest when they say they do so in consultation with the family, etc. Remember, the family has no right to speak or even representation at these hearings. The processes usually come about faster than "many months." They are dishonest when they say that there is balance. There is no balance when there is no due process, no requirement that there be an independent tribunal free of conflicts of interest, no appeal, no right to representation or to speak, etc. We've been through all of that before on this blog and others have been saying the same thing elsewhere. There is no evidence that Mrs. Jones is suffering as she clearly wants her care to continue. And, remember, the very definition of euthanasia is killing to stop suffering. Thanks for reading this latest update!
* As I have before, I qualify this with unless those interventions are actually medically (or physiologically) ineffective but that is not how this is limited right now except for one of the exceptions allowing the withdrawal of artificially administered nutrition and hydration. The truth is that MOST of these cases are based on a doctor/ethics committee deciding a patient has no "quality of life" based on their subjective criteria and not the patient's or family's. I hope to be able to show you more proving this in writing very soon.
Friends, not only have the usual suspects signed onto a coalition letter opposing the life-affirming SB 2089, they are really showing their true colors, their incessant, unyielding promotion of euthanasia, and continued support for the deprivation of due process rights for patients. I have a lot to show you and time is short. Read on.
I was provided with this call to action from the Texas Medical Association. Pro-life doctors are concerned.
TELL THE LT. GOV: DO NOT SET SB 2089 FOR A VOTE
Dear Dr. Deciding how to spend the final days and hours of life is a highly personal decision, and it’s one we encourage our patients to make long before the need arises. Yet a bill just voted out of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee would subvert the Texas Advance Directive Act (TADA), signed into law in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush: Senate Bill 2089 by Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola). Simply put, SB 2089 would violate our personal liberties of conscience and force extra suffering on our patients. SB 2089 would require hospitals, physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals to provide medically inappropriate and potentially harmful care for an unlimited period of time. Requiring care in perpetuity would prolong the dying process, exacerbate suffering for both patients and loved ones, and violate the standard of care to do no harm. Yesterday, the Senate State Affairs Committee voted to approve SB 2089. It now rests with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who will decide if and when to set the bill for debate on the Senate floor. That cannot happen. SB 2089 must be stopped now. Please contact Lieutenant Governor Patrick today and urge him NOT to set SB 2089 for a floor debate. It's imperative that you help us educate the lieutenant governor that this bill interferes with professional medical judgment. You can use the new TMA Grassroots Action Left to quickly and easily share your message with Lieutenant Governor Patrick via email or Twitter. Or you can call his office directly at (512) 463-0001. Either way, you’ll find talking points to use in the Grassroots Action Left. Please call or write today.We must prevent SB 2089 from being heard on the Senate floor.
Sincerely, Douglas W. Curran, MD
President
Texas Medical Association
The TMA lies. That's right. I'm not mincing words. Listen to me: THEY LIE.
This bill would require treatment until transfer. Transfer being the goal when a doctor decides a patient is better off having his death hastened by withdrawal of life-sustaining (not unlimited interventions of any type, by the way - that is a red herring they use constantly - NO ONE ARGUES FOR THAT - they argue against something no one else supports).
As I have said to Dr. Joe Pojman, Dr. Beverly Nuckols, in my testimony, and on this blog and my other posts for years - as have many others - not all doctors have the same conscience formation. For instance, some think abortion is fine and have a conscience untroubled by it being legal or even performing it. Some think euthanasia is fine - clearly we see that here - including involuntary euthanasia by refusing and withdrawing life-sustaining care to patients against their will and think only they should make that life and death determination for a patient. We often seek second opinions. Why? Because not all doctors have the same opinions about care, morality, ethics, and who makes the final decision about whether you die early or not.
Opponents to this bill think only doctors and the ethics committee members (which, by the way, often are without an ethicist even if such were always reliably ethical). They don't believe you have that right or the capability to make that decision. Don't believe me? See the tweets and calls to action below and note the tone and dishonestly of the TMA missive. Go to the thread on Twitter for #SB2089 and read. You will be illuminated and probably a bit horrified by what certain alleged pro-life groups, religious groups, and doctors believe about you and your right to life!
