 |
| "Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light and light for darkness...!" Isaiah 5:20, KJV |
I keep reading statements made by those who support Texas' draconian 10-Day Law - which I have often referred to here as TADA (it is Texas Health & Safety Code Sec. 166.046 of the Texas Advance Directives Act) - as a "dispute resolution process." They describe it as if it is a give-and-take, back-and-forth dialogue between a patient and their doctor with equal consideration given to all viewpoints and an agreed upon resolution. That is NOT how it is used; that is NOT what it is by the very language of the statute itself.
I have described how the process works as well as the Constitutional due process violations inherent in the law most recently here. In this post, I also explained TADA in great detail including why it deprives patients of their rights to due process. You can see similar posts throughout this blog.
Nothing defenders of this law say contradicts any of this. It simply cannot be contradicted because that is literally how the law is written. That is the effect of the law. It is both facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied to patients. That there is a "procedure" in place does not mean that there is due process. Due process is a particular legal term with certain requirements, e.g., the right to be heard, to have counsel, to be heard before an impartial tribunal, to appeal, etc. Not a single one of those exists in TADA. You may attend the hearing, you may or may not be allowed to speak. You have no right to speak. You are not entitled to counsel, you may be allowed it, but you have no right to it. And so forth and so on as I described in the links above.
Important for you to know is that those that describe it this way do not in any way help patients navigate the system at all. They have little to no firsthand knowledge of how this law actually works in the real world and certainly not from the patient's point of view. They don't help place patients in a new facility. They do not understand the special challenges involved in trying to save lives under these extraordinary circumstances. They do not retain lawyers to help anyone attempt to get a Temporary Restraining Order to try to get more time to transfer a patient. Again, they do not know how the system works in this context. Texas Right to Life certainly does. To a much lesser, but growing extent, so do I. So do many of us that oppose it. In fact, no one that supports it is involved in how it actually works for the patient. Keep that in mind.
With no hint of irony, they like to claim that any media entity or anyone criticizing this law is "uninformed" or "confused" about it. I've been watching this for years. People asking these questions are not confused or uninformed. In fact, they are digging into it. I've been asked dozens of questions in the last two weeks about it. As intellectually honest people learn more about this little known risk to their lives, they are horrified. They cannot believe that their right to life could be taken so hastily and with no recourse.
What they actually do is work to keep this law in place and continue to deprive patients and their families of their Constitutional rights to life and due process under the law. And they ally with pro-abortion entities to keep this law in place.
The result of all of their efforts is a continuation of involuntary passive euthanasia. Here is a reminder of why some of us call it that:
Let me begin with a note about terminology. I've discussed this before but let me recap. Why do I refer to TADA as "involuntary passive euthanasia"? First, TADA allows a hospital to withdraw your life-sustaining care against your will; it does not require anyone to consider your thoughts on the matter at all. Thus, if it is used against you against your will, you are subjected to something that is involuntary. Second, "passive euthanasia" is distinguished from "active euthanasia." "Passive euthanasia"is death brought about by the denial of something without which you will die. It can be air (ventilators), nutrition, hydration, etc. "Active euthanasia," on the other hand, is that which Jack Kevorkian promoted - a shot or pills, etc. are administered - to directly and quickly bring about your death. TADA allows for passive, but not active euthanasia. But allowing the one sets up a slippery slope. There have already been calls to allow active euthanasia in Texas.
The primary pro-TADA faux life group releasing press statements - in which they admit that they have only second-hand information - also claims it does not support euthanasia. Interestingly enough, it does just that by supporting this law. Indeed, it's own staffers have written in support of euthanasia (although they did not actually call it by that name, what they described is the very definition of it).
They also like to say or heavily imply that the Courts have rejected a Constitutional challenge to TADA. That is inherently, demonstrably false. I explained that here. The Courts have never addressed the merits of the law. In other words, the Courts have not said it is Constitutional. They have just not ruled on that at all. The appeal was rejected because the Court decided that the entire case became moot upon the person's (Chris Dunn's) death. That is not a correct holding and it has been appealed. The Texas Supreme Court initially rejected the Petition for Review, but a Motion for Rehearing has been filed and it has not decided that at this time. As I mentioned in that post, I am one of the attorneys on the case and I will say no more about it right now other than that. But what I have said is all a matter of public record. You can easily pull the briefs and opinions and read them yourself.
One other thing the Usual Suspects like to claim is that this law is about protecting doctors' consciences and that to continue caring for a patient is to "force the hand of the doctor." I - and many others - have repeatedly said that different doctors have different consciences and the solution here is to transfer care to another doctor or facility, but with sufficient time to do so. I have never received an answer as to why the only solution they will contemplate is killing a patient by withdrawing their life-sustaining care against their will if a person cannot be transferred in 10 days. (See, e.g., here and here.) The amount of time here is not enough. Full sets of documents cannot even usually by acquired by then. Often, much of that 10 days falls on weekends, as in the case for Tinslee. Remember, also that the Usual Suspects still inexplicably opposed an amendment to TADA that would extend the time to transfer to 45 days.
One would think that after the Carolyn Jones debacle, and the amount of egg on so many faces, that these types would back off at least from publicly trying to glom onto a case to attempt damage control and try to gain their own publicity without firsthand information. They really never learn.
So there you have it: a few clarifications of some of the things you may see floating around out there. Trust the information coming from those with firsthand information about Tinslee's case, how this law works in the real world, and those who are truly pro-life from conception to natural death with no exceptions. There is only one such group in Texas: Texas Right to Life. They will be putting out updates from time to time that I will try to link here just to keep the record up-to-date, so to speak. Often times it is useful to come back and review things.
Please keep praying for Baby Tinslee and all involved. Pray for the conversion to life of all people.
Thanks for reading!
