6 December 21 - 27, 2023 dallasobserver.com DALLAS OBSERVER Classified | MusiC | dish | Culture | unfair Park | Contents Things changed in 2021 when Senior As- sistant Attorney Gary Powell offered a dif- ferent interpretation of the law. He claimed that this gambling exception was never meant to apply to businesses. Instead, he said, it was meant to apply to private games at people’s homes. This new interpretation prompted the city to take away the clubs’ certificates of occupancy. Andrea Gilles, interim director of the Planning & Urban Design Department, said the proposed new land use could be brought to the ZOAC by January or February. Texas Card House CEO Ryan Crow said he and the club’s attorneys have had some conversations with City Council members about what a path forward could look like for poker clubs, but he’s not sure what the city will settle on. He said the update last week is the most he’s heard about the pro- posed legal land use since city staff started working on it in late January. “We’ve just been nudging them to do something so that we can end the legal part of it because it’s just incredibly expensive,” Crow said. “We’d rather be working together to find a solution than fighting it out with attorneys.” He thinks there’s an internal disagree- ment between City Council members and the city attorney’s office about how to move forward. “The city attorney, I think they want to fight this out in the courts. They want the legal part of it. I don’t know that the City Council wants that,” Crow said. “I’m reading the tea leaves here. I don’t know this for sure, but it sounds like some people want to fight it legally and some peo- ple want to come up with a solution outside of it. … I feel like there’s two different mes- sages coming from those groups.” He said he understands council mem- bers’ concerns about the location of the clubs. “As long as there’s some guidance that’s reasonable and doesn’t cost us a mil- lion dollars to move locations, I think we’d be pretty happy with just something that ev- eryone can be happy with,” Crow said. “My hope is that they present something tenable for us and that we can find a resolution.” ▼ COURTS A REASONABLE EXCEPTION DOCTORS FACE UNCERTAINTY AFTER RULING AGAINST KATE COX. BY KELLY DEARMORE T he Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion on Dec. 11, just after 5 p.m., that appears to have brought the Kate Cox abortion saga, a case that’s earned inter- national attention, to an end in this state. It wasn’t a crystal clear yes or no in the tradi- tional sense. Instead, the opinion seemed more to remove courts from the matter en- tirely. One thing was sure by then, however: Cox would not be getting the abortion she says she needs in Texas. Cox, a 30-year-old Dallas woman and mother of two, had already decided earlier that she would leave the state to seek abor- tion care. In a statement announcing the de- cision, her legal representation said that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other politicians should not be making med- ical decisions for expectant mothers. Cox is carrying a fetus that her doctors diagnosed with full trisomy 18, a horrifying chromosomal abnormality that would sad- dle the baby with a number of ailments and difficulties and would ultimately prove fatal. It was doubtful the baby would survive in the womb, and if so, for more than a short time after a full-term birth. Cox was told that carrying the baby to full-term and hav- ing it delivered via Cesarean section surgery could jeopardize her health and prove harmful to any future attempts by her and her husband, Justin, to have another child. The Texas Supreme Court opinion opened with a summary of the scenario and the decision. For such a historic case, the first of its kind in Texas since the state outlawed abortion in July 2022, and one that tackles ar- guably the hottest of hot topics in the state, the document reads a bit laissez-faire. “Kate Cox and her husband Justin are the parents of two children,” the opinion stated. “Ms. Cox is about twenty weeks pregnant with a third child — one who has received a tragic diagnosis. The Coxes and their doctor sue to prevent the enforcement of Texas laws that generally prohibit abortion. “These laws reflect the policy choice that the Legislature has made, and the courts must respect that choice. Part of the Legisla- ture’s choice is to permit a significant excep- tion to the general prohibition against abortion. And it has delegated to the medi- cal — rather than the legal — profession the decision about when a woman’s medical cir- cumstances warrant this exception.” If that reads rather offhand, it gets a bit more formal later on when quoting Texas law. But don’t confuse formality with objec- tive clarity, because that won’t be found in this instance. “Only a doctor can exercise ‘reasonable medical judgment’ to decide whether a pregnant woman ‘has a life-threatening physical condition,’ making an abortion nec- essary to save her life or to save her from ‘a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function,’” the court’s opinion states. “If a doctor, using her ‘reasonable medical judgment,’ decides that a pregnant woman has such a condition, then the ex- ception applies, and Texas law does not pro- hibit the abortion.” What might happen after that doctor ex- ercised her “reasonable