Bush Signs Bill to Prolong Life of Terri Schiavo
From CNN this morning:
President Bush has signed legislation transferring jurisdiction of the Terri Schiavo case to a U.S. court. His signature followed a 203-58 vote in the U.S. House early Monday morning approving the bill.How do you folks feel about what's been happening in the Schiavo case? Is this an egregious mis-use of federal power? Is this a necessary intervention to protect an incapacitated woman's civil rights?
posted by Sean @ 3/21/2005 09:17:00 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Regardless of the issue, Congress has no business legislating specific cases that have already been decided by state courts. Is Congress now going to insert itself in every case where they disagree with a state ruling? My thought is that DeLay and Dubya should head back to school and take PoliSci 101. A true Red Republican would never usurp the authority of state courts.
I'm sure the way they see it, this action will raise their "political capital" with the average Red Voter, who sees footage of Terri Schiavo, and listens to Mr. DeLay describing how she is currently suffering as she starves to death (they generally administer morphine in these cases to prevent any possible discomfort, but maybe in Florida, they're just mean), and thinks they are doing the right thing.
But, how about this: Why is Congress holding hearings on steroids in baseball? Have we all gone mad?
I think this is a really complicated issue - and the actions of the House last night demonstrated that it does not have to be a partisan one. For your reference here's the tally:
203 Yeas - 156R, 47D
58 Nays - 5R, 53D
174 Abstain - 71R, 102D, 1I
Reviewing the litany of ethical issues here, I'm not convinced this is a partisan fight:
euthanasia, living wills, state v. federal authority, rights of the disabled, family law... what am I missing?
For the most part, these aren't de facto partisan issues.
Pausing a moment from the moral debate, this experience should be teaching us that there is a lot of undefined power in our system. Remember, there's nothing illegal going on here. Perhaps when we've settled the matter we might want to close up some of these holes - or perhaps not. But whatever power the people give to the government, in any issue that might be close to your heart, you would want the elected officials to use all of it.
As for me - I think there's a distinction between a respirator and a feeding tube. I see this as starving a disabled woman. I see the ambiguity around her living will similar to evidence in a death penalty trial. If you are not certain, you should not take a life.
To me, it comes down to one issue, and that is a political one. Regardless of whether or not I believe removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is appropriate, Florida state courts have decided this issue already. And, not just one court. This has been upheld time and again. The Shiavo family has exhausted their appeals. There was no law that allowed Congress to step in, in this case, so they created one - moving the case to federal court. I believe that is not an appropriate use of their authority.
And, I bring up the Republican v. Democrat issue because of the fact that if you are an idealogical Republican, you would be categorically opposed to interfering in this way. The Democrats are always being accused of promoting "Big Government", but Republicans support state rights and less Federal government. At least, that's what I learned in my political science class. It seems that the current Republican administration only follows that idea when it appeals to them. But, when it impacts the social conservative vote, they don't mind ignoring the precepts of their own party.
Maybe I'm overly cynical, but there are a lot of injustices purportrated by our court system every day - why this issue? If its not political soundbites, then what is it? I'm confident Terri Schiavo isn't the first or only person to have had a feeding tube removed without a living will.
I take issue with the fact that, as Carolyn pointed out, the Florida Courts have ruled on this case already--several times actually. It was under their purview and they made a decision. The US Supreme Court agreed. So, why is this an issue for Congress? I see it as another attempt by this administration to break into areas of private life where they have no compelling interest. I don't believe it's a non-partisan issue, either. This smacks of the high-handed, morally superior attitude of Bush and his supporters in Congress.
While you're blaming R's and Bush for their "morally superior attitude" why don't you fire off a comment to the 150 D's who voted yes or 'took a walk' when faced with the decision to keep the Evil Empire from breaking into the sick lady's private life.
Geez, sometimes partisanship is out of control. This "Bush is wrong, Republicans are evil" crap at any cost is getting old.
If an R doesn't act right out of the playbook (that the D's are ideologically opposed to anyway) then that R is some kind of hypocrite. Yet if they do, then its back to the tired classism BS.
I have not given up on intellectual honesty and reasoned debate taking place in Congress. I'll be really pissed if we lose it here.
It sucks to be the party in power.
However, I will take issue with the position that the comments posted above were made out of partisanship. I think the decision to sign a piece of federal legislation that overrides final decisions of state courts is wrong - period. Regardless of the issue at hand, the motive, or the politics. The fact that it is in conflict with Republican ideals (and it is one of the Republican ideals that I ascribe to) makes me question any Republican who voted for it. I disagree with the 47 Democrats who voted for it also.
