Posted on 03/21/2005 8:54:40 AM PST by annalex
POSTED: 10:34 am EST March 21, 2005
UPDATED: 11:13 am EST March 21, 2005
WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush signed emergency legislation early Monday morning that gives Terri Schiavo's parents a chance to plea for their daughter's life in federal court.
The House majority leader said Congress is giving her a chance to live, but some lawmakers said the law goes too far.
Passage of the law came following hours of emotional debate.
"This woman needs help -- not a death sentence," Rep. Joseph Pitts, R-Pa., said.
Democrats protested the decision.
"The majority wishes to undermine over 200 years of jurisprudence," Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., said.
The House voted 203-58 for a bill that gives Terri Schiavo's parents the right to file suit in federal court. That could trigger the reinsertion of feeding tubes needed to keep the brain-damaged woman alive.
"I told her we were going to take her for a little trip, and take her outside, and get her some breakfast, and I got a big smile out of her face, so help me God," Schiavo's father Bob Schindler said.
Almost immediately after the bill passed early Monday morning, Bush signed it into law, vowing to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans.
The law allows Schiavo's parents to ask a federal judge to prolong Schiavo's life by reinserting her feeding tube that was removed Friday. U.S. District Judge James Whittemore set a hearing for 3 p.m. on the request for a temporary restraining order.
A lawyer for the brain-damaged woman's parents filed a civil-rights lawsuit in federal court in Tampa as allowed under the new law. The lawsuit alleges a series of rights violations. Those violations include that Terri Schiavo's religious beliefs are being infringed upon, that the removal of the feeding tube violated her rights and that she was not provided an independent attorney to represent her interests.
"We are hopeful that the federal courts will follow the will of Congress and save my sister's life," Schiavo's sister Suzanne Vitadamo said.
Schiavo's brother-in-law doesn't believe the bill is about family. He thinks lawmakers have gone too far.
"It's politics. Nothing else. People like the Bushes [and] that knucklehead Tom Delay. I have no idea what he's about. He is an absolute buffoon," Brian Schiavo said.
Schiavo's husband, Michael, said she told him that she would not want to be kept alive in a vegetative state. Her feeding tube was removed Friday under a state court's orders.
Her parents and many lawmakers say she needs treatment and another opportunity for life. Schiavo's feeding tube was removed twice before. Doctors say she probably will die in about two weeks if the feeding tube is not reinserted.
It wouldn't change my mind. If hypothetically, Terri said that she didn't want to live "like that" (while watching a movie) she probably meant "I don't want to be kept artificially alive if I am in a coma and don't feel pain". She surely didn't mean "I don't want to have a painful death by being starved if I am mentally disabled".
One thing is to be connected to a machine to breath and something very different to be fed, as you feed babies.
One thing is to be in a coma and something very different is to be very severely mentally disabled.
What strikes me as hypocritical is the Left's SUDDEN interest in state's rights. Notice NOW that state's rights shouldn't be trampled, when that has been the Left's modus operandi since its inception!
The Democrats' new symbol should be a skull and crossbones! Can any Freeper here create that? A skull and crossbones with the same color design as their donkey logo?
I agree w/many who replied to you already.
I would not like it, some1 wanting essentially to kill themselves, but if there was no law against it, I'd have to stand aside.
But then again, normally, I don't think it would legally stand up because there is no WRITTEN documentation, and apparently only the husband's say-so. Your (simple) scenario is exactly what the Terri case is.
In any case, the big problem here is HOW she's dying - slowly by being disallowed nutrition. I wonder if she thought that would be OK, or was thinking maybe she'd be in such a bad medical state that w/o true *supporting apparati* she'd die very fast, not slowly as in this starvation. Or perhaps that she'd get an OD of anesthetic like her pets which would put her out in 30 sec.
EVEN IF TERRI DIDN'T WANT TO LIVE AS SHE IS, WOULD SHE WANT TO BE GRADUALLY LET TO DIE OVER A WEEK OR MORE?
Should Terri Schiavo be placed back on a feeding tube?
Choice Votes Percentage of 1832 Votes
Yes 960 52%
No. 872 48%
Thank you for participating in our survey.
Do you not see conservatives' new position equally hypocritcial? I do.
hypocritcial=hypocritical
Hopefully the both of you realize then what is at stake here.
Never in my life did I ever expect to see Americans debate such a chilling subject. You would have thought that after WW2 we learned to respect the sanctity of life.
I was thinking something similar to your idea earlier. I thought the Republicans need to come up with a pro life logo/flag. Like--' Republican, the party of Life.' It would automatically make the others less pro life. ;)
NH's situation w/her son and this Terri issue and abortion all together have just brought a chilling thought to my mind:
-what if a child is born or even becomes "vegetative" via accident, etc, at such an early stage that he cannot possibly have ever *thought* about much less SAID anything about staying alive in such a state?! What good is the idea of "Living Will" then? Would the parents have all control to sustain him, or would the PC police at the hospital say his life surely wasn't worth sustaining and "pull the plug" (even if it's only a feeding tube)?
Indeed, this culture of death really scares me!
They should rename it a 'dying will', since it informs people that they would rather die.
Of course we are all dependant on food and water. What makes it different for our son and Terri is that they can't defend themselves when the food is taken away. Both would starve. Who gives a judge the right to play "god" and take away a life through starvation. There is something terribly wrong with a nation that will legally allow a human being to be starved to death because they've been "judged" to be less than alive. One thing our son taught us is, who are we to judge what constitutes a good life. Our son is happy, healthy, and much loved. He's thriving in his environment. He is probably happier and more blessed than many "regular" people out there.
