Posted on 06/19/2005 8:19:40 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Just when it seemed that every liberal commentator on the Terri Schiavo case was starting to sound like Barney Frank, the great Joan Didion published a long and remarkable article on the case in the quite far left New York Review of Books of June 9. Frank, of course, took the occasion of last week's Schiavo autopsy results as yet another opportunity to denounce Republicans as "this fanatical party willing to impose its own views on people."
For those of you still somehow unaware, "imposing their views" is a semiofficial Democratic meme or code phrase meaning "religious people who vote their moral views and disagree with us." Didion, on the other hand, cut through all the rhetoric about imposing views and said the struggle to spare Schiavo's life was "essentially a civil rights intervention." This is a phrase of great clarity, particularly since Democrats have a long track record of protecting civil rights and Republicans don't. Behind the grotesque media circus, the two parties were essentially switching roles. In the first round of public opinion--the polls--the GOP took a beating. But in the long run, the American people tend to rally behind civil rights, and the party that fights to uphold them is likely to prevail.
On the "rational" or "secular" side of the dispute, Didion wrote, there was "very little acknowledgment that there could be large numbers of people, not all of whom could be categorized as 'fundamentalists' or 'evangelicals,' who were genuinely troubled by the ramifications of viewing a life as inadequate and so deciding to end it." Amen. There was also little admission that this was a "merciful euthanasia" controversy posing as a "right to die" case. Many of us understood, as the autopsy has now shown, that Schiavo was severely damaged, but a national psychodrama built around the alleged need to end a life without clear consent is likely to induce anxieties in all but the most dedicated right-to-die adherents.
"The ethical argument" Didion did not conclude that ending Schiavo's life was a wrongful act, but she seemed to be leaning that way. She wrote: "What might have seemed a central argument in this case--the ethical argument, the argument about whether, when it comes to life and death, any of us can justifiably claim the ability or the right to judge the value of any other being's life--remained largely unexpressed, mentioned, when at all, only to be dismissed."
That issue was slurred and muffled by the media and by shrewd, though completely misleading, right-to-die arguments that distracted us from the core issue of consent. George Felos, the attorney of Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, told Larry King, "Quality of life is one of those tricky things because it's a very personal and individual decision. I don't think any of us have the right to make a judgment about quality of life for another."
Here Felos piously got away with adopting a deadly argument against his own position by presenting it as somehow bolstering his case. This can happen only when the media are totally incurious or already committed to your side. Michael Schiavo made a somewhat similar eye-popping argument to King: "I think that every person in this country should be scared. The government is going to trample all over your private and personal matters. It's outrageous that these people that we elect are not letting you have your civil liberties to choose what you want when you die." Americans were indeed scared that they might one day be in Terri Schiavo's predicament.
But Michael was speaking as though Terri Schiavo's wishes in the matter were clear and Republicans were determined to trample them anyway. Yet her wishes, as Didion says, were "essentially unconfirmable" and based on bits of hearsay reported by people whose interests were not obviously her own--Michael Schiavo and two of his relatives.
One hearsay comment--"no tubes for me" --came while Terri Schiavo was watching television. "Imagine it," Didion wrote. "You are in your early 20s. You are watching a movie, say on Lifetime, in which someone has a feeding tube. You pick up the empty chip bowl. 'No tubes for me,' you say as you get up to fill it. What are the chances you have given this even a passing thought?" According to studies cited last year in the Hastings Center Report, Didion reminds us, almost a third of written directives, after periods as short as two years, no longer reflect the wishes of those who made them. And here nothing was written down at all.
The autopsy confirms the extraordinary damage to Schiavo and discredits those who tried to depict the husband as a wife-beater. But the autopsy has nothing to say about the core moral issue: Do people with profound disabilities no longer have a right to live? That issue is still on the table.
