The Schiavo Case [lead NYT editorial]

New York Times ^ | 3/19/05

[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.

[mathprof]

What can I say? The NYT has sunk to a new low: "ghoulish gimmick", "no emergency"...

[goldstategop]

This what we expect of liberals. They don't mind Terri's being rushed to be executed. They are angry at the extraordinary efforts made to save her life.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[muawiyah]

That the New York Times wants to kill an innocent person is not really news you know.

[Puppage]

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

Yeah, starving a woman to death is a walk in the park compared to the evil of issuing a subpoena.

[wildwood]

man, this is effed up.... just the beginning of tube pulling for others who don't have the nyt view of "quality of life."

[Jagman]

This must be wrong. I can't believe the NYTimes would come down on the side of death and moral relativism. I'm shocked! Shocked!

[mtbopfuyn]

Ok, I tried, really tried, to give the Slimes one more chance. They blew it. I couldn't get past the first sentence. May they rot in hell along with hino, Greer, and Felos.

[goldstategop]

Its "ghoulish" to spare her life but its kosher to see her be murdered? Now I understand the world the New York Times editors live in. Ann Coulter will have a field day ripping this one apart in the coming week.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Diogenesis]

Why doesn't the New York Slimes just order their docile bedded-imported Judge Margaret Marshall-Lewis
to write an Order to do what they want (again)?

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

The times pro death mentality shines through. I like this line "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

they never seem to have the problem with the radical judiciary "rash assumption of legislative power" thats never breathtaking to the times.

[speedy]

You did hit upon the only conceivable reason for keeping the New York Times around -- providing material for Ann Coulter. And someone else will have to post the obligatory picture. It's a rare sunny day here in Boston and I'm going out for a run -- excuse me all.

[jla]

The NYT, especially it's editorial board, can't be bothered with the plight of a heterosexual woman.

[goldstategop]

Uh huh. Just like gambling in a bar. Anyway, if the NYT HAD come down on Terri's side, I would have been shocked. Then again, liberals are as predictable as every square inch of my naked body.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Route101]

Yeah...that's because she is not a whale or a spotted owl....

[goldstategop]

Ayuh - now if she was a lesbian NOW NAG, I would think the response would have been different. And where's NOW at the violation of a woman's human rights by a cabal of sexist murdering men? Inquiring minds would like to know.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[whereasandsoforth]

You would think the NYT would see the irony and be pulling for Terri. They, too, are slowly withering and dying. But you can bet your last dollar that everything that can be done will be done to save The New York Times.

[goldstategop]

We're willing to spend billions to save an endangered toad in California. Terri Schiavo is just too useless to justify even a modest expenditure of public funds. We do have our national priorities in order.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[marty60]

Maybe the editors should go to the archives and read the NYT's from the 30's.

[zarf]

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.

The hypocrisy on both sides is stunning. A complete roll reversal in political philosophies.

[Saundra Duffy]

Are you surprised?