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.”
"A husband is exercising his state-law-given right to make life or death decisions about his incapacitated wife"
No, he gave that right to the courts. The courts are now using power that shouldn't be in the first place.
By giving this order to a sympathetic court, Michael avoided a direct "Schinlder v. Schaivo" even though we know that's the battle lines.
Instead of being able to bring Michael to court, the Schindlers have to fight the courts themselves!
This is putting life and death in the hands of a judge. This is wrong.
Freepmail. I've posted the links so many times and am wasting band width.
That is amazing. A "We don't need no stinking de novo review" ruling. No new witness. No new testimony. A quick review by the staff and we're out of here.
But...it if you are right then they are just thumbing their noses at the law. But that's become the norm.
Cranford's testimony was allowed to stand, if that's what you mean, whereas the guardian ad litem's opinion was disregarded. And as I said in another post to you, who cares if she's PVS? It shouldn't mean that she's considered a lesser person. Deliberate starvation and dehydration should never be allowed, and IMO, that's truly the bottom line in this entire case. No matter how anyone feels about the particulars, the end result is barbaric.
And by the way, Cranford apparently thinks she is a lesser person - he told Hannity last night that PVS patients have no constitutional rights.
And NOW they can pull "emergency", all-nighters on weekends to satisfy ONE interest group, which then villifies them anyway?!?
When do the rest of us get that kind of clout? Where's this "activist" energy on taxes, gun laws, SS, etc?
Let's face it...they're not "single-issue" voters...they're "ONLY" issue voters. They don't give a fig for anything else. If they did, all those other issues would have been dealt with already.
Our exchange on this point is summarized verbatim above. You still haven't answered the question, which was, "Is the removal of the feeding tube the initiating agent of demise in these 'hundreds of times a day?'"
And, I will note, that since Terri's doctors recommended the tube be removed in '93, and he resisted for 5 more years because he thought it was cruel until he saw his parents die this way, that yes. He could have followed the doctors recommendation in '93 and had the tube pulled and we wouldn't be where we are today.
Thanks for the link, haven't read it yet.
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.
Got it on that point. The "he didn't have to do that" is a reference to the roles of various players in a legal proceeding, and not to the ultimate authority to deny food and water.
good point. its hard to get people who feel that there should be no intervention on this to be honest about their position - if you are in favor of removing feeding, then you must be in favor of simply giving her lethal injection. she will die either way, the lethal injection is far more humane.
Yes. The removal of a feeding tube is the result of their ultimate demise.
I stand corrected. Thank you, your interpretation is correct.
THis is the one; I couldn't remember which link and so sent you several. But as I was getting ready to go out, I remember which link.
The Wolfson report:
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf
'This whole thing is about political grandstanding at the expense of Terri..... and that's worse than starving the woman to death in my book.'
Seems that way to me also.
This is the link where the Schindlers admitted Terri is PVS:
The Wolfson report:
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf
Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.
The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.
Terri is given food and water through tubes. Is disconnecting a feeding tube the same as ending life support?
Yes, under Florida law, which governs the ability of each person to determine, or to appoint someone to determine, whether each of us should receive what the Legislature terms "life-prolonging medical procedures." The Legislature has explained:
The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in decisions concerning himself or herself, and to encourage communication among such patient, his or her family, and his or her physician, the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognize the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive instructing his or her physician to provide, withhold, or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her in the event that such person should become incapacitated and unable to personally direct his or her medical care. § 765.102(3), Florida Statutes.
In keeping in mind who would honor Terri's wishes in this matter it is important to remember that the Schindler family has testified that they would continue the forced feeding even if Terri had told them she would not want it...So who to believe?
Not exactly. The husband is carrying out his wife's wishes to be starved to death. Spouses have no right to make medical decisions for one another. Medical decisions are strictly an individual prerogative. In this case, since the patient's wishes weren't in writing, a court determined the patient's wishes, to the standard of clear and convincing, taking testimony from several people. The husband does not automatically win this evidentiary exploration. He did in this case.
Thats a link to NOT terrisfight.org.
If you can explain to me why their website contradicts those statements (even if that means they have alternative movies) I will be wiling to discuss this.
oxymoron.
No. A few examples of the mental mishmash:
Libertarians believe in freedom regardless of virtue.
Obvious self-contradiction. The libertarian position is that government infringement of freedom is morally wrong, not merely inefficient and foolish. Obviously, a concept of moral wrong cannot exist without a concept of virtue.
Therefore, you harvest the common ground principles from religion in general, without establishing religion into law.
This is in your description of conservative positions, but is clearly a libertarian position.
A problem arises because Libertarians tend to agree with liberals that religion and morality are dangers to liberty.
A repetition of the error addressed above.
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.
Nonsense. Libertarians are more insistent on fiscal freedom than conservatives (and far more so that the self-styled "conservatives" currently running the circus in Washington).
I think the attorney failed, not the judge.
Cboldt: Q: Is the removal of the feeding tube the initiating agent of demise in these "hundreds of times a day?"Well then, why did you ask me to not put words in your mouth eariler, when I pointed out that you held that hundreds of people are starved to death each day?Peach: A: Yes. The removal of a feeding tube is the result of their ultimate demise.
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.