ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Texas

Health

Uninsured Texans Seek Health Care In Mexico As Their Governor Resists Medicaid Expansion

The debate over Medicaid expansion has devolved into a GOP platform for grandstanding about the health reform law and the Obama administration. But an NPR article from Tuesday shines a light on what, exactly, most Republican governors’ refusal to expand Medicaid will mean for real Americans by examining poor communities in a state headed by one of Obamacare’s most ardent critics: Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX).

The piece centers on particularly destitute populations in southern Texas, where some uninsured residents are so poor, sick, and unable to cope with their medical bills that they resort to desperate measures such as crossing the border into Mexico for medications and even sharing their insulin shots:

[M]any of those who live here [in Brownsville] — including poor Latino immigrants, both legal and undocumented — suffer from diabetes and lack of insurance. Some of those uninsured diabetics, including American citizens and others living here legally, used to go across the border to Matamoros, Mexico for insulin. But now with the fear of brutal drug violence and tougher border restrictions, families share their insulin shots rather than risking the crossings.

A community health worker in Brownsville noted that “many of those who used to cross the border would qualify for Medicaid under the expansion offered by the health care law.”

This inequity is further exacerbated when dealing with a more serious or life-threatening chronic condition. One official at Brownsville’s local health clinic described how difficult it is to provide specialty care services to the poor and uninsured, emphasizing that Medicaid coverage would make it far easier to convince physicians to take on patients:

“Once you diagnose a cancer, then what?” said Dr. Henry Imperial, the clinic’s medical director. “How are you going to give me chemotherapy or surgery or radiation therapy? It goes out of our hands.”

Those complications can make for some intense arm-twisting among Brownsville’s medical ranks. Imperial said he often plies fellow doctors in town with beer to see his uninsured patients. “When they see me approaching them, they start running away,” he joked before turning somber. “It’s just tough. I could not do an appendectomy. I cannot operate on gall bladders. I need a surgeon.”

Most specialists, including surgeons, in Brownsville, accept Medicaid, said Imperial. “It does pay for services that otherwise the patient does not receive.”

GOP leaders like Perry and even some of the more serious conservative academic critics of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion regularly cite the program’s low reimbursement rates as a reason for dismissing it. Perry has denounced expansion as doubling down on a “broken system,” since doctors won’t want anything to do with Medicaid to begin with.

Read more

Justice

Texas Fires Shot Against The War On Christmas — In May


Summer has not even begun and children across America have barely gotten bored with last year’s Christmas presents. Yet Texas is already gearing up for the season when conservatives accuse liberals like the two people pictured above of waging a War on Christmas.

A measure labeled the “Merry Christmas bill,” which is currently awaiting Gov. Rick Perry’s (R-TX) signature, provides that public school staff may “offer traditional greetings” including “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Hanukkah” to their students, and it permits school districts to “display on school property scenes or symbols associated with traditional winter celebrations, including a menorah or a Christmas image such as a nativity scene or Christmas tree” so long as the display includes either a “secular scene” or symbols from more than one faith. The bill’s lead sponsors also put up a website promoting the bill, where they warn about a world where children ask “Daddy, why do we have a Christmas tree at home and a Holiday tree at school?”

Religious displays that merely comply with the minimum requirements of this bill are likely unconstitutional under existing law — although the law in this space is quite garbled. Although the Supreme Court did uphold a government-sponsored display that included a nativity scene in its 5-4 decision in Lynch v. Donnelly, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cast the key fifth vote upholding that display, and her opinion made clear that government cannot take action whose “actual purpose is to endorse or disapprove of religion” or which “conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval.” Subsequent decisions make clear that a religious displays which violate the Constitution do not always cease to do so just because they appear alongside non-religious icons. A crucifix is still a crucifix, even if it is displayed next to the Golden Arches.

Yesterday, however, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could easily give Texas free reign to tear down much of the wall between separation of church and state. Admittedly, conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy has balked in the past at efforts to make public school students to attend religious ceremonies, so it is possible that he would balk at similar efforts by public schools to endorse a religious viewpoint. At the very least, however, the law is likely going to become much more permissive of lawmakers who wish the government to broadcast their religious beliefs to others.

Justice

Texas Judge Forbids Lesbian Woman From Living With Her Partner


Carolyn Compton is in a three year-old relationship with a woman. According to Compton’s partner Page Price, Compton’s ex-husband rarely sees their two children and was also once charged with stalking Compton, a felony, although he eventually plead to a misdemeanor charge of criminal trespassing.

And yet, thanks to a Texas judge, Compton could lose custody of her children because she has the audacity to live with the woman she loves.

