Posted on 04/01/2005 7:34:43 AM PST by johnny7
San Diego -- NOW THAT Terri Schiavo has died, many of the questions the country has been wrestling with are moot.
It no longer matters which doctor had the right diagnosis, or whether Schiavo's husband or parents had her best interests at heart, or whether the federal government should have been involved, or whether this was a case that was best handled by doctors and family members as opposed to politicians and judges.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Thanks!
Any particular news items you've seen that might help explain?
Sir, as bleak as it seems, our Heavenly Father takes care of HIS own.
Could be He is taking a roll call!
Again, my thanks!
I'll try Rush's website. Hadn't thought of that. I know the Old media wouldn't have much in the way of defending the Congress' actions, but I'm hoping maybe for a conservative writers concise explanation.
The media is obsessed with making this a political football by trying to make the GOP look bad, while some GOP leaders were trying to save a disabled woman's life.
Huh. Courts upholding the constitution?!?
I must have missed that Constitutional Amendment that lets courts expressly ignore new laws passed by Congress and pretend that they dont really matter.
"Somewhat off subject, but does anyone have a fairly clear, concise article explaining why the Congress was NOT out of line in visiting this issue. I literally had a liberal screaming at me last night about how inappropriate it was. Not an intelligent argument, mostly he yelled lots of "separation of powers", but I'd really like to find something to explain that there are two sides without getting into a screaming match. Perferably something he can read!!"
Nothing stops a Liberal from being an inconsistent hypocrite, but these claims are just pure hypocritical BS.
If Congress can regulate the details of medical records (eg HIPPA), If Congress can decide when and how to pay for pills at the Federal Level (medicare), if Congress can pass drug laws, pass laws that interfere with family relations with 'deadbeat dad' type laws, get involved in medical decisions by regulating HMOs and how they decide medical matters, regulation of drugs through the FDA, etc., then surely Congress can save a life here.
Ask the Liberal if they really care about Federalism enough to clearly explain what powers the Federal govt should *not* have when it comes to medicine.
Ask them if the Federal courts should have the power to review state courts when they pass death sentences.
Ask them if the Federal courts should have the power to review state and local governments making decisions about prayer in schools or ten commandments at judicial buildings.
Ask them if Federal courts should have the power to forbid forced sterilization laws at the state level, and overturn a state courts decision to require a disabled person to be sterilized; or forbid racial intermarriage.
Ask them why Federal courts can do that and NOT review state court decisions that kill a disabled person.
If they answer that Federal courts can do all those other things, which they have done and Liberals have wanted them to do, but not to save a life, then your Liberal friend is a hopeless hypocrite.
If the argue the federal court involvement/review is okay, but not Congressional action ...
then your Liberal friend is arguing for an imperial Judiciary, if they think Federal courts should get involved without any input from Congress. have them read Article III of the Constitution! Congress regulates what the courts can review, and this law simply codified an additional review process that should have taken place (but which didnt take place because our imperial judiciary thumbed its nose at the new law Congress passed).
I agree with you wholeheartedly. My problem is trying to explain anything to this Co-worker (definitely not friend). He is your typical know it all who was quoting Time magazine and all sorts of Old Media BS. I was just hoping to show him there were actually intelligent people who felt the Congress was correct in getting involved. I wanted him to see that that too was in writing.
Thanks for the ammo. I'll use it if I get cornered again, although I'm hoping to avoid it. It's tough to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent!!
"Michael Savage, someone I usually agree with, he is at a frenzied pitch about it, to the point that I think he is being short sighted."
Yes, Michael Savage is a hothead who is eing very shortsighted. ... I wonder if he really is a conservative, because his attitude is a great way to take the whole conservative movement off a cliff like a bunch of lemmings.
The GOP used to always go into 'circular firing squad' mode, shoot it's own, blame eachother, rather than simply realize that in political battles you can win or lose, and your REAL ENEMIES will defeat you if you dont fight well enough.
Shooting at Jeb Bush is like an army killing its own officers because they lost a battle. Yeah, maybe they could have done better, but how will that help you win the next battle?
Jeb Bush did all he could. The other two branches of Government, both the lege and the courts WERE MORE ACTIVELY RESPONSIBLE FOR HER DEATH, by failing to pass laws to protect Terri, for (Florida supreme court) overturning laws that would have, and for interpreting the laws and evidence (Greer et al) in ways that presumed in FAVOR OF DEATH INSTEAD OF IN FAVOR OF LIFE.
A more balanced assessment and conclusion is that we need (a) better laws and (b) and end to Judicial arrogance and imperialism.
The state was supposed to give the case due process, and it did. It did even according to the federal government after Congress essentially told Florida "Sorry kid, you can't take care of yourself so we're stepping in."
---
Complete ignorance of the real facts at hand ... grab a clue: The Federal Government already was involved prior to the Congressional law being passed. Federal courts were getting appeals (and turning them down) prior.
Quick - Does the Federal Government have the right to review state laws that force sterilization of retarded people?
Even here in liberal Austin TX, the letters to the editor have been against the removal of Terri's feeding tube. Most people thought she was killed, not allowed to die "peacefully".
.
