ustxtxb_obs_1980_02_29_50_00020-00000_000.pdf

91!/ -64e , vte,t ih NIkti o\(eiat citte.50 \(pc -{‘W’ vkkitk’ntool i tstate0A e \(wilt ea-ti uit \(AI \\kiiailikki,41 OfratitikCormie- I I4 Steaks, Spirits, imv\\cumicifs USE.’ Sunday Brunch Dinner 5:30-10:00 Tues.-Sun 502 Dawson Road Austin, Texas Hospital . . . from page 9 would be medically preferable and economically feasible to renovate the Green so that it could meet modern standards of maternity care. The proposed renovations would not have duplicated the suburban hospital’s array of medical consultants and specialized equipment, which are required only for complex medical problems and sophisticated diagnostic work \(so-called Level III come a less technically sophisticated Level II facility, fit to handle the 90 percent of all childbirths that are normal. For the 10 percent that involve serious complications, the Level III expertise and fancy equipment of Bexar County Hospital would still be available. The hospital district opposed this compromise, claiming the right to move its maternity services “strictly for medical and financial reasons, notwithstanding any inconvenience its patients may encounter in reaching the medical center complex.” A line-up of well-established professionals testified accordingly before Judge Spears. They included Warren G. Harding, executive director of the hospital district; Dr. Joseph Seitchick, the district’s chief of obstretical and gynecological services; William Parrish, its coordinating architect; and Stanley Crawford, dean of the University of Texas at San Antonio medical school. The contrast between the defendants’ witnesses and the women plaintiffs who opened the trial was obvious. Even with the numerous public officials, health professionals, and medical experts who appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, it was clear that the other side had mustered a contingent of local notables in the health care field whose opinions would carry great weight with Judge Spears. Nevertheless, federal trials are not supposed to be status contests, and the plaintiffs actually won some important legal battles. Most importantly, the judge ruled just before trial that the plaintiffs did not have to prove intentional discrimination to prevail under the federal Civil Rights Act. According to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, he held, the plaintiffs could win if they proved that the defendants’ actions had the effect of discriminating against minority groups. Unfortunately, this legal victory was a hollow one for the plaintiffs, because Spears went on to decide that “the evidence fails to support plaintiffs’ allegations of racially discriminatory effect.” At most, he said, there will be “inconvenience” in arranging for transportation, but the “benefits to be derived from the higher quality of medical care will much more than offset and outweigh any of the possible transportation problems.” It is fair to say that another judge Printers Stationers Mailers Typesetters High Speed Web Offset Publication Press Counseling Designing Copy Writing Editing Trade Computer Sales Services – and — Complete Computer Data Processing Services …._ .. *soma IL._.;,,,-6-,s owns , -, .vo. . II %At Unn i liMil k 512/442-7836 1714 South Congress vtit P.O.Box 3485 Austin, Texas 78764 , 20 FEBRUARY 29, 1980