According to Price, Judge John Roach, a Republican who presides over a state trial court in McKinney, Texas, placed a so-called “morality clause” in Compton’s divorce papers. This clause forbids Compton having a person that she is not related to “by blood or marriage” at her home past 9pm when her children are present. Since Texas will not allow Compton to marry her partner, this means that she effectively cannot live with her partner so long as she retains custody over her children. Invoking the “morality clause,” Judge Roach gave Price 30 days to move out of Compton’s home.

Compton can appeal Roach’s decision, but her appeal will be heard by the notoriously conservative Texas court system. Ultimately, the question of whether Compton’s relationship with Price is entitled to the same dignity accorded to any other loving couple could rest with the United States Supreme Court.

LGBT

Texas House Passes Higher Education ‘License To Discriminate’

Texas Rep. Matt Krause (R)

The Texas House has approved a bill that would allow student organizations at any of the state’s public universities to willfully violate nondiscrimination policies and refuse membership to whomever they choose.  According to the amendment from Rep. Matt Krause (R), student organizations deny membership to students according to the following criteria:

(1) who demonstrates opposition to the organization’s stated beliefs and purposes; or

(2) whose membership in the organization: (A) would affect in a significant way the organization’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints; or (B) is designed for the subversive intent of undermining the organization’s ability to assemble for its stated purposes.

Hypothetically, this language could be used to discriminate against any student. If a student organization doesn’t like an individual for whatever reason, they could simply claim that he or she doesn’t represent the group’s “viewpoints.” This would allow discrimination based on any characteristic, including even race. Krause’s target, though, is clearly the LGBT community; earlier this year he offered a different bill that would have cut funding for any university that doesn’t allow discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. Similar legislation passed in Virginia and Tennessee also considered such measures, though none passed.

These measures all stem from religious organizations’ attempts to discriminate against students because they are gay. Krause’s, like the others, specifically references these religious groups as needing special protections for their freedoms of speech and association. Some conservatives even fear — as is evident in Krause’s language — that gay or atheist students, for example, will infiltrate these groups to compromise their missions. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this has ever happened anywhere, nor is it even a realistic possibility.

Student organizations receive funding from student fees, and thus all students who pay fees should have access to them. These clubs have enough independence to elect student leaders that will uphold the organization’s mission without needing to violate nondiscrimination statements. If Krause’s amendment is passed into law, students at universities will pay for services they then do not have access to. Though he claims in its language that it helps “promote diversity of thought and the marketplace of ideas,” it will have the exact opposite effect.

Justice

Texas Judge Permits ‘Bible Banners’ To Be Displayed At Public School Football Games

Last year, a Texas judge issued a temporary order permitting cheerleaders at a Texas high school to display banners emblazoned with Bible verses and other religious messages during football games. On Wednesday, the same judge made that order permanent. As a result, signs such as this one will continue to be a regular fixture at these public high school football games:

As ThinkProgress previously explained, this case is troubling in no small part because these cheerleaders are receiving favorable treatment compared to another Texas cheerleader who alleged that she was raped. In the alleged rape case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a cheerleader could be required to cheer for her alleged rapist because in her “capacity as cheerleader, [she] served as a mouthpiece through which [her school] could disseminate speech namely, support for its athletic teams.” Public school cheerleaders, according to the Fifth Circuit, speak on behalf of their government-run school when they cheer.

But, in the Supreme Court’s words, the “First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” If cheerleaders are speaking on behalf of their public school, then they cannot display religious banners because doing so is not neutral on the subject of religion.

Admittedly, the decision this week came from a state court judge, while the Fifth Circuit is a federal court, so the Fifth Circuit’s decision is not binding on the Texas judge. Nevertheless, the Constitution’s requirement for church/state separation is binding upon state court judges. And, at the very least, alleged rape survivors should not face less favorable laws than everyone else.

Economy

Victims In Texas Fertilizer Plant Explosion May Still Have To Pay Property Taxes

(Credit: Rod Aydelotte/Waco Tribune)

West, Texas continues to be rocked by the aftermath of the fertilizer plant explosion last month. Victims are now discovering they may still have to pay property taxes on their destroyed homes. While these homeowners can file protests until the end of May, the law requires property values to be determined on January 1 of the tax year. Local governments are allowed to reappraise homes after natural disasters, but the fertilizer plant explosion was very much a man-made calamity.

Even the mayor, Tommy Muska, has filed to protest the property value of his home, which is so badly damaged from the blast that it may cost $300,000 to repair. However, the mayor noted, granting victims relief is a “double-edged sword,” as the town will flounder from the millions of lost tax dollars. The magnitude of the explosion, which claimed 15 lives and injured 160 others, also devastated a huge chunk of West’s much-needed revenue for many years to come:

Hahn estimated that West lost at least $29 million in taxable value as a result of the blast, not counting damage to nontaxable property such as schools, water tanks and infrastructure.

