Charlie Gard Case Now Hinges on Doctor's Opinion, But Still Not Parents' Wishes

The parents of Charlie Gard received some very good news after a U.S. doctor was allowed to examine their son and his medical records. A brain scan done will determine whether Charlie will receive experimental therapy that could save his life. However, even if the therapy works, Charlie will still never live a normal life.

"This has never really been about whether there's going to be some miracle cure for this poor kid," Co-host Stu Burguiere said.

The real issue remains who has the final say in whether Charlie lives or dies and what kind of treatment he has access to.

"As long as the hospital doesn't pay, it truly is nobody else's business --- none. Because if they want to spend $2 million and prolong the child's life for a month, they have a right to do that," Glenn said.

GLENN: Hey, we have some really good news on Charlie Gard today. Charlie Gard's parents remain optimistic following a brain scan that will determine whether he'll have this experimental therapy. The scan took place at, GOSH, the great Ormond Street Hospital, where a US professor of neurosurgery examined the 11-month-old boy yesterday.

The -- while they were studying the scan and other medical records, they have not yet decided whether they feel the boy could benefit from the treatment. But the doctor from America spent about four and a half hours inside the hospital on Monday. Hospital said there was an honorary contract in place, meaning that for the duration of the visit of the doctor, he had the same rights as one of the hospital's own doctor. He was given full access to Charlie's medical records, hospital and clinical facilities, including diagnostic images. Meetings between the American neurosurgeon and the other medical experts are due to continue on Tuesday.

What happens if they -- what happens if this doctor says, yeah, I'm not optimistic. It's different than I thought?

PAT: I think it could be really bad. That would probably end it.

GLENN: Where do we stand? I mean, I still stand for life. But how do you make that case now to a socialized hospital?

PAT: Let them go to the Vatican.

STU: Well, yeah. There's no reason that they can't go anywhere else and get treatment. Even if the tests show that there's nothing going on there, there's no risk. The person is going to die anyway. Why not try the treatment?

PAT: Yeah.

STU: It's at their expense. I could understand the socialized hospital saying, "You know, no, we're not going to do these expensive tests."

GLENN: Right.

PAT: Fine. Do it somewhere else.

STU: And be -- let them go to somebody else. Again, this has never really been about whether there's going to be some miracle cure for this poor kid --

GLENN: It's about whether you have the right to have a hospital tell you you're going to do to die.

STU: Do parents have the right to be able to bring their kid to the facility of their choice for medical treatment?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. With money.

STU: Especially when the alternate is death. This is not one of those cases where the hospital is saying, we need to give this kid basic treatment for a disease that we're going to cure.

STU: And the parents are saying, well, we'd like to try marshmallow fluff. We think that's going to cure it. Like, it's not one of those cases.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: This is a case of death or the parents bring the kid to someone -- maybe it's a one in a million shot, but why not take it?

GLENN: You know what's amazing, look at this from the flip side. Why do we always feel justified to come in when somebody is like, oh, cancer. Cancer and -- I'm just going to go on the power of prayer. And we always say, oh, my gosh. No. You got to go give him treatment. The kid who had chemo several times. Remember him? And the parents --

PAT: He wanted to stop.

GLENN: He came to them and said, "I don't want anymore chemo." I think it was a boy. And he said, "I don't want to go like this." I don't --

PAT: I'm done with it.

GLENN: I'm done with it. I don't want anymore treatment.

PAT: And the parents agreed. And then the court forced the treatments on him. Remember that?

GLENN: Correct. Yeah, forced him. Now, what's the difference between that? The kid didn't have -- had gone through it over and over again. He wanted to go to Mexico for some experimental treatment. He didn't want to go that way. He wanted to try something else. We all know that you're giving -- chemotherapy, you're giving him poison. It's poison. With the hope that the body dies after the cancer dies.

You're starving the cancer to death by giving the body poison. So the body is poisonous. And as the cancer eats it, it dies first. That's the hope of chemotherapy.

That's crazy. That's absolutely crazy.

STU: But it's worked a million times. So it's not crazy.

GLENN: Right. But sometimes -- oh, it is. It will be looked at as absolute barbarian treatment in the future. But it's the best we have.

STU: It's the best we have. And it's been successful many times.

GLENN: It's the best we have. But we don't allow people to say, I want to try another treatment. I don't want to do that. I don't want to do that. We won't allow them to make that decision. But here's a family that says, I want to try an experiment. I want to try this medicine on my child. And we're now standing in the way? I mean, the government, the people of Great Britain, their government is standing in the way saying, "No. No treatment." It's the exact opposite.

STU: Yeah, I mean, this one is 60 steps past these cases we've talked about.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, yeah.

STU: Because at least you could make an argument -- and as a person who is Libertarian when comes to government, my idea is, look, there are going to be mistakes made, but as a society, we should err on the side of the parents.

GLENN: Parents.

STU: And what they want. As sad as that is -- there are exceptions to that. But they are very few. I mean, I think -- even though there will be terrible mistakes made because of that policy, I think you have to err on that side. That being said, I can at least understand the government's position. You know, here we have a treatment for a disease that works. And we can -- it might be terrible, but at least we have a chance. At least that is a position of supporting life, right or wrong. You know, and we might say, hey, you know what, Andy Kaufman, you're going down to some crazy chicken place.

GLENN: Chicken place.

STU: Chicken place. Well, it's not going to work. We know it's not going to work. We've looked into this treatment. It's nothing. And they're fooling you.

While again, a person should have the right to make that decision for themselves, you're talking about children. At least it's a position here of life. At least it's focusing on trying to save the person. This is something where they're focusing on trying to kill the person.

There's no argument to be made that this kid should sit here and die when there's a possible treatment that could help, even if it is for a week.

GLENN: Yeah. And because it's none of your business.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: It's none of your business. It's only the people's business because the hospital thought they had to pay because it is socialized medicine. But as long as the hospital doesn't pay, it truly is nobody else's business. None. Because if they want to spend $2 million and prolong the child's life for a month, they have a right to do that.

STU: A day. An hour. Anything. I mean, how many times we've seen how many stories of people who are in their dying breaths that change other people's lives? How many times have we seen this? You don't just extinguish life because it makes -- well, we don't really want -- I can't even think of what their argument is.

GLENN: Their argument is he's suffering. He's in pain.

STU: Lots of people suffer. Lots of people suffer. And if you're right and this kid is going to die anyway, it's going to happen, nature will take its course.

PAT: Don't you think the parents have the best intention for their own baby? If they thought that their child was in intense pain right now, I don't -- I really don't think they would put them through it.

GLENN: Do you know any parent -- I mean, that's sane -- any parent that can handle their kid's pain?

PAT: No. Uh-uh.

GLENN: For my grandchildren -- my grandchildren, I have gotten down on my knees and prayed, "Lord, give that to me. Please, give that to me." For my grandchildren.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, that's the way people are.

STU: And there are exceptions to these things where you have cases of abusive parents, parents who intentionally do want to inflict harm on their children. There are, of course, those cases.

GLENN: Yes. This is not one of them.

STU: But this is a situation where the parents are living and dying by giving this kid one chance. And there is no earthly reason to not give them that chance.

PAT: Yeah, they're not trying to shirk their responsibilities. They're not trying to take the easy way out. This is really the harder way.

STU: Yeah. Totally.

GLENN: It is.

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.