Abbott finally rebuts allegations over mental health veto
AUSTIN — After Gov. Greg Abbott vetoed a bill allowing emergency-room patients to be temporarily detained by doctors who think they may be dangerously mentally ill, attention centered on one headline-inducing entity that wanted the measure dead.
“Meet Scientology’s favorite GOP governor,” blared Salon. Newsweek wrote, “Critics Link Texas Governor to Church of Scientology.”
Both cited opposition from the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, co-founded by the Church of Scientology as a check on psychiatric practices. It was first highlighted in a story by the Texas Tribune, which examined veto-related records and noted Abbott didn’t respond to its request for comment.
Coming after he directed the Texas State Guard to monitor the Jade Helm 15 federal military exercise, the focus fed criticism that Abbott plays to conspiracy theorists, this time in killing a bipartisan bill backed by the medical establishment. Not out of character
But the Republican governor’s veto was in line with his record on similar matters, and the Scientology-linked commission was among a number of entities urging a veto. Abbott’s office tallied 118 communications in favor of the bill and 1,078 against it.
The commission’s opposition “had zero influence on the governor’s decision,” said Abbott spokesman John Wittman.
Abbott, in his June veto proclamation, pointed to constitutional limits on “the state’s authority to deprive a person of liberty.” He
“I was very concerned about the 4th Amendment rights and the protections of those detained by someone other than a law enforcement officer. The state needs to tread cautiously ...” Gov. Greg Abbott
said that “the power to arrest and forcibly hold a person against his or her will is generally reserved for officers of the law acting in the name of the people of Texas.”
In a statement last week, Abbott explained further and reiterated that medical facilities have options other than the bill, which would have allowed individuals who seek care at a hospital or emergency center to be held for up to four hours if believed dangerous to themselves or others.
“I was very concerned about the 4th Amendment rights and the protections of those detained by someone other than a law enforcement officer,” Abbott said. “The state needs to tread cautiously before authorizing nonlaw enforcement officers to make detentions that implicate 4th amendment interests.”
Abbott said that hospitals have “the capability of either employing a law enforcement officer or the ability to call 911 while they were talking to the person that they considered to be at risk.”
Even the Scientology-founded commission, while happy with the veto, takes umbrage at the way the battle has been cast.
“Concentrating on our group, the fact we were founded by the church, was a complete red herring,” said Lee Spiller, its Texas executive director. “This was a rights issue. It was not a religious issue.”
A letter from Spiller to Cecilia Abbott thanking her for the veto drew particular attention because of its conversational, ca- sual tone. Wittman said Abbott’s wife doesn’t recall meeting Spiller, who said that’s “completely understandable.”
“While we certainly had some interactions with the First Lady down over the years, they were brief and casual,” he said. “What is really amazing is how some special interests have tried to turn this into some sort of a conspiracy.”
Spiller’s group testified during the legislative session against Senate Bill 359 by Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, and Rep. Paul Workman, R-Austin, before it easily passed both chambers. Boilerplate language
The coalition that urged the veto, besides Spiller, included advocates for parental rights or those who seek limits on government. Among them were leaders of groups skeptical of vaccines; the Libertarian Party; the Parent Guidance Center, which sides with parents in disputes with state child protective services; Texans United for Reform and Freedom, whose focus includes toll-road concerns; and perhaps most notably for Republicans, the Texas Home School Coalition.
AHomeSchool Coalition alert opposing the bill was cited in correspondence between members of governor’s staff, according to records released to the San Antonio Express-News under the Public Information Act.
The records also showed many communications to Abbott’s of- fice used boilerplate language offered by the Home School Coalition or the Parent Guidance Center.
“I don’t think there’s good evidence that Abbott was swayed by people lobbying for the veto, but if he was swayed, it would be far more likely he would have been swayed by the Home School Coalition than by the Church of Scientology,” said Rice University political scientist Mark Jones. “By and large, Scientologists do not represent a potent force within the GOP primary electorate, whereas the Home School Coalition is a salient actor in Republican primary politics.”
Among other points, the veto coalition cited a 2012 legal opinion by Abbott, written when he was attorney general. Then, Abbott said allowing transportation of a detained mentally ill person to a state hospital without court involvement or a doctor’s written findings that immediate care was necessary would upset “the balance between medical treatment and protection of legal rights.”
Support for the measure came from heavy hitters. The presidents of the Texas Medical Association and Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians wrote in May to Abbott that “a small but misinformed group of parents” was misrepresenting the bill, which backers said would help protect patients and the public.
John Hawkins, the Texas Hospital Association’s senior vice president for government relations, said in a statement this week that the bill “was to give physicians a tool to ensure safety for patients experiencing mental health issues while also allowing enough time for a peace officer or court to intervene at the hospital. Because the bill came together through a collaboration of multiple health care and other community stakeholders, there wasn’t a lot of public or lawmaker opposition.”
Workman said he didn’t see significant opposition during the legislative session.
“That was a big surprise to me when I saw it in the paper,” he said of the Scientology-linked opposition, adding that the bill was intended to protect the public as well as the person deemed potentially dangerous. He said he hadn’t talked to Abbott directly about the matter, but that Abbott’s office said he was vetoing it over constitutional concerns about holding people against their will. Belated explanation
Asked about the possible role of the Scientology group’s opposition, Steve Levine of the Texas Medical Association said by email, “We really believe this was a difference of opinion about the role of law enforcement vs the role of trained medical personnel.”
The profile of the Church of Scientology means it gets attention, said Jones, but “undue influence” from a group would be assumed only if a governor’s veto is at odds with his world view and typical policy positions.
Jones said, “The veto is very much in line with his position on broader constitutional and civil liberty matters.”
Unresolved is whether Abbott’s office could have squelched the growing headlines by responding early to the matter.
“The inquiry was so far departed from reality that we chose not to respond,” Wittman said.