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.”
I'm not sure what your point is.
When you have Terri's parents, Terri's doctors in the first 3-4 years when she underwent rigorous therapy, 4 guardian ad litems and all her therapists saying she's PVS, then who would it be that's being manipulated or lying?
Terri's parents? The doctors? I don't get it.
And if you're referring to the bogus CodeBlue web site or some such name, we don't even know if the person who wrote that web site IS a doctor.
Are the rules now that we are to accept the word of people who we don't know, haven't undergone cross examination and ignore court testimony?
you are playing right into the hands ot the Dems and the MSM. Our side did the right thing, yes trying does count for alot, win or lose. You want a constitutional crisis; and on this issue, its not going to be taken that far.
the correct outcome on this should be to use this issue to point out the abuses in the judiciary and push reform - that is the best that can come out of this. voting for the constitution party will simply elect more Democrats.
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?
Why is it that people cut and paste out of context comments and try to make a stand against a point that only existed in their inability to read the original post from beginning to end?
I wonder if the true meaning of the entire post was left on the editing room floor, so that someone can make an argument against a straw man?
I honestly think it was an "inadvertant statutory oversight," because it was not foreseen that withholding of nutrition and hydration would be the agent of death. Note how medicine is okay, as long as it is not the agent of death? Who'd would think the law would have to spell it out, but I think the clear implication in the statutory language means that this hospice is ineligible for federal funds. They are using the witholding of food and water as the agent of death, much as a person would commit suicide by hunger strike.
because those patients are terminal - they are dying of something else; cancer, pneumonia, congestive heart failure, alzheimers and dementia.
Medicaid pays for Terri's medications.
It's in today's Washington Post.
Thank you so much. I really appreciate it!
This was a state funded suicide.
No. A lot of those patients have had massive strokes and are basically PVS or something similar.
Well said.
Democrats want dominion over my wallet.
Republicans want dominion over my soul, and lately, my wallet, too.
Neither major political party gives a rat's ass about liberty.
I'm with you on the feeling, but what if it doesn't change?
What if this becomes referred to as Schiavo v. Schindler and gets used to the same effect as Roe v. Wade?
I agree we don't live in a dicatatorship (thank God!) but where do WE draw the line for the subversive undermindings of the judicial system?
And what about civil disobediance on our part? Why aren't the civilians down there (and elsewhere for that matter) trying to stop this en force?
People talk about the "checks and balances" of our system. Where's the balance?
Again, don't you have a problem with this?
This was discussed on the floor of the House. Over 70% of the people in this country don't have Living Wills. And yet families remove patients from life support and feeding tubes every day. It happens all the time in nursing homes, too.
Stop confusing the issue...Terri is not on life support. As I have said earlier, This woman was NOT dying until her feeding tube was REMOVED.
I'm astounded that New Yorker's think this woman should be kept alive on a tube indefinitely.
I've gotten some emails from friends in CT where we used to live and they are opposed to it.
Maybe it has to do with people's age and whether they've actually been through this with a relative or not.
Is the removal of the feeding tube the initiating agent of demise in these "hundreds of times a day?"
That sounds right. But what about the de novo review. Although without an injuction the issue will be moot, are you inferring that the legislation does require a de novo review?
fine. the point is, they are dying of something else. starvation is not their cause of death. as you say, it happens all the time - it happened to people in my family, they weren't starved to death - they died from pneumonia, lung cancer, etc.
You should take those rose colored glasses off. :)
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.