Exactly right, in fact you don't understand much of anything. The right to life is in the Constitution, the power of the state to intevene by preventing end of life decisions is not. What that means bullwinkle is that state ordered deaths of citizens is constitutionally the jurisdiction of the federal governments power of judicial review when individual rights may have been violtaed by a state actor.
It's called due process. Got it now?
More cognitive dissonance from the "true conservatives". The 5th Amendment is about the rights of persosn. There is no distinction between criminal and civil cases. The rights oultined in the 5th apply to all, despite your opinion to the contrary.
she received due process through her guardian.
The 2nd DCA of Florida stated that Michael Schiavo had an apparent conflict of interest. An apparent conflict of interest under the Florida codes disallows that person from being guardian which is why the 2nd DCA stated that the decision to order the death of Terri Schiavo was not MS's but the courts, the actor for the state. Understand? Do you understand anything regarding the laws of Florida, the TS case or the Constitution?
She could have been represented by a state appointed lawyer and the outcome would have been the same
Due process in "capital cases", cases where the death of a citizen is involved is and should be revieable at the federal level. That you don't understand that the constitution is the main prong of the three pronged Supreme Law of the Land ain't my problem.
No sir, I would not. I would appeal only to the state Supreme Court and that's it. And if you think that is false bravado, I assure you to the depth of my soul I mean that. Federalist #45 is clear and I will not allow my life, or death, to add to the destruction of federalism that Republicans are looking to continue.
LOL. You mean to sit there and tell me that if a State orders your death, you will not avail yourself of your constitutional rights to prove that you are a federalist? You do know that the original federalists were not state powers guys right?
You want to use my lifeless body for one of your crusades think again.
Oh, woe is me said the last true conservative. What you do with your lifeless body is of no concern to me, it's what you and those like you do with your lifeless brains while alive that ticks me off.
Where?
What article are you reading?
The right to life is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence along with the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Where do you get the idea that "life" is the capstone of American values?
I always thought liberty was. After all...look at how many lives we have sacrificed to it.
For those words and for his judicial activism in overriding Congress' prohibition of slavery in the territories, Taney should have been impeached.
Another "true conservative" who wouldn't know the US COnstitution if it bit him on the ass? Try the 5th and 14th Amendments. They are located in the part of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. George Mason, the Father of the Bill of Rights, is now rolling over in his grave and moaning.
Without life KDD, there is no liberty. I know that's a tough concept but what the hell, give it a shot at grasping it.
Correction, the 5th is in the BOR, the 14th is an Amendment added at a later date affirming the right to life of all. Just keeping it real.
You're an idiot. Sorry, I'm not usually so blunt but I gotta call'um like I see'um and after your last post I know that somewhere a village is desperately seeking their idiot.
Game...Set...Match.
So, you're contending that the founding documents guarantee the right to life only to those accused of a crime? Do I understand you correctly?
Right and you lose. In fact, I've got your last post and this thread signed, sealed and filed away for future reference. A more ignorant freeper regarding individual rights, ther Constitution and the founding principles of this country I have never met. Congrats.
D'oh! Take it back. Sheesh! You were on a roll. Yes, KDD is an idiot. But come on...
Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do. No regrets, no apologies, no quarter. :-}
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I read no guarantee to life in there.
So, you're contending that the founding documents guarantee the right to life only to those accused of a crime? Do I understand you correctly? Answer the question.
Where do you read that contention?
In your posts. You berated jwalsh saying that the right to life was not there. Then you pointed to your interpretation of the 5th and 14th amendments and said that they only apply to criminals. Therefore, you are contending that the founding documents only guarantee the right to life to those accused of a crime and not anyone else. a + b = c
Another of so many untruths.
I know there have been posts decrying Terri's supporters as conspiracy theorists. There is much truth in your last post. One does not need to wonder if there is a conspiracy they only need to read Jim King's quote!
it was certainly the right thing for people who are like Terri
Do you hear that phone ringing. Its the village calling you home. My goodness...
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.