KTBB News, Weather, Talk

DALLAS – The Dallas Morning News reports that Cardinal Kevin Farrell, the Vatican camerlengo and a former bishop of the Dallas Catholic Diocese, announced the death of Pope Francis early Monday. Farrell made the announcement, about two hours after Francis had died, from Domus Santa Marta, the apartment on Vatican grounds where Francis lived. As camerlengo, Farrell will take charge of the administration of the Holy See until a new pope is elected. Farrell spent nearly 10 years in Dallas, beginning in 2007, serving as the spiritual leader of the area’s Catholics. In 2016, he was elevated to cardinal by Pope Francis and appointed prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life. He became the highest-ranking American clergyman in the Vatican when he took on his new role. On Jan. 1, 2024, he was appointed president of the Supreme Court of Vatican City. Here’s what to know about Cardinal Kevin Farrell.

Born in Dublin, Ireland, in September 1947, Farrell is the second of four brothers and a graduate of the Irish Christian Brothers High School, according to the Catholic Diocese of Dallas. His brother, Bishop Brian Farrell, serves at the Vatican. Farrell joined the Legionnaires of Christ in 1966 and later earned degrees in philosophy and theology in Rome. He was ordained a priest in 1978. He served as chaplain at the University of Monterrey in Mexico before joining the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., in 1984. There, he held various roles and was ordained auxiliary bishop in 2002. In 2007, he became bishop of the Dallas Catholic Diocese and served here for about 10 years. In Dallas, Farrell sought to bridge cultural and economic differences between Anglo and Latino Catholics. He delivered his first homily as bishop partly in English, partly in Spanish. (He is also fluent in Italian.) As he prepared to leave in 2016, he said Dallas had quickly became home to him, he had expected to retire here and that saying goodbye would be difficult. “The people are so friendly in Dallas. Coming from D.C., I really noticed that,” he told The Dallas Morning News as he was preparing to depart in 2016. “And some of the most generous people I have met in the United States live in Dallas. I’m going to miss that.”

SAN MARCOS – A Texas appeals court has ruled that the city of San Marcos cannot enforce its voter-approved ordinance to decriminalize marijuana because it conflicts with current state law.

Last week, the state Fifteenth Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that denied a temporary injunction to prevent the city from enforcing the law, making the marijuana reform invalid. The court determined the city law “abused its discretion” by putting up any barrier to the full enforcement of drug-related laws.

“It is undisputed that possession of marijuana is illegal in Texas … Therefore, we cannot justify allowing state law to continue to be violated,” according to the ruling penned by Judge April Farris.

In 2022, nearly 82% of San Marcos voters chose to decriminalize marijuana under Proposition A. The effort was led by a group of advocacy organizations, including Mano Amiga, Ground Game Texas, San Marcos Democratic Socialists of America, the Hays County Libertarian Party, the Hays County Democratic Party, and the Texas Cannabis Collective, which gathered 10,000 signatures for the petition.

The Proposition A ordinance ended citations and arrests by the San Marcos Police Department for misdemeanor possession of marijuana up to four ounces. However, police can still cite or arrest a person for Class A or Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana if it’s part of an investigation involving felony-level narcotics or violence.

Also, the ordinance ended citations for possession of drug residue or drug paraphernalia, prohibited the use of city funds or personnel to test the level of THC — the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana — and prohibited city police from using the odor of marijuana or hemp as probable cause to search a vehicle or home.

This ordinance applies to only the San Marcos Police Department and doesn’t affect Texas State University, the Hays County Sheriff’s Office, or other law enforcement agencies in the area.

Paxton sued San Marcos, along with Austin, Killeen, Elgin, and Denton, last year for adopting ordinances or policies instructing law enforcement not to enforce laws concerning marijuana possession and distribution.

Paxton, in the lawsuit, argued these local ordinances or policies violated state law that requires the enforcement of drug-related matters, like possession of marijuana or paraphernalia.

