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.”
It IS the same doctor that Jeb Bush mentioned today in his press conference as having new information.
And ABC read from his report and used the doctor's own words.
Then you didn't read the afadavit. Because they are not his own words.
The courts are the Problem. They need to follow the Constitution of the United states of America and all the Amendments. The Courts need to do this and use United nations documents.
Second, is she alive? Because if she were a vegetable, they'd cut her up and put her in a salad, and no one would be upset.
Do you see the "Right-to-Life" connection here yet??
Shiavo intends to keep control of Terri's ashes and "dispose" of them in Pennsylvania. Pure spite IMO towards her parents who won't even have their daughter's ashes.
All of these answers can be found in my post above which you said you read (Post #339?).
Your question regarding motivation for MS:
1. In 1993, Terri's doctors recommended to Michael that he remove the tube. This is done all the time in this nation.
He didn't want to do that because he thought it was cruel. He then saw his parents go through it so by 1998(?) and they had a painless time so he said ok.
But still he didn't want to be the final arbiter of this and went to the court and asked THEM to make the determination. The Courts noted in their decision he didn't have to do this and effectively weakened his own position by doing so. (I have the exact words in the link to the court decision).
#6. The Schindlers tried in the early 90's to care for their daughter and returned her to rehab shortly after because they were overwhelmed (their word). There is no reason to believe that 13 years older they are better capable of caring for Terri this time.
#7. The Schindlers testified under oath that they would be willing to see Terri undergo multiple amputations should she get diabetes from loss of circulation. They also said that no matter what she wants, they want to keep her alive.
#8. No honorable man who knows his wife is PVS is going to stand by and watch her get carved up. In my opinion.
And I will add, regardless of whether YOU believe Michael, the courts did after he testified under oath and was subject to cross examination. Standing with Terri watching a relative die who was hooked up to machines and watching a movie, she said "Don't let that happen to me." Most of us who have stood by such a bedside can relate to that. He is trying to carry out her wishes.
Regarding believing MS who courts have found credible and testified under oath and was subject to cross examination vs the internet experts:
#10. Now we have nurses and others coming out of the woodwork saying that they know Terri isn't PVS because (insert blabbering). It's amazing that they never told thsi to the Schindlers! They have written affadavits (if these people are even nurses...most of this is over the internet).
So some freepers think we should believe unsourced material over the internet but not court documents and witnesses that were subject to cross examination under oath.
Re why it's okay for me to accept internet sources:
Perhaps you have not understood my previous posts on this matter or seen them. With the exception of one newspaper article which merely re-stated what the Schindlers testified to under oath, I have relied on court transcripts and four Guardian al litem reports.
So I have not accepted unverified internet sources who are not testifying under oath, we don't even know if those people are nurses or doctors and they were not subject to cross examination.
Doctor on Fox News last night--forgot his name. Just remembered the number.
For the record, I'd like to say I'm proud of my aunt who taught me compassion as a child by taking care of her "vegetables", Lisa and Jenny, who couldn't walk, talk, sit up, feed themselves, etc. She carried them around until they were too big to carry, and then some wonderful nuns with a home for disabled children took care of them for her. She saw them every weekend, and one died at age 36, and the other one made it to the age of 41. I visited their gravesites 3 years ago after traveling to a family reunion.
Did they have brain activity? Did they have any ability to move their bodies?
I'm sorry to hear about those children and bless you for taking care of them.
But I've seen the most ridiculous comparisons to PVS made known to man. Some people have said that maybe we'll start killing off the Christopher Reeves or the people on dialysis.
There is simply no comparison to those examples and PVS. None.
By the way, how many court cases have you sat in on? I've seen more insanity "from the bench" than I ever dreamed possible over the last twenty years. "Renegade Judges" is an understatement!
They had no ability to move themselves. Their heads hung when you picked them up. half of the food they were fed came back out of their mouths. But that was before tubes were stuck into people's stomachs for convenience's sake. If they would've lived today and had tubes so it would be easier and less messy to feed them, that would have been deemed keeping them alive by "artificial means", and their lives would have been in danger.
Your points are well taken and I truly appreciate your veiw.
I wish I had the ability to express myself as clearly as you've done here but I can't. I hope you will at least consider that it's possible all the evidence isn't in.
Terri will not live forever, at worst she could go on oblivious to her own condition.
What is so dignified in starving to death?
In my mind I seriously can't consider food & water being extordinary means...to me once it was given, the Husband in essence gave his permission. In my mind, It isn't up to him now.
Right. Take a hike. Educate yourself a litte and don't ever post to me again.
Thanks for the response, the cribbage game awaits!
I am a Florida licensed attorney. I am VERY familiar with the case, I knew about it well before it made news, and I am personally acquainted with some of the names you would recognize from the case.
I will respond later point by point to your points and reiterate:
1) Why shouldn't she undergo a new round of tests and/or therapy? After all, technology has changed significantly sincer her earlier efforts at therapy. At that point, I think alot of people supporting the parents would come to grips with it.
2) Why is Michael so hell-bent on killing her? Couldn't he just divorce her?
Enjoy the cribbage, The Incredibles awaits me!!! GG
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.