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.”
the correct phrase probably is to say the hundreds of people have their feeding tubes removed everyday (that is true), but not for the express purpose of starving and dehydrating them to death. and a DNR order or removal from a ventilator is different also.
I believe it uses exactly those words. SHALL perform a de novo review. What is left discretionary (but was assumed to be a gimme, under the facts in hand), was the issuing of injunctive relief until such time as the evidence relating to the ultimate judicial order could be reviewed. Instead, the Federal Courts concluded, after something they called a de novo review, that they would have ruled the same way that Greer did, basically.
Is Cranford still around? Did he testify in 2002? Pearce testified at one point too but was ultimately removed.
And regarding Wolfson, the Schindlers really liked him and trusted him. He wrote the best report on this entire matter, imo. And he, like all the others, believed she is PVS.
And did you know that Wolfson documented apparent responses, by Terri, specifically to her mother??
That's the issue. A lot of people don't mind her being killed. It's the method that bothers them. A bullet to the brain is more humane than the method they will use. Even a pillow over the face is.
It apears that the federal district-court judge is in a “persistent vegetative state”. He is clearly non responsive, I wonder can we stop him from eating too ?
Is the new standard on Free Republic that we are to take the word of someone who has been found NOT CREDIBLE by the courts. SOmeone who was never subjected to cross examination?
But we are to completely ignore the words of those who were subjected to cross examination and testified under oath and were FOUND TO BE CREDIBLE.
Is that the new standard? Because if it is, just tell me. I want to make sure I stay up on the new rules and all.
BTW, you did know didn't you that nurse was fired in 1996 because she claimed another nurse was killing patients?
I don't think I linked this for you before; if I did I apologize.
As stated in 2001, by the Florida 2nd District Court of appeals in their support of the foundation ruling - which everyone should thoroughly read:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder01-01.txt
They found that there was clear and convincing evidence that she wouldn't want the tube to remain.
They also noted that Michael did not make the decision - he asked the court to listen to both sides and for the court to take his role in this matter of her tube. He did not have to do that. He could have forced he parents to challenge his legal decision from a less powerful position.
My understanding is that the legislature in Florida has the power to change her fate, but hasn't done so. The courts have acted as they see fit based on the inactivity of the legislature. You can easily make a case that this is a state issue and that the state has spoken. You can respect federalism and not be happy about all the decisions states make.
No. The object is "restricting the use of Federal funds in support of assisted suicide".
Yes because unlike most freepers I've actually read his report. And did you notice the part where he said, along with her other three guardian ad litems, that she is PVS?
Did you know that her parents admitted under oath they knew she was PVS?
Did you know the doctors recommended Michael remove the tube in '93 and he refused at that time because he thought it was a cruel way to die? It was after he saw his terminally ill parents die this way that he changed his mind.
Oh, and the Schindlers really liked Wolfson and trusted him. But they still accepted his diagnosis that she's PVS.
While, at the same time, greatly increasing the political cost of failing to get things done ("Why the hell can't they get their rears in gear like that to enact tax cuts / Social Security reform / border security / insert issue here ?")
AND THEN the same people who demanded THAT little fiasco now vilify them "for not going far enough".
Yep, and by the time they realize the result (political leaders throwing up their hands and deciding that these people are just impossible to satisfy, so there's no point lifting a finger to do anything at all for them), it'll be too late.
Has the world gone mad?
Nah, it's been mad for some time. This is just a particularly obvious psychodramatic episode.
A husband is exercising his state-law-given right to make life or death decisions about his incapacitated wife. Law isn't about bringing heaven on earth. People have free will to make the wrong decisions. We can't legislate wrong decisions away in a republic. God will judge Michael for his decision.
That is illegal in every state, with the follwoing exception - wishes of the patient. You are free to starve yourself to death starting right now. And that is what the court found, that Terri would willingly starve hereself to death, if she was afforded an opportunity to decide.
The mumbo-jumbo legalistic handwaving notwithstanding, this is an abhorrent result, because I doubt anybody would wish to starve to death.
Not that any of that matters, anyway. PVS is not a crime. Killing someone because they can't consistently respond to their surroundings is wrong. Terri is brain damaged, and will sometimes be able to respond, and sometimes won't be able to respond. I don't believe it is OK to kill people who can't respond more that X% of the time.
Nor have I, but we need that coalition. We just have to win the moral arguments.
Libertarians believe in freedom regardless of virtue. Conservatives believe that true freedom can only be defined inside virtue, and that freedom minus virtue leads to slavery and then tyranny over time. To the conservative, you maximize freedom by allowing fair competition of ideas -- including ideas about virtue. Conservatives see religion and morality as the friend of liberty and that ideas stemming from these areas should get equal play. (Religion presents potential problems but is at the heart of morality, which is vital to maintaining maximum social and fiscal freedom. Therefore, you harvest the common ground principles from religion in general, without establishing religion into law.) Their ultimate good is in their ability to aid in the governing of self, thus maximizing personal freedom. Motivation is derived by each individual facing the consequences and reaping the rewards of his/her own choices (an area where libertarians and conservatives agree). You reap what you sow.
A problem arises because Libertarians tend to agree with liberals that religion and morality are dangers to liberty. They both think that liberty is best served by suppressing morality and religion (liberty through suppression is an odd theory to me). But Liberals also believe that freedom is good only in terms of social freedom, and that it can only be achieved through fiscal slavery -- that the state must take your money to insure both equality of outcomes and total social license. Fighting that is what brings libertarians and conservatives together.
What libertarians miss when they join with liberals on social issues is that even if their goal of total social licesne without regard to virtue were achievable, it can never be achieved before fiscal freedom is achieved. As long as the government is the fixer of all social problems, the freedom to screw up one's life becomes oppression to those forced to fund the fixes. We can only be as socially free as we are fiscally free. That's what conservatives get and libertarians don't. That's why virtue and responsibility matter, because you need to learn to take responsibility for your own consequences.
Does any of that make sense? I got off on a tangent.
thanks for the post...the hospital discharge summary painted a very bleak picture even then.
"There are instances where she appears to respond specifically to her mother. But these are not repetitive or consistent. There were instances during the GAL's visits when responses seemed possible, but they were not consistent in any way."
- A Report to Governor Jeb Bush in the Matter of Theresa
Marie Schiavo
1 December 2003
page 33
You are more than welcome.
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.