What has happened in the courts so far: Hays County district judge Sherri Tibbe dismissed Paxton’s lawsuit, upholding the argument that the state was not injured when San Marcos reduced arrests for misdemeanor marijuana possession and that it allowed for resources to be used for higher-priority public safety needs.

The Office of the Attorney General appealed this decision. In February, the case was assigned to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, where the state’s attorneys argued that the San Marcos ordinance obstructed the enforcement of state drug laws. The city argued the policy was voter-driven, but the court disagreed, granting the temporary injunction while litigation continues.

This issue has been hotly contested in courts and city councils across the state for the past two years.

Travis County District Judge Jan Soifer dismissed Paxton’s lawsuit against Austin last year, ruling there was no legal justification to try the case.

Paxton’s lawsuit against Elgin was resolved last summer via consent decree, meaning neither side is claiming guilt or liability but has come to an agreement.

In the North Texas suburb of Denton, where voters approved decriminalization by more than 70%, the implementation of marijuana decriminalization has stalled after City Manager Sara Hensley argued it couldn’t be enforced since it conflicted with state law.

The case against Killeen, which was filed in Bell County a year ago, is still pending.

The future of THC products in Texas is uncertain. Currently, lawmakers are debating Senate Bill 3, which would ban any consumable hemp products that contain even trace amounts of THC, as well as House Bill 28, which would ban synthetic THC and products like gummies and vapes. The House’s proposal focuses more on tightening regulatory loopholes, allowing hemp-infused beverages and assigning the alcohol industry to regulate those products. HB 28 would also limiting the consumption of such products to those 21 years or older and implement advertising regulations.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said he would move to force a special legislative session if lawmakers fail to pass the ban during the current session which ends June 2.

“Kids are getting poisoned today,” Patrick told the Senate earlier this year.

Article originally published by The Texas Tribune. To read the originally published article, click here.

WASHINGTON – Politico reports that a majority of the Supreme Court appeared inclined Monday to reject a conservative challenge from Texas to Obamacare, leaving in place the federal government’s authority to require insurers to cover everything from depression screenings to HIV prevention drugs at no cost to patients. And, in an odd twist, it was the Trump administration defending the health law that the president has spent more than a decade excoriating. Over an hour and a half of in-the-weeds arguments, the justices seemed to favor the administration’s position — that Obamacare’s coverage mandates are constitutional because the task force that recommends them is made up of members who can be ignored or fired at will by the health secretary.

But a favorable ruling will not necessarily be an unqualified win for Obamacare advocates, since it would still leave the current administration with significant sway over those requirements going forward. The high court’s decision, expected by June, could also jeopardize or even erase many of the preventive care requirements set since Obamacare’s inception — allowing insurance companies to charge co-pays for tens of millions of people. The Trump administration’s surprising defense of the Affordable Care Act, which President Donald Trump has long fought to repeal, seemed driven at least in part by a desire to maximize the authority of Trump’s Cabinet and avoid having a range of employees and advisers be subject to Senate confirmation. Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan said at least twice during Monday’s arguments that requiring the Senate’s involvement in such appointments would be unconstitutional. Notably, Jonathan Mitchell, who won a unanimous Supreme Court ruling last year that effectively ensured Trump remained on the 2024 ballot nationwide, represented the conservative Texas employers challenging the coverage requirements.

TEXAS (AP) — A Texas doctor who has been treating children in a measles outbreak was shown on video with a measles rash on his face in a clinic a week before Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. met him and praised him as an “extraordinary” healer.

Dr. Ben Edwards appeared in the video posted March 31 by the anti-vaccine group Kennedy once led, Children’s Health Defense. In it, Edwards appears wearing scrubs and talking with parents and children in a makeshift clinic he set up in Seminole, Texas, ground zero of the outbreak that has sickened hundreds of people and killed three, including two children.

Edwards is asked whether he had measles, and he responded, “Yes,” then said his infection started the day before the video was recorded.