That amount represents more than one-fifth of West’s tax base of $140.4 million, according to preliminary values. Hahn said losing that much revenue this year would hobble the finances of the city and West Independent School District when they need the money the most.

Whatever the appraisal district decides, either the victims or the town will take a debilitating hit. Victims cannot count on West Fertilizer Co. for compensation, either. The plant was only insured for $1 million of damages, a negligible sum that does not even begin to cover the actual losses. Property damage alone is projected to reach $100 million. Even so, the company was not required to carry any liability insurance at all. Many states, including Texas, do not impose any legal requirements for companies to have liability insurance. This latest revelation is just one of the myriad regulatory failures that led to the deadly explosion.

On Friday, the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Texas Rangers launched a criminal investigation into the explosion. Some victims are also pursuing civil lawsuits against the company.

Health

After Backlash From Voters, Texas Lawmakers Work To Reverse Cuts To Women’s Health Programs

For more than a year, Texas lawmakers have been on a crusade against Planned Parenthood that has resulted in deep cuts to family planning services that thousands of women rely on. But, particularly after the state’s health department projected a sharp rise in unintended births as a direct result of the budget cuts, Texas Republicans are finally starting to regret that move. In an attempt to appease the voters who have attacked them for undermining low-income women’s preventative health resources, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are now quietly working to restore the family planning funding they slashed.

As the Texas Tribune reports, the Democrats and Republicans in the state have struck an uneasy balance. Democrats have promised to stop fighting to restore state funding to Planned Parenthood, while Republicans have pledged to stop imposing additional barriers to women’s health care access:

“The major difference is we’re not fighting about it, we’re just doing what’s right for women and the state,” state Rep. Sarah Davis, R-West University Place, said last month at a Texas Tribune symposium on health care.

There has not been a drawn-out public debate on abortion or women’s health in either chamber this legislative session. None of the 24 abortion-related bills filed have reached the House or Senate floor. And Davis, the only Republican member of the House Women’s Health Caucus, brokered a bipartisan “grand bargain,” as lawmakers refer to it, to prevent amendments to the House budget bill that could have jeopardized an agreement to restore women’s health dollars.

For some Republicans, this bargain hinged on the ballot box: Davis said several of her colleagues faced blistering attacks after last session’s family planning cuts — an effort, in part, to drive Planned Parenthood out of business — shuttered clinics in their districts that were not affiliated with abortion providers.

Davis told the Texas Tribune that she is committed to providing adequate resources for family planning services for low-income women, and the best way to get that done is to “remove emotion” from the legislative process. According to Davis, the recent arguments about abortion and Planned Parenthood that fueled the legislature’s decision to slash those resources “did not advance the ball,” but rather “threw family planning into a tailspin.”

She’s right. Since the state cut its family planning budget by two-thirds, 53 family planning clinics have been forced to close their doors and an estimated 144,000 fewer women have received preventative health care. So now, in the state’s tentative 2014-15 budget, lawmakers are considering devoting even more money for women’s health services than the state was allocating to that area before the 2011 budget cuts.

But, in order to get Republicans on board, that funding is still being strictly designated to clinics that don’t provide abortion services. Texas legislators may be coming around on some aspects of women’s health, but fights over abortion continue to simmer under the surface. Gov. Rick Perry (R) — who has maintained that outlawing all abortion is his ultimate “goal” — has thrown his weight behind a 20-week abortion ban, and lawmakers are considering a measure that could force some abortion clinics in the state to close. Although lawmakers are finally realizing that low-income women have the right to accessible birth control and family planning counseling, they’re not concerned about those same women’s access to affordable abortion care.

Health

Tea Party Hopes To Prevent Texas Lawmakers From Even Considering Giving Health Care To The Poor

Texas lawmakers have until midnight on Thursday to negotiate a deal on the 2014-2015 state budget before the current legislative session ends. But they may find themselves in town for a bit longer if some Tea Party lawmakers in the state House have their way and force a special legislative session over a Republican-backed rider regarding Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion — even though the amendment wouldn’t actually expand Texas’ Medicaid program, but simply “open the door to discussions with the federal government to expand health care coverage for the state’s poorest adults.”

The threats from Texas Tea Partiers make it even more unlikely than it already was that the Lone Star State will pass anything resembling a Medicaid expansion — or even future promises to simply talk about the issue — this year. As Texas Republicans — who introduced the rider — point out, the provision is simply a declaration that state and federal officials will discuss how to help the state’s poorest residents gain coverage in a way that hews to conservative, “free market principles” regarding health entitlements in light of upcoming cuts to safety net hospitals and Texas’ massive poor and uninsured population. But those arguments have failed to sway some in the Tea Party caucus, who view any talk of Medicaid at all as a sell-out to President Obama’s landmark health reform law:

“If the budget expanded Medicaid, conservatives in the House would vote the budget down,” said state Rep. Van Taylor, a Tea Party favorite from Plano. He said conservative Republican members of the House are “absolutely prepared to go to the mat” and return for multiple special sessions to prevent any semblance of Medicaid expansion.