Mrs. NHD
I find it troublesome that they are using 'hearsay' evidence to stare and dehydrate Terri. Hearsay from her adultering, estranged husband in name only, yet!
We are there already. The deathists do not really argue that Terri has an equivalent of a living will. Her remark to her husband that vaguely expressed a wish to die if disabled is only significant to the blind judge, to pull a veneer of legality over the killing. The arguing that is being done is all about Terri's quality of life. The same arguments will be applied to people who never had a chance to express anything, -- the handicapped from birth and the unborn.
Exactly. It does not matter what she said. This is all about the coming utilitarian society.
I would call it fascism, except the term is overused and has a way of exhonerating communism.
Here's the silver lining: the reason the left is energized is because they know Roe v. Wade is not on solid ground. If they can move the abortion argument away from privacy or woman equality toward the emerging right to kill, they will meet the lifers head-on.
Brian Schiavo is also one of Michael's corroborating witnesses to Terri's alleged statements about life-support. Nah, no agenda there...
I haven't seen a family this charming since the Peterson clan.
I've also wondered how this will someday apply to murder victims in the inner city ghettoes....
"Well, her life sucked out there in the ghetto so surely she would have rather been dead anyway..... so, it's not really a murder, it's a mercy killing. No investigation. No judgement or jail for the mercy-killer."
They would have a federal case...
U.S.Code
TITLE 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
CHAPTER 144 - DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ASSISTANCE AND BILL OF RIGHTS
SUBCHAPTER I - PROGRAMS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Part A - General Provisions
§ 15002. Definitions
(8) Developmental disability
(A) In general The term “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that—
(i) is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments;
(ii) is manifested before the individual attains age 22;
(iii) is likely to continue indefinitely;
(iv) results in substantial functional limitations in 3 or more of the following areas of major life activity:
(I) Self-care.
(II) Receptive and expressive language.
(III) Learning.
(IV) Mobility.
(V) Self-direction.
(VI) Capacity for independent living.
(VII) Economic self-sufficiency; and
(v) reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.
(B) Infants and young children An individual from birth to age 9, inclusive, who has a substantial developmental delay or specific congenital or acquired condition, may be considered to have a developmental disability without meeting 3 or more of the criteria described in clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A) if the individual, without services and supports, has a high probability of meeting those criteria later in life.
§ 15009. Rights of individuals with developmental disabilities
a) In general Congress makes the following findings respecting the rights of individuals with developmental disabilities:
(1) Individuals with developmental disabilities have a right to appropriate treatment, services, and habilitation for such disabilities, consistent with section 15001(c) of this title.
(2) The treatment, services, and habitation for an individual with developmental disabilities should be designed to maximize the potential of the individual and should be provided in the setting that is least restrictive of the individual’s personal liberty.
(3) The Federal Government and the States both have an obligation to ensure that public funds are provided only to institutional programs, residential programs, and other community programs, including educational programs in which individuals with developmental disabilities participate, that—
(A) provide treatment, services, and habilitation that are appropriate to the needs of such individuals; and
(B) meet minimum standards relating to—
(i) provision of care that is free of abuse, neglect, sexual and financial exploitation, and violations of legal and human rights and that subjects individuals with developmental disabilities to no greater risk of harm than others in the general population;
(ii) provision to such individuals of appropriate and sufficient medical and dental services;
(iii) prohibition of the use of physical restraint and seclusion for such an individual unless absolutely necessary to ensure the immediate physical safety of the individual or others, and prohibition of the use of such restraint and seclusion as a punishment or as a substitute for a habilitation program;
(iv) prohibition of the excessive use of chemical restraints on such individuals and the use of such restraints as punishment or as a substitute for a habilitation program or in quantities that interfere with services, treatment, or habilitation for such individuals; and
(v) provision for close relatives or guardians of such individuals to visit the individuals without prior notice. (4) All programs for individuals with developmental disabilities should meet standards—
(A) that are designed to assure the most favorable possible outcome for those served; and
(B)
(i) in the case of residential programs serving individuals in need of comprehensive health-related, habilitative, assistive technology or rehabilitative services, that are at least equivalent to those standards applicable to intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded, promulgated in regulations of the Secretary on June 3, 1988, as appropriate, taking into account the size of the institutions and the service delivery arrangements of the facilities of the programs;
(ii) in the case of other residential programs for individuals with developmental disabilities, that assure that—
(I) care is appropriate to the needs of the individuals being served by such programs;
(II) the individuals admitted to facilities of such programs are individuals whose needs can be met through services provided by such facilities; and
(III) the facilities of such programs provide for the humane care of the residents of the facilities, are sanitary, and protect their rights; and
(iii) in the case of nonresidential programs, that assure that the care provided by such programs is appropriate to the individuals served by the programs.
(b) Clarification The rights of individuals with developmental disabilities described in findings made in this section shall be considered to be in addition to any constitutional or other rights otherwise afforded to all individuals.
I have a question. If it was deemed by the doctors and the court, that Terri was in a "vegetative state", with no hope of recovery, then why was all that money awarded for therapy? And why wasn't the judge on top of the fact that it was not being spent on her? This aspect should have been monitored by any judge worth his robes.
Michael Schiavo snookered this incompetent "jurist", took the money and now we are told by "experts" that therapy won't work. HOW IN THE HELL DO THEY KNOW THAT?
Unbelievable!!!
The blind judge is an instrument by which legal technicalities will be piled together to create a precedent, based on which people whose quality of life cannot be certified by the government may be legally killed. Don't look for logic in his decisions beyond this imperative.
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.