“Yesterday was pretty achy. Little mild fever. Spots came in the afternoon. Today, I woke up feeling good,” Edwards said in the video.

Measles is most contagious for about four days before and four days after the rash appears and is one of the world’s most contagious diseases, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Doctors and public health experts said Edwards’ decision to go into the clinic put children, their parents and their community at risk because he could have spread it to others. They said there was no scenario in which Edwards’ conduct would be reasonable.

Kennedy met with Edwards about a week after the video was posted by Children’s Health Defense, the group Kennedy led for years until December. In an April 6 post on X, Kennedy said he “visited with these two extraordinary healers,” including Edwards and another doctor, and praised their use of two unproven treatments for measles.

Even as measles has exploded in Texas and spread across the country, Kennedy, the nation’s top health official, has declined to consistently and forcefully encourage people to vaccinate their children and remind them that the vaccine is safe. Kennedy’s post drawing attention to Edwards is inappropriate but unsurprising given Kennedy’s record, said Dr. Craig Spencer, a medical doctor who is also a professor at the Brown University School of Public Health.

“I think is unfortunately perfectly on-brand for how he thinks that medicine should be practiced,” Spencer said. “And that is what makes me remarkably uncomfortable and extremely concerned and scared for the next three-and-a-half years.”

It was unclear whether Kennedy knew that Edwards had gone into his clinic while infected with measles before meeting him. A spokesperson for Kennedy said he is not anti-vaccine and that he is “committed to improving children’s health in America and has re-deployed resources to Texas to help with the current outbreak.” He did not answer why the health secretary chose to meet with and praise Edwards rather than any of the other doctors in West Texas who have been treating children in the outbreak.

Edwards told The Associated Press in an email that he “interacted with zero patients that were not already infected with measles” during the time he was infectious. “Therefore, obviously, there were no patients that were put in danger of acquiring measles since they already had measles.”

But Jessica Steier, a public health scientist, said the video shows Edwards in the room with people who do not appear sick, including parents of sick children and the people who visited the clinic from Children’s Health Defense. She also questioned what steps Edwards was taking to confirm people were sick with measles, rather than relying on guesswork.

Steier, who runs the Science Literacy Lab and co-wrote an article about Edwards’ conduct, said while there may be some extraordinary emergencies where it would be appropriate for a sick doctor to work, this is not one of those situations because there is no shortage of providers who are not infected. She also pointed out that the video shows Edwards was not wearing a mask.

“You have the HHS secretary lifting him up,” she said. “You know, it’s so, so dangerous. I really feel for the people who are on the ground.”

Children’s Health Defense has sued a number of news organizations, among them the AP, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines.

Kennedy’s promotion of a doctor who has touted unproven measles treatments is “wholly irresponsible” but is in line with Kennedy’s long public record of anti-vaccine views, said Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He said Kennedy has carried those views to his new job as the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

“He’s not the director of Children’s Health Defense anymore. He’s responsible for the health and well-being of children in this country,” Offit said. “It’s an emergency, but Kennedy is not treating it that way.”

DALLAS — For decades, Texas benefited from relatively low home prices and rents, a key component of the state’s ability to lure new residents and employers from more expensive parts of the country.

Now, Texas Republicans find themselves trying to rein in the state’s high housing costs — before it’s too late.

The state’s top Republicans have shown increasing alarm as high housing costs have put homeownership out-of-reach for an increasing number of Texas families, especially young ones. GOP leaders have pointed to figures from Texas Realtors that show the typical homebuyer is getting older. The median age of a Texas homebuyer was 48 in 2020. Last year, it was 58.

“Young people have been boxed out of the housing market,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said at a news conference earlier this month.

There’s political urgency for Republicans to deal with housing affordability. They are increasingly aware that Texans view the state’s high housing costs as a considerable problem. A poll last year showed some 90% of Texans view housing affordability as a problem where they live — an agreement that transcends party lines and whether people live in a big city, suburb or rural town.

