Posted on 03/19/2005 6:03:33 AM PST by mathprof
Congressional leaders are playing a dangerous game with their intrusion into the hotly publicized fight in Florida over maintaining life support for a severely brain-damaged woman. With state legislative and court appeals being exhausted, the House and Senate began some grim one-upsmanship to stop the removal of the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo. She is the 41-year-old woman who has been in a persistent vegetative state for the last 15 years, with her parents contesting that sad diagnosis. They also challenged the careful decisions by Florida's trial and appellate courts, based largely on the testimony of her husband that their daughter would have chosen to die rather than live indefinitely in such condition.
Congress seized the issue in the closing hours of its March budget debate. After bungled attempts to grant federal court review of the case, leaders of the two houses blamed each other for Ms. Schiavo's potential demise. They then landed on the ghoulish gimmick of postponing removal of her feeding tube by subpoenaing her to a House hearing and inviting her to a separate hearing in the Senate. The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, said that criminal law protects witnesses called before Congress "from anyone who may obstruct or impede a witness's attendance or testimony."
After considering the issue yesterday, the state appellate judge presiding over the case ordered the removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube to proceed, finding Congress's intervention created no "emergency" requiring postponement. No doubt this is not the end of this painful drama. Meanwhile we can only lament the Republicans' theatrical effort to expand their so-called pro-life agenda to include intervening in a case already studied and litigated exhaustively under Florida law. Congress's rash assumption of judicial power and trampling on established state and federal constitutional precedents in "right to die" cases is nothing short of breathtaking.
Look at Terri in this video and tell us again, with a straight face, that she's in a persistent vegetative state. It's amazing what these "Little Eichmanns" will say in order to promote the NYT agenda.
Isn't it possible over the past 15 years that there has been much testimony and evidence brought to bear on both sides in each of the trials on this issue? And isn't it possible that we, on the outside, do not know what all this testimony and evidence is? And isn't it possible that the appellate court has reviewed the testimony and evidence as well? Simply because the courts arrived at a decision we do not like does not mean they did not do their jobs.
WRONG! They made it a Congressional matter by calling for Terri to testify.
It doesn't work that way. Just because Congress decides to butt in doesn't make it a Congressional matter.
You may also notice as you suggest that those who do not like the law should change the law that Congress is doing exactly that. Perhaps those trying to murder Terri Schiavo by dehydration should try to change the federal laws against witness tampering and obstruction of justice, although both were on the books and applicable when the feeding tube was removed.
Your statement is well taken but it's irrelevent.
He is her husband regardless of of the other issues. The courts have spoken and the State has played out it's string. Let's hope for a miracle but don't intervene when it's not your business.
That's right. Universal Healthcare isn't even law yet and they're already fighting for the means to control costs. Wait 'til it is law and every Congressman's career has the opportunity to benefit through his/her stance on controlling healthcare costs. Just try and sue for inadequate medical care when the federal government becomes the provider.
"Terri Schiavo is a federal witness who is in danger as we speak!"
Out of curiousity, who is paying for Shivo to remain on the machines? If it's taxpayer money, then she should be cut off and allowed to take her chances. I don't think tax money should go to keep vegetables hooked up to expensive machines.
Nonsense. We have to rely on her power of attorney. That's the way it works.
Whatever her husbands motives are-it's irrelevent.
So because the courts chose to disregard the questions which are raised by Michael Schiavo's living situation it means that I should as well?
That's what they said in Alabama and Mississippi when blacks complained that they didn't get a fair shake there. "Ever thin's been done legal according to our system down here."
So, are you saying I have the right to kill my spouse?
The medical facts of her condition are in dispute. She is not being kept alive by machines - she is being kept alive by being fed!
You'd go to jail in any jurisdiction for starving a rat to death never mind a human being.
What is it with libs that they have no problem killing the innocent but fight tooth and nail to save murderers? How can you call people who subscribe to such philosophies anything but pure evil?
What machines? She has never been on any machines. What are you talking about?
The courts did not disregard the questions surrounding Michael's living situation. They did recognize, under Florida law, the possibility of a conflict of interest. That is why it was the court that made the decision, not Michael. And again, I say simply because the courts arrived at a decision we do not like does not mean they didn't do their job.
Go look at the video I linked to in #121 and come back here and tell us she's a vegetable.
The world has gone mad.
PUHLEEEEEEEEEESE! Comparing the results of a 15-year investigation and court review to KKK lynchings in the Jim Crow South belittles the efforts of those who gave their lives for civil rights. I'll be glad to engage in a debate on the issues but not disgusting postings.
Is she in pain? How do we absolutely know she wants to die? Are we to trust her "husband", who already has children with another woman, that this is Terri's wish? No. Unless, by some miracle, she is allowed to eat again, she will suffer a terrible death which may take up to a week (from what I have heard) to complete. This judge and her husband have both thrown morality and Terri's rights out the window.
Thank you, but it is relevant. The courts are relying on his word that his wife would want to die under these circumstances. The fact that he is living with another woman should have made them question his motivations.
I'm sure many Germans said that same thing as the Jews were being marched into the gas chambers.
It is the responsibility of every decent citizen to fight against killing the innocent.
She is not being kept alive by artificial means. She is simply being fed. Pure and simple. Her FAMILY and many medical experts believe her to be alive. That puts her situation in dispute. It is therefore societies obligation to protect her from irreversible actions.
Beyond that, starving someone to death, no matter what their condition, is barbaric and inhumane.
It's not about "a decision we don't like", although we don't, it's about refusing to hear testimony on her behalf, it's about refusing to allow adequate unbiased medical tests, it's about connections with a sherrif who refused to investigate allegations of abuse, it's about a decision that is contrary to a specific provision of the State Constitution and now it's about defiance of a legal and binding federal subpoena.
How much does it take to call into question the soundness of one court's authority?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.