"That's completely wrong. In fact, the 14th amendment - WHICH WAS RATIFIED BY THE STATES - requires due process in ANY government action, not just criminal cases. I can appreciate your passion on this, but you're completely wrong in these statements."
Well said.
The Congressional action and the stance of the GOP leaders at Federal level was from beginning to end well-founded - morally, legally, Constitutionally.
It's a pity our Federal judges didnt pick up the hint and give as much care for Terri as they do to murderers on death row.
They did not ignore any law. Apparently you do not understand the legal term de novo like most you make such a claim.
By "advocating" but not "acting"!
If it had been Bush's daughter, Clinton's daughter, any member of Congress's daughter, any celebrity or well-known athlete's daughter, anyone with any influence at all's daughter, does any one think he would have worried about Judge Greer's defiance of Congressional law?
Of course not, and this gets to the heart of matter, and is why so many are avoiding asking this very question of him and of themselves. They avoid it like the plague, because even a five-year-old knows that this is what goes to the question of character.
The GOP will suffer the loss of many of the pro-life supporters, and even a small loss is too much.
Hopefully, some leaders with spine will come forward to fill the gap, and at least try to stave off the spector of Hillary in the White House.
I believe the resulting law was well-founded morally, legally and constitutionally. It just wasn't well-founded conservatively, for those who believe in states' rights, according to the constitutional principle of federalism.
How about this one?
U.S. Code
TITLE 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
CHAPTER 138 - ASSISTED SUICIDE FUNDING RESTRICTION
§ 14401. Findings and purpose
(a) Findings Congress finds the following:
(1) The Federal Government provides financial support for the provision of and payment for health care services, as well as for advocacy activities to protect the rights of individuals.
(2) Assisted suicide, euthanasia, and mercy killing have been criminal offenses throughout the United States and, under current law, it would be unlawful to provide services in support of such illegal activities.
(3) Because of recent legal developments, it may become lawful in areas of the United States to furnish services in support of such activities.
(4) Congress is not providing Federal financial assistance in support of assisted suicide, euthanasia, and mercy killing and intends that Federal funds not be used to promote such activities.
(b) Purpose It is the principal purpose of this chapter to continue current Federal policy by providing explicitly that Federal funds may not be used to pay for items and services (including assistance) the purpose of which is to cause (or assist in causing) the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any individual.
§ 14402. Restriction on use of Federal funds under health care programs
(a) Restriction on Federal funding of health care services Subject to subsection (b) of this section, no funds appropriated by Congress for the purpose of paying (directly or indirectly) for the provision of health care services may be used—
(1) to provide any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing;
(2) to pay (directly, through payment of Federal financial participation or other matching payment, or otherwise) for such an item or service, including payment of expenses relating to such an item or service; or
(3) to pay (in whole or in part) for health benefit coverage that includes any coverage of such an item or service or of any expenses relating to such an item or service.
(b) Construction and treatment of certain services Nothing in subsection (a) of this section, or in any other provision of this chapter (or in any amendment made by this chapter), shall be construed to apply to or to affect any limitation relating to—
(1) the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment or medical care;
(2) the withholding or withdrawing of nutrition or hydration;
(3) abortion; or
(4) the use of an item, good, benefit, or service furnished for the purpose of alleviating pain or discomfort, even if such use may increase the risk of death, so long as such item, good, benefit, or service is not also furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting in causing, death, for any reason.
True, and Congress later effectively said that all of that had failed, that the legal system in the state of Florida was not working.
Quick - Does the Federal Government have the right to review state laws that force sterilization of retarded people?
I don't remember any challenge to any law in this case used to end Terri's life.
Fine, federal funds can't be used. That is their prerogative, and this is a non-issue, not related to this case.
Really?
Congress has stated it's an issue for the states decide and in the most recent confronting of this issue they also say that nothing they say will be construed to apply to or to affect withholding or withdrawing of nutrition or hydration.
Seem's related to me.
"Yes, Michael Savage is a hothead who is eing very shortsighted. ... I wonder if he really is a conservative, because his attitude is a great way to take the whole conservative movement off a cliff like a bunch of lemmings.
Shooting at Jeb Bush is like an army killing its own officers because they lost a battle. Yeah, maybe they could have done better, but how will that help you win the next battle?"
Jeb Bush did all he could. The other two branches of Government, both the lege and the courts WERE MORE ACTIVELY RESPONSIBLE FOR HER DEATH, by failing to pass laws to protect Terri, for (Florida supreme court) overturning laws that would have, and for interpreting the laws and evidence (Greer et al) in ways that presumed in FAVOR OF DEATH INSTEAD OF IN FAVOR OF LIFE.
A more balanced assessment and conclusion is that we need (a) better laws and (b) and end to Judicial arrogance and imperialism. "
Well said. Look around on FR. There are people everyday denouncing their party affiliation etc.
This guy Savage is shouting people down who disagree with him. He's calling Bush a lame duck president, a do nothing and his brother a wimp.
I don't know if you listened to Tom Delay last night, but he made more sense in five minutes than Savage has in two weeks. I still don't know what he expected the president to do. Make some moral gesture that would be considered highly political.
I agree completely with what you say. Couldn't have put it better.
I still think this should rally the troops not disband them.
nick
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.