“Broadly, Texans want to see something done about housing,” said Felicity Maxwell, who heads the advocacy group Texans for Housing. “They’re very concerned about the costs and impact that it’s having on their budgets. They want to see solutions, and they want to see change.”

The stakes are high. Buying or renting a home is still cheaper in Texas than in chief rival states like California and New York. The state’s comparatively low housing costs have been a chief ingredient in attracting new residents and employers over the past decade. But there’s fear that Texas could wind up in the same position as those states, worsening the state’s competitive advantage, if lawmakers don’t act to contain home prices and rents. That means making it possible to build enough homes to meet demand from new and existing residents, said Scott Norman, Texas Association of Builders CEO.

“People who are coming here have to live somewhere,” Norman said.

Texas faces a substantial shortage of homes. The state needs about 320,000 more homes than it has, according to an estimate from the housing advocacy group Up For Growth, a finding embraced last year by the comptroller’s office in an oft-cited report drawing attention to the state’s housing affordability woes.

Under Patrick, Senate Republicans have advanced bills aimed at making it easier to build smaller homes on smaller lots, additional dwelling units in the backyards of single-family homes and residences along commercial corridors and in vacant office buildings. In the House, Speaker Dustin Burrows wants to make it easier for homebuilders to obtain permits and more difficult for neighboring property owners to stop new homes from being built among his top priorities.

Republicans’ proposals to tackle housing affordability aren’t a sure thing.

Many of Republicans’ housing proposals target local rules that determine what kinds of homes can be built and where — a prospect that unnerves some Democrats, who for the past decade have opposed GOP efforts to prevent cities from enacting certain policies and see many GOP proposals to deal with the housing crisis as an extension of that yearslong campaign. But many Senate Democrats, though not all, voted for housing bills that have cleared the Senate so far. Whether House Democrats, who helped kill similar legislation two years ago, will embrace or reject these ideas remains to be seen.

It’s also unclear how sympathetic lawmakers will be toward neighborhood groups who have voiced opposition to the bills and may not want new homes built in or even near their neighborhoods.

Some of the legislation they’re pitching would only go so far. Texas has more than 1,200 cities, but GOP proposals to reduce lot sizes and allow residences to be built in more places would only apply to its 18 largest cities.

And Texas has a deep shortage of homes affordable for the state’s poorest families, but state lawmakers appear unlikely to put more funds toward building those kinds of homes — though the reforms that have caught on will still likely make those homes easier to build.

At the same time Republicans are trying to make it easier to build homes, they’re pursuing legislation that housing groups and tenants’ advocates say would make it easier for landlords to evict renters.

Even if Republicans manage to enact their housing agenda at the state level, that affordability push will undoubtedly be undercut by President Donald Trump’s immigration and trade agenda.

Immigrants make up a considerable chunk of the state’s construction workforce, which would be disrupted should Trump proceed with mass deportations — resulting in fewer homes built and higher costs as a result.

Tariffs on materials used to build homes threaten to drive up construction costs, resulting in higher prices for would-be homebuyers and renters. Trump enacted a 25% tariff on imported steel, used in the building of apartments. He’s also promised to enact higher levies on Canadian lumber used to build homes. Texas homebuilders tend to get their lumber from domestic sources, Norman said. But tariffs on Canadian lumber could increase competition for domestic lumber supply — driving up material prices and home prices as a result.

“It’ll be a shame if we get all these passed and whatever savings all these incremental changes make get eaten up by tariffs, which they could,” Norman said.

Texas Republicans have adopted a playbook similar to what other states like Montana, Florida, California and Oregon have enacted in recent years to try to rein in their housing costs, said Alex Armlovich, senior housing policy analyst at the Niskanen Center, a libertarian think tank. Enacting that playbook in Texas could help the state prevent housing costs from rising as high in the long run as they have in California, Armlovich said.

“Texas is starting early enough that you can avoid a lot of pain if you get moving now,” Armlovich said.

