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'd say you are
RIGHT!!!!!
So the GOP actions were not lunatic ENOUGH for you? How much more absurd is this going to get?
And in the Shiavo case, her personal liberty is being spit upon
I flatly do not believe that thousands of people a day die with the initiating and primary cause being starvation. You can believe it if you want, but I'd need a bit more evidence. The CDC must have a "starvation" column in their charts.
It's happened in our relatively small family twice. My stepdaughter works in a nursing home; it happens there nearly every week. She gets very attached to her patients and calls to tell me whose family is letting them go because they had a massive stroke or other medical conditions for which there is no hope and no one wants their family members to be kept alive on machines.
I fail to see the relevance of "being kept on machines" to the facts of this case.
Oh. I see that now that I went back and reread the statute. The presence of that almighty untouchable word "abortion" right under there should have been a clue. Thanks for the clarification.
I did not mean to imply Terri wants to die.
I was strictly referring to the fact state Medicaid is paying Terri's bills, and the Judge has allowed this 'assisted suicide' (with or without Terri's permission)so, it is a STATE FUNDED ASSISTED SUICIDE.
The court made clear he did not need to seek their opinion in this matter. What do you think that means?
There is no "bad Law" involved here just people unhappy with the result of the legal system doing its job properly.
Very reminscent of the thinking of Liberals.
Guess there'll be no autopsy--therefore, no way to determine the validity/fraudulent nature of the claims the husband has made about her condition, or of the possible causes for the bone scan revelations observed by Dr. Baden a couple of years ago.
Well, Peach is standing by an assertion that thousands of people a day die with the primary initiatinge factor being the withholding of food and water. She "heard it" from the floor of Congress.
I want now a legislature of a state where the death penalty is legal to allow the state to start executing criminals by starvation and dehydration. They can say hey: the New York Times says it's a painless death! Then we'll see the hypocracy of the ACLU and the other liberals at their ugliest.
What the House and doctors talked about what that thousands of times a day people are "let go". They are removed from machines and feeding tubes are removed. Many states, including Florida, consider feeding tubes to be life saving equipment.
And we'll just have to agree to disagree about some things, I can see. I'm heading out with my husband.
Could you not put words in my mouth.
What I said I heard on the floor of the House is that thousands of people a day are taken off machines and have feeding tubes removed.
I don't know. You are the one that has the factual basis close to recall. I don't know what "this matter" is a reference to, nor do I know the procdural posture from which the court's comment was made.
Your comments on the point imply, to me, that you think Michael had the power to deny food and water to his wife, without leave from the court. I just found that amzaing, since if true, he could have starved her 8 years ago without the cost and trouble of a pesky court hearing.
Do you think Roe v. Wade is "good law"?
Next time you are in the store ask them what they heard from Carla Iyers, the nurse.
Probablyu nothing since what would she know. Her testimony not mentioned in the "news". here affidavit not read.
But freind, she is the one that nursed her, day in, day out for some time. Don't you think her opinion would matter? The court doesn't. The "news" doesn't. And so you freinds haven't heard of her, have they?
Have you? http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player.html?032205/pol_schiavonurse_032205&FOX_Friends&FOX%20News%20Exclusive&acc&Politics&-1&wvx-300
I agree... Senator Levin explicitedly took steps to prevent action that would have at least given her a chance while the issue is resolved in depth in the courts. He is the "pivot man" on the play that sentenced her to die before anything further could be done...
Carl Levin... Terry Sciahvo's executioner
That is standard for these fanatics. Look at the calls for actions worthy of a dictator. They actually wish for a Generalissimo Bush yet much lesser abuses of power has them screaming to high heaven.
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.