Understand that while the TMA may be the lobbying arm of the largest medical association in the state, not all doctors subscribe to their pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, anti-patient, and anti-due process ways. For instance, see this by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons:
The AAPS Texas Chapter supports Advance Directive Act reform that strengthens patients' rights. pic.twitter.com/xjfDsphJZ8
I am so grateful that other doctors and their organizations are promoting life and a balanced, due process for these tough decisions. (Doctors can't easily control who represents them in the lobbying arm of their organization (lawyers have the same problem, this is why I'm not a member of the American Bar Association any longer) and I don't believe for a moment that even most doctors would support this. But their lobbying arm is out of control and bloodthirsty. They must be stopped. The grassroots is larger and always show up in greater numbers than they do when these bills are heard in committees, as I mentioned in a prior post.)
Texas Right to Life's Emily Cook responded correctly:
You need to know how extreme these views by those opposing SB 2089 are. For instance, this doctor tweeted that only doctors can made these decisions.
Understand, she was saying this to an ETHICIST, Wesley J. Smith, who is pro-life and an attorney who understands due process and the requirements of it that are utterly lacking in the current law. He handily addressed her and the Executive Director of TAL who had the audacity to question whether Smith had training in ethics and medicine (this, the man who sat next to Chris Dunn's mother and lied about Chris' case and condition under oath during the hearing on SB 2089).
This is the same stuff as what the Texas Medical Association and former Sen. Bob Deuell tweeted on this very date in 2013 - things never really change for these people:
(Deuell lost his re-election bid to pro-life Bob Hall by a mere 300 votes. I do not think that is a coincidence, the losing or by what amount.)
Then you have Texas Alliance for Life (Dr. Nuckols is a former board member of TAL and wrote an opinion piece in Public Discourse in the wake of the Chris Dunn case along with a current member of TAL which outright wrote in favor of euthanasia, as I covered here, see section II.B.).
TAL also has tweeted its support of involuntary passive euthanasia and against patient rights and due process - repeatedly:
And, not to be left out, so has the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops (note the similar graphic used by both TAL and the TCCB; I have in the past surmised that TAL calls the shots for the TCCB and I think that's a pretty safe assumption; their publications are usually very, very similar if not identical):
I was asked by a concerned and authentically pro-life Catholic how to refuse this. This is what I posted on Facebook. It is succinct and it is accurate.
You can also look back at the entirety of this blog and see how these orgs and people use extreme cases as if that is the only time this statute is ever used. That is a lie. Elizabeth Graham testified that they were promised that these were the only cases this statute would ever be used for in 1999. That is not the case and that is well-established. They are the exception not the rule for the invocation of this statute. I've never worked on such a case. Rather, every case I worked on - and most every one that Texas Right to life has - involves a determination by doctor and committee that a person's life is simply without "quality" as far as these eugenicist persons are concerned. Thus, they are better off dead. This is the case even when more time may result in a recovery which has been the outcome of some of these patients saved from TADA.
These fraudulent, pro-euthansia orgs and persons need to be exposed for the dangers they are to each of us. You are one accident or illness away from being in the cross-hairs of this law - or a loved one. Don't you think that your opinion matters in such a grave decision? If a doctor doesn't want to treat you, wouldn't you rather have sufficient time to be moved to another place or have your care left in place until you expire naturally? Or recover?
Why is death the only result they accept? It matters not except to know that that is the truth. Go read the tweets. I can do no better job explaining it to you than they can in their own words.
Now, what do you do? The full Senate may take up both SB 2089 and SB 1033 (the Preborn Non-Discrimination Act) as early as Monday. Please contact your Senator to ask them to support these life-affirming, life-saving bills.
For SB 2089, you can use this handy form. Then I recommend calling as well.
Time is of the essence. The life you save may literally be your own! There are merely 25 days left in this session. We are about to lose a rare opportunity to do something really big and important here and the pro-death crowd knows it. They are in full force making sure you remain without rights in these life and death situations. Don't let them win!
Remember, we err, if we are to err at all, on the side of life. Always.
Get on your computer, work the phones. Get to it!
Thanks for reading!
UPDATES: Not to be left out, Texans for Life Coalition offered this tweet just to make sure the whole gang is represented in their continuing support of euthanasia in Texas:
I have written about the issues with this particular organization before, principally their support for research on aborted babies so long as the mother gives consent. Recall that the TCCB says that this organization and TAL speak for it.
Then, I thought it was worth noting this tweet by TAL to Wesley Smith who must have really stuck a nerve - and that's always telling - which literally makes no sense given their opposition to this bill.