medical judgment,” however, is anybody’s guess. Despite the Su- preme Court’s effort to wash its hands of the matter, felony charges and ruinous civil law- suits could still be on the table. Terms such as “reasonable,” “serious,” “substantial,” and “major” are highly subjec- tive. After Cox’s case, it’s easy to understand that many Texas doctors are likely left not understanding what might await them from a legal perspective should they be treating a patient who fits within the medical exemp- tion in Texas. “Each of those terms, you could have a lot of different experts weigh in on what they mean,” Seema Mohapatra, a professor at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, told the Observer. “For a serious medical situation, you don’t want to have to wonder if your definition of any of those words will or will not meet someone else’s under- standing of those words in a court of law.” The events of the past week fairly suggest that just because a physician has used their reasonable judgment to decide a patient is in serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function, there’s nothing in the law preventing someone else, anyone else, from disagreeing with that judgment and bringing legal action against the doctor. “If Kate [Cox] can’t get an abortion in Texas, who can? Kate’s case is proof that ex- ceptions don’t work, and it’s dangerous to be pregnant in any state with an abortion ban,” said Molly Duane, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights n a statement; “... but in the meantime, doctors still don’t know what the exception means, and the Texas Medical Board remains silent. If the highest court in Texas can’t figure out what this law means, I’m not sure how a doctor could. Meanwhile, the lives of Tex- ans hang in the balance.” On Thursday, Dec. 7, hours after a state judge cleared the way for Cox to have an abortion in Texas, Paxton issued a statement condemning the ruling and threatening fel- ony prosecution against any doctor or hospi- tal involved should Cox move forward with the abortion. What had seemed like a clear- cut victory earlier in the day was again murky. It seems the only thing that’s for cer- tain here is that things are quite uncertain. “I think everything that has happened in the Kate Cox case, including the Supreme Court opinion, is going to add to the confu- sion,” Mohapatra said. “Even though the court hopes the opinion provides some clarity, I think there’s still a lot of questions, especially because its not clear how any of this intersects with all of Texas’ abortion laws, including SB 8, the ‘bounty hunter law.’” A provision of the law permits virtually anyone to file a lawsuit for $10,000 against anyone who performs abor- tions or otherwise aids in providing them to women more than six weeks pregnant. “Right now the doctors don’t know if they can provide that procedure without be- ing subject to felony conviction, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and getting their license taken away without consulting the courts, “ Mohapatra said. “If you’re mak- ing a calculus of what your life is going to look like by practicing medicine in this area, I do think that will have an effect on recruit- ing doctors to come here as well.” ▼ HOMELESSNESS ‘DELAYS AND SNAFUS’ YEARS LATER, DALLAS IS STILL WORKING ON THESE HOMELESSNESS PROJECTS. BY JACOB VAUGHN T he city of Dallas is struggling to get three homelessness projects off the ground. This isn’t a new dilemma. The city bought the old Hotel Miramar in North Oak Cliff for $3.5 million in 2020 to house the homeless, but it still sits vacant. The same can be said for two other sites pur- chased by the city last year, the Townhouse Suites building in southern Dallas and the former University General Hospital building in Oak Cliff. The old hospital cost $6.5 mil- lion, and the city spent another $5 million on the Townhouse Suites. But as of now, no one is living at the three sites, and City Council members want to know why. Last month, council members Chad West and Paula Blackmon sent a memo to City Manager T.C. Broadnax ask- ing for an update on the Hotel Miramar building. “The Miramar project is particularly dis- appointing and also instructive of the chal- lenges the city faces when going it alone in these projects,” the memo said. “After having purchased this property almost three years ago, significant uncertainty remains as to ren- ovation duration and cost, as well as the cost of securing an operating partner and needed rental subsidies and tenant services.” The council members asked for a revised plan. This would include a complete project plan that addresses both renovation of the site as well as timing, funding for operator selection, rental subsidies and tenant sup- portive services. West and Blackmon said they’re also dis- appointed with progress on three other sites: the Townhouse Suites building, the former University General Hospital building and the Candlewood Suites building on Preston Road in Far North Dallas. The Candlewood Suites building was turned into a family shelter after it was pur- chased by the city in 2020 for $6 million, but it seems as though the project could have gone more smoothly. Mike Brooks It could be legally dangerous for Texas doctors to say a patient fits into the legal medical exception for an abortion. Unfair Park from p4 >> p8