State Rep. John Zerwas, R-Simonton, said House Bill 3791, which he filed to present the Legislature with an alternative way to expand health coverage to the state’s poorest adults without expanding Medicaid, would probably not move out of the lower chamber by the House’s midnight Thursday deadline, therefore the rider was one of few — if not the only — remaining legislative vehicles for the Legislature to weigh in on the issue.

“If people took the time to read the rider they would recognize that it’s not a Medicaid expansion,” he said. “They would understand clearly that it is a lot of, frankly, conservative principles.”

In fact, HB 3791 — a GOP alternative to Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion that would have covered Texas’ poorest by giving them subsidies to buy private insurance — was already doomed to fail in the House. This rider is simply a last resort that promises future negotiations on the issue. It actually also endorses extremely regressive approaches to expanding the safety net, including possibly block-granting the state’s Medicaid program. But, as the debate over Obamacare has become increasingly disconnected from reality, some members of the Texas Tea Party are willing to hold the state’s entire budget hostage over a measure endorsing policies that they have historically supported.

While this recent infighting is something of a new low in the Medicaid expansion debate, GOP hypocrisy regarding the health reform law certainly isn’t. Receiving federal funding in exchange for expanding and privatizing Medicaid programs — which the Obama Administration has signed onto — is usually a GOP-endorsed policy. In fact, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) struck a massive deal with federal officials in 2011 allowing him to move close to a million Medicaid beneficiaries into private, managed care. Perry heralded the move at the time, but has refused to accept an expanded version that same deal now that it’s a priority for the Administration and necessary for effective Obamacare implementation.

Only 35 percent of Texans living below 139 percent of the Federal Poverty Line (FPL) are covered by the state’s Medicaid program. 43 percent are uninsured.

Justice

Texas House Approves 12 Firearms Bills To Put More Guns In Classrooms And Defy Federal Law

On Saturday, as Texas hosted the National Rifle Association’s annual convention, the Texas House passed 12 gun bills to make it even easier to obtain and possess firearms in the state. The onslaught of legislation contains provisions to allow college students to carry handguns in class and to block any theoretical federal bans on assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition. The 12 bills, a veritable goody bag for gun rights advocates, passed easily in the Republican-dominated House.

Texas lawmakers introduced about twice as many gun bills this session as last year, generally in response to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. The state’s already forgiving gun laws will become even more permissive if even a handful of these bills become law. See a sample below:

No federal gun laws apply to the state. In a blatantly unconstitutional move, the House approved Rep. Steve Toth’s (R) proposal to exempt the state from any future federal laws to ban or restrict assault weapons or magazines. Federal law enforcement officers would be punished with up to 5 years in prison and a $50,000 fine if they tried to enforce these bans.

Guns in classrooms. Even after recent shootings at Lone Star College and near Texas A&M University, one of the newly passed bills now opens college classrooms to concealed weapons. Schools will be allowed to opt out if they choose. Separately, the Texas Senate approved a measure allowing college students to keep their guns in their cars on campus.

Armed marshals in schools. Public elementary, middle and high schools would select employees with concealed weapons permits to receive firearms training. These marshals would be granted access to guns in emergency situations.

Relaxed requirements to obtain concealed carry permits. The House reduced the number of training hours to get a concealed weapon permit by half, and allow individuals to renew permits online. Another bill passed would lower the handgun license fee for police, veterans, national and state Guard, and some Criminal Justice Department employees. The lost fees will cost the state up to $2 million.

Immigration

Texas Bill Would Protect Immigrant Victims And Witnesses From Deportation

On Thursday, the House State Affairs Committee in Texas approved a bill that would prohibit law enforcement officers from asking immigrants about their legal status when they report abuse and crime. The bill would prohibit immigration checks, but it does not grant exemptions for criminal involvement.

Advocating undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows to report crime would not only serve to bring justice to the system quicker, but empower victims to take a stand against their perpetrators. The bill passage could likely deter the ability of abusive partners who use the threat of deportation to undermine their spouses or partners from reporting their crime in a similar way that the Senate immigration bill aims to do.

It could also help improve construction site work conditions wherein one out of every five Texas construction workers require hospitalization due to job-related accidents.

The bill presents a positive shift from previous anti-immigrant House bills, such as the 2011 “no sanctuary city” bill that would give enforcement officers the authority to inquiry about legal status. Once regarded as proxies to ICE officers, Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo would like this bill to help change the public perception that law enforcement officials are there to investigate crime rather than to detain people.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up