Posted on 03/23/2005 9:01:53 AM PST by areafiftyone
Congressional Republicans who took extraordinary measures last weekend to prolong the life of Terri Schiavo say there are no further steps Congress can take to intervene.
A federal district-court judge declined yesterday to issue an order to reinsert Schiavo’s feeding tube. Schiavo’s parents have appealed the ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
The court ruling concerning the Florida woman whom doctors say has been in a “persistent vegetative state” for 15 years prompted a strong statement from House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who said that the court violated the “clear intent of Congress,” which passed a emergency Schiavo bill last weekend.
Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), who drafted legislation that served as starting point for a narrower bill passed by the Senate, said, “I am deeply disappointed by this decision today, but I believe this matter now belongs in the hands of the judiciary.”
DeLay went further, saying, “Congress explicitly provided Terri Schiavo’s family recourse to federal court, and this decision is at odds with both the clear intent of Congress and the constitutional rights of a helpless young woman.
“Section two of the legislation we passed clearly requires the court determine de novo the merits of the case — or in layman’s terms, it requires a completely new and full review of the case.
“Section three requires the judge to grant a temporary restraining order because he cannot fulfill his or her recognized duty to review the case de novo without first keeping Terri Schiavo alive.”
DeLay did not, however, signal any further steps that Congress might take.
Section three of the Schiavo law states that the judge “shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights” of Schiavo.
But Senate floor statements appear to contradict DeLay’s interpretation. An earlier version of the bill included language mandating that the court issue a stay. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) objected to the provision and negotiated to have it removed. GOP leaders needed the consent of Senate Democrats to move the bill in a speedy fashion, and during a House floor speech DeLay later thanked Senate Democrats for their cooperation.
During Senate consideration of the bill Sunday, Levin engaged in a colloquy, or conversation on the floor, with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), stating his belief that the bill would not require the court to issue a stay.
Frist agreed, saying, “Nothing in the current bill or its legislative history mandates a stay. I would assume, however, the federal court would grant a stay based on the facts of this case because Mrs. Schiavo would need to be alive in order for the court to make its determination. Nevertheless, this bill does not change current law, under which a stay is discretionary.”
A House Judiciary Committee aide said that the final law was stronger than the initial Senate bill and that it did require the judge to issue a stay.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) also released a statement, saying that he was very disappointed by the court ruling.
Time is working against Republicans who would like to do more on Schiavo’s behalf. At best, if the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, lawmakers might decide to file friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of Schiavo’s parents.
Legislative provisions negotiated by Senate Democrats during the hours before Congress acted last weekend appear to have had a substantial effect on the case.
When Frist first moved to take up a bill dealing with Schiavo in the midst of a budget debate, Democrats objected. One who objected was Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who was concerned that the legislation could have an effect on an Oregon law dealing with assisted suicide.
As a result of negotiations with Wyden, the final law included language stating that it should not be construed to give new jurisdiction to courts regarding a state’s assisted suicide law. Wyden did not object to final action, even though he opposed the bill.
Democratic aides said their members decided to allow the bill to move forward once it was changed so that it was narrowly tailored to the Schiavo case. An ABC News poll released Monday showed that 70 percent of respondents thought the congressional intervention was inappropriate.
“Just because members oppose a bill doesn’t mean they exercise every procedural option to block it,” one Senate Democratic aide said. The bill eventually passed the Senate on a voice vote, after no senator demanded a recorded vote be taken.
Meanwhile, Frist wrote Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) yesterday urging quick action on the part of the state Legislature: “The extraordinary nature of this case requires that every avenue be pursued to protect her life.”
Now that is a new one on me. A husband can walk into a hospital and order the caregivers to cease care? No evidence of the wishes of the patient are required? Well, man, in that case, Michael is one stupid fellow.
OK, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so please correct me if I'm wrong. This is based on the statute you highlighted, which seems to say federal funding can't be used to withhold nutrition and hydration.
Medicaid/Medicare is a federal program. The hospice in which she resides receives Medicaid/Medicare funding. How then is the feeding tube withdrawal by the hospice not a violation of federal law?
The nurse didn't think so. I'm certainly not suggesting that doctors would ever be lying maniplators.
You are correct - they assumed that Fed courts would not act and the maintained their integrity amongst their ACLU and NOW constituency.
Devilishly clever.
Thanks a lot. I'll keep asking - perhaps someone will see one of my posts.
Never heard that before. Could you link?
It is past time that the judiciary be reminded that that they are only ONE branch of government, not the only branch that counts. As a matter of fact, they are the lesser of the three branches.
Interesting points. I would presume the Schindlers have already thought of this and it's probably too late to help Terri even if it could be done.
I've got a question:
Why does the word LIFE come before LIBERTY in the Declaration of Independence and in the Amendments to the Constitution?
My issue is that I fear the governement and the people as a collective much more than individuals.
I am surprised at that, because I am with from the NY metro area every day - and I am getting a different vibe from them about how they feel on this story. If the "Bible Belt" people as you refer to them, want this woman to be starved, I am not sure how to read that.
And that law you site is actually a good one - a spouse should be able to have their guardianship over their mate stripped in certain conditions, would we want a father who had sexually abused his daughter to be allowed to be her health care proxy? I certainly would not want my wife pulling the plug on me if she were shacked up with another guy while we were still legally married.
The matter is in all of our hands - collectively
Terri needs water.
Frist's comments in this regard had to do with mandating the court to issue an injuction, direct order to insert the feeding tube. The court said no injunction, and they are right, the statute and plain discussion on the floor of the Senate agrees with the contention that they weren't directly ordered to issue an injunction.
The court is still thumbing its nose at Congress. The dissent in the 11th circuit got it right. But, it's the dissent, i.e., just so much hot air. The law says "Starve her, that's what she wants."
Yes, a husband can do exactly that. If the hospital is uncertain they will consult with attorneys.
It happens every day in this country. My stepdad had the plug pulled for his daughter 4 years ago. She lived out of state, the doctors didn't know my stepdad, but since there was no hope (as in the Terri case when they recommended Michael pull the tube), the complied with my step-father's wishes.
And the court noted he didn't have to do what he did. Those are their words, btw, not mine. It's in their court documents.
Make another sign that has the Republican also.... they are no better.
If they (including the President) can't save one poor woman, then they are worthless. I have always been a republican, but those days are over if Terry dies due to starvation. I won't vote democrat, but I sure as he## won't vote republican again.
Cheers,
Well, maybe this was for naught and maybe it wasn't. Maybe they were merely grandstanding, and maybe they weren't. But, there isn't any doubt that the judiciary rules with a velvet glove filled with lead, and that Congress and the Executive branch possess absolutely no ability to protect us from this progressive departure from absolute values governing our Nation.
Most of us have never wanted for anything, and as a consequence life is much less revered. A smart shopping mentality permeates all.
No. It seems to say that even if federal funding is being used, they don't care if nutrition and hydration is withheld.
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.