As I have written elsewhere this is a lie. The law does NOT require that an alternative provider be located and the patient transferred. If that were the case, logically, we'd not need this reform, would we? Further, if that is how they see this law now, this law that they support, why do they oppose this bill that would do what they claim is already in the law? They cannot keep their misrepresentations straight and this should be a significant red flag to you.
The truth is that there is no standard for what sort of attempts have to be made and our experience is that some hospitals interpret this as the family's responsibility and not theirs. Not only that, the patient can still be killed at the end of the 10 days against his will by having his life-sustaining care removed against his will under current law. Further, 10 days is not enough time to find a facility in most cases.
And, to be clear about this 60 attempts they keep citing, that claim was made by the Methodist Hospital employed social worker, Justine Moore, in the Dunn case. Importantly, there was no substantiating evidence for these alleged attempts. And, her affidavit was hearsay as to over 30 of them as she stated what she claims others did. Those others did not file affidavits of their own.
In that sworn affidavit she also claimed she did not request guardianship of Dunn. As you can see here, she did, in fact, request guardianship of Dunn in the probate court on behalf of Methodist, although she claimed she did not in her sworn affidavit in the trial court. If you go to the entire pleading which is embedded in my post and look at page 6, there is a highlighted sentence that requests the following relief: "that upon hearing, Applicant be appointed Permanent Guardian of the Person of Proposed Ward." If you go to the first page, you see that it begins, "JUSTINE MOORE ("Applicant")...." and that "David Christopher Dunn (the "Proposed Ward")..." Actually, I'll save you the trouble of scrolling:
For a variety of reasons, had this person been put on the witness stand and cross-examined under oath, I suspect her credibility might have been found wanting.
Also, please remember that Dunn died on December 23, 2015. They sought to withdraw his care in October of that month and Moore sought guardianship over him on December 3, 2015. His care was not withdrawn, and as Methodist and even the courts agree, he died naturally of the underlying issues he faced. All patients should have that right. There was no allegation he was suffering. Recall, he begged for his life on video well after the hospital had made the decision to withdraw his care.
Only because Dunn sought court intervention by Temporary Restraining Order, did Methodist agree to continue care even as it attempted to obtain guardianship over him.
But the law does not require that life-sustaining care be continued until transfer or if a doctor or hospital think it should not and disagree with the patient. The law should do that but it does not. TAL, the TCCB, etc., all oppose this reform.
Also, recall that no doctor claimed their conscience was bothered by maintaining his life-sustaining care.
The extreme cases they mention as if those are the only ones that ever occur in this context are not the usual case as I discussed above. Rarer still is the doctor who claims conscience motivates him rather than a verdict he and the committee render on their view of this patient's quality of life. That is wrong. That is not for them to decide. But should conscience be an issue, another doctor can take over, as we have discussed.
I have contacted by state Senator Nathan Johnson. Have you contacted yours and asked them to support this bill? Please do so immediately!
So there you have it.
Thanks for reading this update!
UPDATE 2: Not to be left out either, the Texas Hospital Association has taken to tweeting lies as well.
I'm guessing I don't have to break it down further at this point. Regarding the continuing false allegation that all this care is painful and doctors will be forced to provide it, we've covered that above and in prior posts. Simply not true. Also simply not their call to make. Life-sustaining care should be transferred not withdrawn against a patient's wishes.
Please email & call your senators and ask them to support SB 2089.
It has just come to my attention that Texas Alliance for Life ("TAL"), Texans for Life Coalition, the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops ("TCCB"), the Texas Medical Association, the Texas Hospital Association, the Catholic Health Association of Texas and others have formed a coalition (read their statement here) seeking to kill SB 2089 which I wrote about here, here, here, and here. They offer no alternative language, they want it as dead as the patients subjected to this law.
You should know that a much larger coalition of honest and authentic pro-life organizations and individuals have written in support of these bills. You should also recall that vastly more testified and registered in support of these bills - 9 to 1 - than against them as I reported here. This is what the people want because they see the problems with the law as it is currently. Bobby Schindler, an expert on euthanasia, not only testified in favor of this legislation, he wrote an OpEd about it. Noted bioethicist, Wesley J. Smith, has written and testified about Texas' shameful law as well a number of times and just recently testified along with Bobby Schindler (see the same link above).
It's time that the pro-life and religious organizations that have chosen this path are called out as the fakes they are. One of the primary opponents of these bills is Texas Alliance for Life. It has gone so far as to issue a call to action asking its supporters to oppose these bills. Recall that its executive director sat next to Chris Dunn's mother and lied about him and his case - under oath - before a Senate committee hearing.
