Texas Joins Brief To Protect The Right To Life For Babies With Down Syndrome
Staff Report
Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton is the lawyer for the State of Texas and is charged by the Texas Constitution to:
- defend the laws and the Constitution of the State of Texas
- represent the State in litigation
- approve public bond issues
To fulfill these responsibilities, the Office of the Attorney General serves as legal counsel to all boards and agencies of state government, issues legal opinions when requested by the Governor, heads of state agencies and other officials and agencies as provided by Texas statutes.
The Texas AG sits as an ex-officio member of state committees and commissions and defends challenges to state laws and suits against both state agencies and individual employees of the State.
Many Texans look to the Office of the Attorney General for guidance with disputes and legal issues. The agency receives hundreds of letters, phone calls and visits each week about crime victims’ compensation, child support, abuse in nursing homes, possible consumer fraud and other topics. To find out more about the Texas Attorney General, visit the official website at https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/.
AG Paxton Joins Brief to Protect the Right to Life for Babies with Down Syndrome
AUSTIN – Attorney General Ken Paxton joined 17 other states in a friend-of-the-court brief to protect babies with Down Syndrome from abortion based solely on their genetics.
Despite numerous civil rights protections, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, an Ohio federal court created a categorical right to abortion, regardless of whether the reason for an abortion is clearly based on discrimination against a child with disabilities.
“As fetal screening technology advances, the risk of eugenics-minded abortion, unfortunately, expands as well. To kill a child in the womb simply because they possess different physical or mental capabilities than their parents envisioned is a barbaric and horrifying act of discrimination against the helpless,” said Attorney General Paxton. “All life should be celebrated and all people, regardless of their genetics, should be afforded the right to life.”
Ohio’s anti-eugenic law protects those with Down Syndrome from harm prior to their birth and opposes the demeaning stereotype that a life with disabilities is not worth living.
Allowing the baseless abortion of those with Down Syndrome opens the door to increasingly dangerous discrimination in determining who is allowed to live and who must not be born at all.
To view a copy of the amicus brief, click here.
Notification of Opinion
Official Request RQ-0299-KP
Voting entitlement of the taxing units entitled in the election of an appraisal district’s board of directors under Tax Code section 6.03(d)
Official Opinion KP-0287
Tax Code section 6.031 authorizes a change to the voting entitlement of taxing units in the appointment of an appraisal district’s board of directors.
Under the transition provisions of House Bill 1010 from 2007, a court would likely conclude that House Bill 1010 invalidated any previously adopted alternative method for determining that voting entitlement.
The voting entitlement for the appointment of appraisal district directors should be determined by Tax Code section 6.03(d), absent action taken under Tax Code section 6.031 to change that method subsequent to House Bill 1010.
Notification of Opinion
Original Request RQ-0298-KP
Procedure to repeal a special road tax
Official Opinion: KP-0286
To initiate an election to repeal a county road tax adopted under section 256.052 of the Transportation Code, a county commissioners court must receive a petition calling for the election signed by 200 registered voters of the county.
However, under section 256.053, the commissioners court may grant the petition only if satisfactory proof is presented of (1) great dissatisfaction with the tax; and (2) probable success of the election.
What constitutes satisfactory proof is a question of fact for the commissioners court to determine in the first instance, subject to judicial review.
Notification of Opinion
Original Request RQ-0297-KP
Construction of Transportation Code section 502.010, concerning a county assessor collector’s authority to refuse to register motor vehicles based on certain “scofflaw” information.
Official Opinion: KP-0285
In a county that does not have an information-sharing contract with the Department of Motor Vehicles, the county assessor-collector may refuse to register a motor vehicle under subsection 502.0IO(a) of the Transportation Code upon receipt of information that the owner owes the county a fine, fee, or tax that is past due, or failed to appear in certain criminal matters as specified in the statute.
Subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), and the second sentence of subsection (b-1) are not applicable to a county that does not have an information-sharing contract with the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Under subsection 502.0IO(b-1), the information provided to make a determination whether to refuse to register a motor vehicle under subsection 502.0IO(a)(l) expires on the second anniversary of the date information was provided and applies whether or not the county has an information-sharing contract with the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Section 502.010 does not provide for the expiration of information about a vehicle owner’s failure to appear in the specified criminal matters.
A county’s contract with the Department of Public Safety relating to driver’s license renewal under section 706.002 of the Transportation Code does not affect its authority or duties with respect to motor vehicle registration under section 502.010.
Request for Opinion
Official Request RQ-0328-KP
Whether rider 52 to article III of the General Appropriations Act allows students to qualify for financial assistance through the Program to Encourage Certification to Teach Bilingual Education, English as a Second Language, or Spanish by taking an exam comparable to the State Board for Educator Certification Bilingual Target Language Proficiency Test or by passing a practice exam.
Date Received:
January 17, 2019
Official Requestor:
Harrison Keller, Ph.D.
Commissioner of Higher Education
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Post Office Box 12788
Austin, Texas 78711
AG Paxton: Baby T.L.’s Right to Life Must be Protected
AUSTIN –?Attorney General Ken Paxton and Gov. Greg Abbott today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Second Court of Appeals, urging the court to reverse a lower court’s order and grant baby T.L.’s family a temporary injunction until the case is resolved to protect the baby’s life.
In November 2019, Cook Children’s Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas denied the baby’s mother’s request to continue life-sustaining treatment without first providing due process of law, directly violating her wishes and her daughter’s right to life. The family seeks an order from the court that will prevent the hospital from ignoring the family’s wishes by ending baby T.L.’s life.
“Life is the first and ultimate constitutionally protected interest, and this case is certainly a matter of life or death,” said Attorney General Paxton. “This baby girl, like all Texans, has the right to life and due process. Patients must be heard and justly represented when determining their own medical treatment, especially when their life is in danger. My office will use all necessary resources to ensure that this baby and all Texans are afforded the rights they deserve.”
Section 166.046 of the Texas Health and Safety Code states that a physician who decides that treatment is medically inappropriate – along with an ethics or medical committee that affirms the decision – is not required to provide life-sustaining treatment at the request of a patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient unless a court orders otherwise. The statute fails to require that physicians provide an explanation of why they refused life-sustaining treatment and provide the patient’s family with adequate notice and opportunity to argue their position prior to the committee reaching a decision, effectively allowing the government to deny an individual’s right to his or her own life without due process.
To view a copy of the amicus brief, click here.