That agenda is popular with Texas voters, a recent poll conducted by YouGov and Texans for Housing found. A majority of registered voters support allowing smaller homes on smaller lots, poll results show. More than two-thirds of voters think it’s a good idea to make it easier to build accessory dwelling units, allow vacant office and commercial buildings to become homes and allow more homes in business and shopping districts.

For Republicans, such moves have the ideological appeal of reducing government regulations, unshackling the free market and boosting property rights.

Somewhat more urgent amid the state’s housing shortage is the idea of allowing homes to be built in more places — particularly in places where people already live, work and play.

“The bottom line is there’s no new land coming online,” state Sen. Bryan Hughes, a Mineola Republican behind some of the Senate’s efforts, said during floor debate on one of the bills. “It’s supply and demand. If there’s land ripe for development, for homes, for families, no government should stand in the way.”

There’s also frustration among Republicans, shared by at least some Democrats, that many cities, they perceive, haven’t done enough to contain housing costs, chiefly by allowing enough homes to be built, amid the state’s boom — and in some cases are actively trying to stop new homes from going up.

Senate lawmakers last month passed a bill to allow smaller homes on smaller lots by reducing the amount of land cities require single-family homes to sit on — at least in new subdivisions, not in existing neighborhoods. Senate Bill 15, a top Patrick priority, would bar cities from requiring homes in those subdivisions to sit on more than 1,400 square feet. In the state’s biggest cities, the most common lot-size requirements sit between 5,000 and 7,500 square feet, according to a Texas Tribune analysis.

Patrick has voiced frustration with such rules — which housing experts contend either force homebuyers to buy more land than they want, leaving them with higher housing costs, or help price them out altogether.

“Not everyone who starts out needs a home on a big lot with a lot of square footage,” Patrick said at the press conference. “And in a lot of communities, they’re stuck in that position.”

That impatience has surfaced as leaders of some cities testified in opposition to proposals that would take some land-use decisions out of their hands.

Ann Martin, the mayor pro tem of the North Texas suburb Flower Mound, testified against a bill in March that would allow houses of worship to build homes on land they own. The proposal would bypass local ordinances that say what religious organizations can do with their land and city councils that would have the final say in whether to rezone those properties to allow housing.

Martin said town leaders worry the bill would extend an unfair benefit to religious groups and that developers could unduly masquerade as religious organizations to build homes they wouldn’t otherwise be able to build.

State Rep. Gary Gates, a Richmond Republican who authored the bill, noted that the typical home in Flower Mound goes for about $600,000 — among the most expensive cities in the state, according to Zillow. (Rents in Flower Mound, too, are among the highest in Texas.)

“You have retail stores, you have fast food restaurants,” Gates said to Martin. “There’s employees there that earn $8, $10, $12 an hour…do you really want to force everyone that works and provides services for your residents to have to live outside that city?”

Not everyone who works those jobs commutes to Flower Mound from surrounding cities, Martin said; teenagers who live at home hold those jobs, too. The Flower Mound City Council recently approved a plan to allow 6,000 apartments to be built, she noted.

“It’s not that we don’t want apartments,” Martin said. “We just plan for them in zones where it makes sense.”

So far, Democrats have been hard to pin down.

Democrats in the Legislature have long been in a defensive posture, trying to shield the state’s urban areas from efforts by the GOP-dominated Legislature over the last decade to chip away at local governments’ ability to enact progressive policies.

That posture, in part, drove House Democrats to kill similar housing legislation two years ago. So far, the House hasn’t voted on housing legislation.

Some Democrats this year have shown discomfort with the state weighing in on what kinds of homes cities allow and where — a power the state grants to cities. They’ve also expressed concerns about measures in some of the bills that would allow residents to sue cities that don’t comply with state law should they pass. State Sen. Sarah Eckhardt, an Austin Democrat, said the bill to allow residences in commercial, retail and office areas constitutes “putting the big boot of the state on the necks of our local governments.”