But, I've only seen and heard Republicans patting themselves on the back about it. When I see a Democrat doing it, I'll throw the same rotton tomatoes.
And, by the way, I can only speak for myself, but I thought this was "reasoned debate". My bad.
Congress was called into special session by its Republican leadership, was it not? The legislature enacted was sponsored by Republicans, Sensenbrenner and Weldon, was it not? The Republican President flew back to Washington from his vacation in Texas, did he not?
If this isn't something that was propelled by Republican congressional leadership and the White House, I don't know what is.
Also, "tired classism BS"? Who has brought this up in the context of this debate (to my knowldege nobody) and why are you bringing it up now?
I'm going to venture a guess and say if Ryan and Todd and Dave all agree this is a federal mis-use of power, and the "Dems" in our group do as well, and Randy, you do not, that that fact alone is a) interesting and b) worth noting.
Don't be afraid to say you believe it's a moral issue that requires federal intervention in states' affairs b/c of the moral magnitude of the issue... if you feel that (and I'm not saying you do) it's admirable to say it and to stick to your guns.
But don't be surprised when others point out that you can't be a "small government" proponent and believe this was an appropriate thing for the U.S. Government to intervene in -- even if it's couched in terms of there being a potential federal civil rights violation.
I am now convinced of the partisanship, though disappointed by the efforts some have made to politicize Terri Schiavo’s life and death.
Isn’t it the Democratic Party that is supposed to be the Party of the little guy… that helps the helpless… defends the defenseless? I thought it was the Party that believed in sheltering the most downtrodden of our society, giving support to the sick, poor, and elderly… the so-called Party of social justice.
Isn’t this the Party that believes reproductive choice is a federal issue, not to be trusted to the states? Is it not the Democratic Party that uses Federal power to right the wrongs in our society?… the Party of bankruptcy courts and minimum wage, the New Deal, and progressive tax brackets?
Where is that Party that fights for the comfort and dignity of our captured enemies, enables benefits to illegal aliens, the Party that toils to protect even the most wicked criminals from the cruel death penalty?
Yet, so blinded by disdain for the their political rivals, some Democrats cannot so much fathom being on the same side of an issue… any issue… as a Republican that they cast off all their ideals… and would rather starve a disabled woman to death than pass at a chance to obstruct and degrade the Party in power. And the Democrats defensively respond under the cover of State’s Rights? The world is upside-down.
Let’s imagine that six months ago Republicans had supported the Florida Courts instead of the Schindler family. Even better, lets say Jeb or George Bush made public statements about States Rights trumping any potential Federal action. Are you telling me that the Dems wouldn’t be demonizing them now as cruel, ruthless, tyrants? The only thing they stand for anymore is antagonism.
Calling me a bad Republican or even a proponent of big government does not explain why the Democrats’ departure from compassion is anything less than wanton opposition.
First, I'm sorry, Randy, if I for one gave you the impression this was anything but a reasoned debate. Let's remember that we're all friends here and that this blog is just a way for us to spout off (and pretend like we actually know something) on the issues of the day. I don't take anything said here personally and I apologize if something I said seemed personal to you.
As for the partisan angle, I'm not saying the Dems are angels or have clean hands in this. But, I see the push to have this taken into federal courts--after, in my mind, a perfectly legal decision was made in state courts--as a product of the Bush administration and an unwarranted intrusion into what should have been, at best, a private family decision and, at worst, an issue for the Florida courts. Rightly or wrongly, to me this smacks of the Christian Right (led by the Bush camp) imposing their morality/values on the country. I might feel differently if this were an isolated incident, but taken together with other things I see happening in this country, I am concerned about the continued push of religion into government, and, in particular, the use of Christianity as a basis for policy decisions.
I'm not going to defend the Democratic Party, one because I'm not a Democrat, and two, because I think they are equally guilty of stubborn partisanship and political gamesmanship. However, as Fox pointed out, it's the Republicans who claim to be for state's rights and that's why their seemingly contradictory position on this issue has been highlighted.
For the sake of intellectual honesty, I’ll admit that I let my passion get the better of me about this matter. The images of Terri Schiavo’s grieving and powerless parents invoked my sympathy and the bickering rhetoric exhausted my patience. As I am as human as anyone else here, I’ll thank you for remembering that in this instance I was speaking from the heart and not the brain.
Post a Comment
<< Home