These organizations claim - publicly at least - that their support for TADA is about doctor conscience protection. That's a boldfaced lie. There is no need to kill off sick patients to assuage a doctor's conscience. I've asked these supporters about this directly in the past online and they drop out of comboxes as soon as the question is raised. Just transfer the patient's care to another doctor or facility. But they oppose that. They oppose removing the alleged issue for a doctor's conscience. TAL made that clear in its testimony above and in many sessions before this one.
They claim that patients want every available medical intervention indefinitely. Again, that's not true and we've addressed that before and did so in testimony just a few weeks ago.
These organizations oppose giving patients the right to direct their own care and maintain life-sustaining treatment as their diseases overtake them. In some cases, they'd kill off a patient who can make a recovery. They SUPPORT withdrawing life-sustaining care against a patient's will - they SUPPORT involuntary passive euthanasia. TAL's own board members have stated so very clearly in published writings. What they support - the only thing they support - is killing off a patient prematurely and against his will. And at least two or three of these organizations claim the mantle of pro-life. What is pro and life about what they are doing here?
This very letter they are a signatories to talks about ending suffering. That is euthanasia. TAL, in particular, is again supporting the very definition of euthanasia. But these patients are often not suffering or the extent of it is unknowable. Moreover, that's a call for them to make or their families. Some of these organizations or their leaders claim Catholicism; but as you may know, Catholicism teaches about redemptive suffering. And, the ugly truth is, what these hospital ethics committees actually base these decisions on is a "quality of life" determination. That's not for them to decide either. They don't claim conscience issues either. Not there. Not then. And, again, even if that were valid, it could be addressed without killing the patient.
Let me be clear about this as well: it does not matter that others went along with this as the lesser evil it was back in 1999 when they were forced into it. I've addressed this time and again and most recently said:
You need to know that others who may have initially supported this law in the beginning have come to regret that because whatever was intended, assuming arguendo that there was ever anything benevolent intended here by the doctors' and hospitals' lobbies, that is not what happened and that is not what goes on behind closed doors. We have to fix whatis in this law and how it is used and be honest about those problems. Having some misguided loyalty (or worse) to a law you helped create 20 years ago that is a disaster only speaks to your issues but not to the realities of the law. Nor does that undermine or shine a negative light on the others who saw the error in the law and have worked tirelessly to fix it and help those affected by it. Those who attack Texas Right to Life on this point are wrong to do so. Their arguments are as unpersuasive as they are illogical, absurd, and, in some cases, based on outright lies (and I'm going to prove that to you soon). And, if Texas Right to Life is a little less likely to believe the medical lobby and those supporting the medical lobby, well, the old saying "Fool me once...." applies here in spades.
Understand that these faux life groups and the TCCB as well as the Catholic Health Association of Texas are allying themselves with at least one organization that supports abortion, for Pete's sake. Do we really need to know anything else to judge that these organizations have - at a minimum - lost their way and cannot be trusted on matters of life?
Texas Right to Lifehas addressed this ridiculous argument time and again as well. They see this law doesn't work for patients - it works against them - and that the very organizations that make up this coalition who oppose these bills lied in 1999 and continue to do so. As the only real pro-life group in the state and the only one that helps patients navigate this draconian procedure, Texas Right to Life sees that the law does not facilitate communication with doctors as patients are can be and often are prohibited from speaking at ethics hearings. I've seen it personally. There is no due process in this law whatsoever. It fails that on every level. TAL and these same orgs could not even argue that in their amici brief in the appeal challenging the constitutionality of TADA. They ignored the due process argument entirely. Telling.
These orgs, especially TAL, regurgitate the same tired lies time and again. But they don't lift a finger to help those in the crosshairs of this monstrous law - the worst in the nation - because they don't really support life. In the case of the Catholic Health Association, their opposition to due process and patient protection is particularly chilling. My goodness. We can see where that leads and how morally compromised they are. I sat next to their representative at the hearing on SB 2089. It was chilling. And dark. These organizations - and I specifically mean the faux life ones and the Catholic ones - are frauds and a danger to all Texans as all Texans will be or will have a loved one in a hospital at some point in time.
TAL hides behind - or directs? - the Texas Catholic Bishops who are only too willing to lend a hand to this macabre practice. People wonder why as well. Despite the bastardized interpretation of Catholic teaching TAL and the Catholic orgs all promote, there is nothing in Catholic teaching that supports this. The Bishops are compromised on many things morally anyway; this is just added to the list. The scandal to the faithful that they all promote by this is another level of their destruction. God help them all.