But more than 60% of Texas voters surveyed by YouGov and Texans for Housing said preserving local control isn’t as important as allowing property owners to build more kinds of homes “to meet the needs of their community.”

Some Texas cities have made moves in recent years to remove barriers to housing construction. City Council members in Austin, which saw huge spikes in home prices and rents during the COVID-19 pandemic, enacted a series of reforms in recent years intended to boost supply and relieve housing pressure — like reducing lot-size rules, allowing up to three homes to be built in most places where previously only one was allowed and eliminating requirements that new homes be built with a certain amount of parking. At the same time, the Austin region experienced a massive apartment building boom — and as a result, rents have dipped for nearly two years.

But those moves were only possible owing to a major political realignment in Austin, housing advocates have said — accelerated by sky-high rents and home prices exceeding $500,000. Proponents of statewide zoning reform fear officials in other cities, fearful of potential backlash from existing homeowners, won’t take substantive action on housing unless costs get as bad as they did in Austin — though a majority of renters in the state’s major urban areas already spend too much of their paycheck on housing and home prices have grown beyond the reach of many families.

“I try to defer where I can to local control,” said state Sen. Nathan Johnson, a Dallas Democrat, who voted for the bills to reduce lot sizes and allow ADUs. “But there are some things I think that politically are impossible at the local level.”

AUSTIN – Preliminary data shows that “tens of thousands” of patients who were not “lawfully” in the United States were treated by Texas hospitals in recent months and the cost for their care is in the millions of dollars, according to a state employee testifying before lawmakers late Monday.

Gov. Greg Abbott ordered Texas hospitals last summer to begin asking all patients to disclose whether they were “lawfully in the United States.” Patients were told their answers would not jeopardize their access to health care but they were not legally required to answer.

Hospitals were expected to turn in their first months of data by March 1 but it has not been released publicly yet.

But during a House Public Health Committee hearing on a bill from state Rep. Mike Olcott, R-Fort Worth, that would formalize Abbott’s order into a regular annual report each year, a Texas Health and Human Services Commission executive answered lawmakers’ questions about what the agency has learned so far from the 558 Texas hospitals that have responded to Abbott’s order.

“The number of visits was in the thousands, the tens of thousands, and the costs were in the millions,” said Victoria Grady, director of provider finance at HHSC, “We should be finalizing the data by the end of the week.”

Several media outlets, including The Texas Tribune, have asked for the data following the hospitals’ first March 1 deadline set by Abbott’s office. Grady and Olcott detailed why there’s been such a delay in getting that first snapshot out into the public view.

“They actually got some data on like pieces of paper,” Olcott told committee members. Grady confirmed that the agency has had to, on occasion, manually input data on paper that was mailed into the agency from some hospitals into a spreadsheet. She also said she expects the data to be released by the agency later this week.

Abbott’s order told hospitals to begin collecting information in November 2024. But it’s not clear if the data collected by the 558 hospitals was just for that month or all months since then.

Olcott said his bill, like one already passed in 2023 in Florida, is necessary because it would streamline the survey process and keep Texans informed about how their tax dollars were spent.

“Since 2005, we’ve had 181 small rural hospitals close primarily due to uncompensated care,” Olcott said. “The goal of this is simply to know what percentage of that uncompensated care are due to people here illegally.”

According to the Texas Hospital Association, hospitals in this state spend $3.1 billion a year on uninsured care that is not reimbursed. But a large portion of that is for American citizens who are uninsured in Texas. The state has one of the highest rates of uninsured residents in the nation, with more than 4 million without health insurance coverage.

Lynn Cowles, health and food justice programs manager at Every Texan, which advocates for better health care in Texas, testified on that fact.

“I think one of the big issues with this bill –– if it is intended to understand the problems of rural hospitals closing across the state –– is that the pool of uncompensated care is so large because of the amount of citizens who are uninsured in Texas,” Cowles said.

Article originally published by The Texas Tribune. To read the originally published article, click here.