More time to live
An uphill battle continues for 11-month-old Tinslee Lewis after a Texas appeals court halted a judge’s ruling permitting a Fort Worth hospital to remove her life support.
The state’s Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth on Friday ordered Cook Children’s Medical Center to keep Tinslee Lewis alive until it issues a final ruling in the case. The court has not set a trial date yet.
“This gives us so much hope for Tinslee,” said Kimberlyn Schwartz, a spokeswoman for Texas Right to Life, which has supported the girl’s family. “This is a prayer answered.”
Tinslee has been hospitalized at Cook Children’s since her premature birth on Feb. 1. She has a rare heart defect, chronic lung disease, and severe high blood pressure. Since July, she has required sedation, ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, in which a machine oxygenates the blood in place of her heart and lungs. But Tinslee’s mother maintains that despite her condition, she smiles, stares, and squeezes her hand.
Doctors cite Tinslee’s pain and terminal condition as reasons to stop life-sustaining treatment. But her mother said she wants to be the one to decide whether to remove her from life support.
Schwartz said the appeals court will rule on whether Cook Children’s must keep providing life support for Lewis and consider the constitutionality of the “10-day rule,” a state law that opponents say gives hospital officials more authority than parents.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Gov. Greg Abbott, both Republicans, filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Friday in favor of giving Tinslee more time to live. Eighteen Republican state lawmakers have asked Abbott to call a special session of the legislature to repeal the 10-day rule, calling it unethical and unjust.
Meanwhile, Schwartz said Texas Right to Life is working “around the clock” to find another hospital that will accept Tinslee. —M.J.
Comments
Katie
Posted: Mon, 01/06/2020 06:04 pmIn Safe Haven: The city ordinances are described as "not legally unenforceable." But I assume they are not enforceable?
DakotaLutheran
Posted: Tue, 01/07/2020 10:03 amWhat I don't understand is what the "legality" of sanctuary cities is. The artcle appears to say that the ordinances are largely "symbolic." This appears to imply that a city cannot prevent an abortion clinic being built in their city. Is this a matter of state law or federal law? In my state (SD), counties can enforce all sorts of laws regarding what can or cannot be built in their counties (esp. with regard to CAFOs). They are permitted to do this by state law. Why, then, couldn't they not allow an abortion clinic to be built in their counties? Are sanctuary cities that vastly limit their cooperation with Federal agencies regarding immigration violating any Federal law? What they do is apparently more than "symbolic." On the other hand, if such abortion clinic sanctuary city ordinances were enforceable, one could imagine that it could lead to the de facto prohibition of abortion in that state, something that is apparently a violation of Federal law. If through such sanctuary city means abortion could be outlawed, what else could be similarly de facto outlawed or made legal? At issue is the jurisdiction that local governments have. It is well established that cities and counties can have jurisdiction over the sale of alcohol. By such means an entire state might forbid the sale of alcohol, perhaps an entire country. Is this a violation of Federal law? According to Roe v Wade, abortion up to a certain term cannot be denied a woman by law. What if there were not doctors who would perform abortions in the country? Would the Federal government force doctors to learn how to perform and to perform such operations? That would seem unlikely. If there are no abortion clinics built, would they force someone to build and staff them? At issue, then, is whether someone wants to build an abortion clinic in your town can be denied a building permit. If you are a state and an undocumented immigrant applies for a driving license (among other services), it is apparently up to the state whether they want to or not, even though at least some of the funds used to provide such services will be federally derived. This entire issue is, like the issue of state's rights, muddy, or so it seems to me.
NEWS2ME
Posted: Tue, 01/07/2020 03:46 pmSection 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits “sex” discrimination in the provision of health care, to mean that hospitals, insurance companies and other health care entities that receive federal funding must cover or perform abortions and sex-reassignment surgeries, even if doing so would violate their religious beliefs.
Obama's executive order mandates that doctors and nurses must perform abortions...
From what I understand Trump tried to undo this but what blocked by a judge.
momof 13
Posted: Tue, 01/07/2020 02:10 pm"Abortion tourism" is such a sad term. People traveling to a city to kill their child should have a more menacing term like "murder peregrination".
NEWS2ME
Posted: Tue, 01/07/2020 03:47 pmMayor Charlie is a cutie.
Janet B
Posted: Wed, 01/08/2020 06:21 pmI think that Mayor Charlie may be the cutest mayor in the country.