TAL in particular seems hell bent on seeing to it that people are involuntarily passively euthanized. I don't know what happened to that organization and it doesn't matter. It needs to be called out. Lives matter. All lives matter. All lives are valuable and worthy of protection. And even if these orgs don't think so, they don't get to make that decision. (TAL is run by a Catholic and the TCCB and Catholic Health Association are presumably Catholic or run by or advised by Catholics. Read up on the Principle of Subsidiarity. I've written about it here, here, and here.) The patients or their families get to decide if they want to continue receiving life-sustaining care or not. Not these orgs. Not a doctor. Not a hospital. We can protect a doctor's conscience without killing the patient. Let me repeat - read it slowly - we can protect a doctor's conscience without killing the patient. To each of these organizations: These bills would do that. And, yet, they oppose them. So that's not really the issue, is it?
Just today I asked my readers to pray for these organizations (I know, it was subtle, but that was aimed at these very organizations, politicians, advocacy groups, and all the others who support killing off the ill and disabled). I'm asking them to continue that. But I'm asking them to expose these organizations for the charlatans they are on this issue. I'm asking them to oppose these organizations and fight for the lives they'd happily see ended against their will and prematurely. I'm asking legislators to do what is right and pro-life and life-affirming. I'm asking them to relegate every organization and each individual within these organizations who signed onto this letter to irrelevance and obscurity because they are all dangerous to Texans. There is no candy-coating it, there is no justification for it: they promote death.
Readers, lives are on the line and it's time we all do what we can to save them. Don't fall for people's self-declared misleading titles or their positions. By their fruits you will know them. And some of them yield bitter, sour fruits of death and destruction.
I ask you to contact your State Senator and Representative and ask them to support these bills. You can easily use this form for SB 2089 (its House companion is HB 3158), which will end the 10-day deadline where life-sustaining care is withdrawn from a patient against his will in order to hasten his death prematurely and allow them time to be transferred. Contact your State Senator about SB 2129 and tell them you support amending the Texas Advance Directives Act to include due process for patients.
UPDATE as of 5/7/19 - PASSED to Engrossment on the Senate floor by a vote of 20-11. Getting there!
I'm a little late in getting this post out there as this news broke during Orthodox Holy Week and I was otherwise occupied, but I didn't want this news to pass without blogging about it as well. The PreBorn Non-Discrimination Act ("PreNDA"), SB 1033, passed out of the Senate Health & Human Services Committee last week, on April 23, 2019, by a vote of 6-3.
This is great news! This bill needs a full floor vote, but there is movement, thanks be to God!
Also, a hearing was held on its companion bill, HB 2434, on April 17, 2019, before the House HHS Committee. I watched part of that testimony which started very late in the evening and went until the wee hours of the morning of April 18. There were vastly more in favor of it than against it. It has not been voted on there as yet.
One of my favorite testimonies came from this little boy who is pictured with Speaker Bonnen:
Should he not have been born? It's just unfathomable to me that anyone who calls themselves pro-life would support this sort of discriminatory abortion. All human life has dignity and value and is worthy of protection and support.
Of course, there were testimonies of families pressured to abort after a diagnosis and testimonies of those who were given an inaccurate diagnoses and pressured to abort. It's utterly diabolical.
I've read of such incidents the whole time I've been in the pro-life movement. But it is quite another matter to watch people give their testimonies in a hearing and under oath. If that doesn't move you, I don't know what else will. What if they had succumbed to this pressure? And, why are doctors pressuring them to choose death anyway? So much for pro-choice, which has always been a lie anyway.
This is clearly about eugenics. "Cleansing" society of the least among us - those determined to have less value and be useless. Margaret Sanger's philosophy. It's sick. It's wrong. It's Naziism in it's truest form. And it is everywhere. Iceland claims to have "eradicated" Down Syndrome. How? Genocide. 100% abortion rate for those pregnancies with that diagnosis. Very progressive, no? Note that America is quickly trying to catch up with places like Iceland. We should have no part of it and it and similar diagnoses certainly should not form the basis for exceptions to otherwise pro-life legislation, which is what we have had thus far even in Texas.
I salute all those who are working on this legislation for seeing the value of all life and working to protect it - and for their consistent life ethic that is so often absent among groups I have come to call faux life groups. We must be consistent or we lose the argument by default and simple logic.
