Congressional Intervention in Terri's Case: Two Thumbs Up

Vivificat! A Catholic Blog of News, Commentary, and Opinion ^ | 9 May 2005 | Teófilo

[Teófilo]

The April 25 issue of National Review, dedicated to the memory of Pope John Paul the Great, contains a good commentary on Congress' intervention on behalf of Terri Schiavo I believe should be reproduced on this blog in its entirety. It is found in "The Week" section of the magazine:

Conservatives are being excoriated for hypocrisy in the Schiavo matter. Those who supported congressional intervention to keep Terri Schiavo alive are said to have betrayed their principles on limited government, the sanctity of marriage, federalism, and the rule of law. Now people of good will can surely disagree about this case. No less a conservative authority than William F. Buckley opposed the congressional action. But it is instructive that he did not do so because of the supposed inconsistency of that action with limited government, the sanctity of marriage, etc. No conservative believes that government can take a position of principled abstention on matters of life and death; and no sane person of any political stripe believes that assisted suicide should be wholly unregulated. The marriage issue, meanwhile, was a distraction. If euthanasia is a form of unjustified killing, as most of the conservative protesters believed, then it could hardly be among the prerogatives of a spouse. Its invocation therefore begs the question. Congress can be faulted for intervening in one tragic case rather than creating a general policy. But Congress did not face a question of whether the federal government should get involved at all. The Supreme Court—a branch of the federal government—had already intervened in a way that made Mrs. Schiavo's death far more likely. There are intelligent students of American government who believe that the rule of law requires Congress to defer to the courts, come what may. But most conservatives have never fallen into this camp. Whether or not Congress was right, there was no hypocrisy or even inconsistency here; the only betrayal was of strawmen.

Of course, I favored congressional on Mrs. Schiavo's behalf. There was no time for niceties; an innocent woman was been brutally put to death and what for? To advance the cause of individual liberty in this country? See the irony here?

Like another question found that same issue of National Review states: if food and water are to be considered "medically extraordinary means" of life support, why not air? Why didn't they just stop Terri's air supply too? Food, water, and air are all in the same category. They didn't do it because then it would've looked too much like murder, and they (Terri's husband, Mike, his lawyer, and all who support the Culture of Death) did everything to control the images and the message coming out of Terri's room. Bravo for Congress; now we need them to follow it up with sensible legislation to protect the week and the innocent over and against exasperated relatives bent on their deaths.

I finish with this pledge: I'll remember Terri, always.

[dsc]

"There are intelligent students of American government who believe that the rule of law requires Congress to defer to the courts, come what may."

Even intelligent people often harbor stupid beliefs. It is the belief that must be evaluated, not the intelligence of its proponents.