President's Statement on Terri Schiavo

The White House ^ | 3-17-2005 | George W. Bush

[BobS]

The case of Terri Schiavo raises complex issues. Yet in instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern. It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected - and that culture of life must extend to individuals with disabilities.

[HitmanLV]

Now nothing. Congress did what it could, and the Schindler's atty lost.

[smiley]

....so you were against the federal government intervening in school segregation???

[NJ_gent]

"Jawohl! Heil Hitler!"

That's it - I'm pro states' rights and opposed to Federal intrusion, so I must be a Nazi.

For future reference, I react far better to well thought-out arguments rather than simplistic, trite name-calling.

The state should never encroach on the rights of the citizens, but it's up to the citizens of that state to take a stand when things get out of hand. The citizens of the state of Florida are not being oppressed - they're being apathetic. They're entitled to their apathy and the Federal government's actions here constitute a blatant encroachment on the sovereignty of Florida. Florida's sovereignty is specifically protected by the US Constitution, and her court decisions are her own so long as they're addressing state issues. The Federal government has no role in this case and should butt out of it. The people of the state of Florida need to stand up, remove the judge, pressure their legislature to change their laws, and take whatever other political actions they deem necessary to protect their rights and the rights of their fellow citizens.

Does it truly take just one horribly unjust case to make 'conservatives' come crawling to Uncle Sam and lick the hand that will make it all 'better'? Liberals have been going about this whole welfare argument the wrong way entirely. Uncle Sam ain't the answer to much, and he sure isn't the answer to this case. This case never had to go this far. If you want someone to fix things - look to Floridians. If you want someone to blame, look to the people and the legislature of Florida. Relinquishing the sovereignty of states to help one woman does nothing but endanger the other 300 million of her fellow citizens.

Maybe, just maybe, there was a reason that Federal power and scope was so strictly limited by the US Constitution.

[NJ_gent]

"THe federal government has the Constitutional responsibility to guarantee Florida a republican form of government."

Perhaps, but where are the masses of Floridians whose rights to that government have been denied, and who've been unable to help themselves? The judge was out of line, but the people of Florida did nothing. The legislature didn't act and the people of Florida did nothing. Handing Floridians a right to the victim mentality doesn't help them and it doesn't help you and me.

"That might include sending in the Army to put down a local insurrection, e.g. a judge who went ahead and killed a witness wanted for Congressional hearings."

Calling a woman to testify before Congress who, according to doctors, is in a persistent vegetative state, is an entirely unrealistic concept. There's no illusion that it was simply done to exploit a legal loophole in an effort to force one side of the argument. Now, I'm not saying she is or isn't in a vegetative state. I'm not a doctor, and I'm guessing her doctors (who have a whole lot more experience dealing with this kind of thing than I ever will) aren't just trying to be mean. That said, medical science is anything but exact, and she seems far more aware than a person in a vegetative state would ever be. What I am saying, however, is that even her parents (her biggest advocates), wouldn't dare claim she's in any condition to testify before Congress, nor that she could be any time soon (as in within several years). Ergo, calling Terri to testify was a thinly veiled (or perhaps not veiled at all) legal maneuver.

As for the judge revolting against the government and going on a murderous rampage, let's be realistic here. The decision was that the husband has the right to decide her fate because of his supposed insight into her wishes. The judge isn't holding a gun to her head, and claiming otherwise is truly ridiculous. Is it a bad decision? I think it's a horrible decision and I think it completely ignores the controversy surrounding Terri's real condition and her real wishes. If Floridians wanted this judge removed, the judge would be playing the back 9 at a south Florida golf course by now instead of hearing cases. If Floridians wanted a law to protect Terri, their legislature would have passed one even faster than Congress did. Their apparent apathy is sad, but what's sadder is this rush to demand Uncle Sam march in and take control. That control puts us all in danger in the long term to save the life of one person in the short term. Terri's advocates have a laudable goal, but their means put us all in a bad position - one where the Federal government can step in when and where it feels the need regardless of supposed restrictions on its power and scope.

[NJ_gent]

"Or his ability to sit with a white person at a lunch counter."

The goal was laudable, and the means kind of meandered around the line between legal and illegal in my opinion. The precedent, however, was a dangerous one. Citizens standing up to state governments would have been a far, far safer and more just means to bringing about legal equality during the 50s and 60s. However, the laws in place denying equal protection to minorities were obviously in violation of the US Constitution. That said, I think the courage shown in the actions of citizens determined to see an end to unequal treatment made Federal intrusion entirely unnecessary. Those kids may not have gotten to go to school quite as soon as they did, but they would have gone to school. The folks staging the sit-ins and such just hadn't quite gotten around to that part just yet.

In this case, there is the issue before us of who decides what care is given or denied to a person unable to clearly establish their own wishes. There's absolutely nothing in the US Constitution about that, other than what the 10th Amendment tells us, which is that the Federal government's nose has no business being stuck into the state of Florida's internal legal matter.

[muawiyah]

You must have missed something. The Florida legislature acted but the State Supreme Court ruled their action unconstitutional.

Obviously that court must be punished by the legislature, but don't say the legislature did nothing.

[Dysfunctional]

What is terribly unfortunate here, for a supposed conservative forum, is how little the majority really understands that our rights in the constitution are there to protect us FROM THE GOVERNMENT. They are not there for the government to constantly define and intervene into.

What congress did was equal to any fascist system. And the people here just schlep along because they agree with this particular action... all the while they fail to see what a horrific act this was.

What if, overnight, congress passed a law directly effecting a single conservative or group, demanding a judge review a conservative practice. I know very well... they would be pulling their hair out.

What this proves is that people simply want their own way... regardless of what it means to others around them or to the country they live in.

Truly scary...

[muawiyah]

Look, the federales put into place a law that says you must not step beyond a line drawn on the floor in a pharmacy until it's your turn.

Seems to me that killing somebody is of graver importance than telling me where to stand in a line to get my pills, but you, personally, let them put that law into place and didn't say a thing.

Your words ring hollow you hypocrite.

[Dysfunctional]

"Your words ring hollow you hypocrite"

(It is hard to type while containing my humor.)

Most of your comments were so disconnected and nonsensical that I will not try to respond to each one.

(In fact, I don't really understand the point to which you were tending.)


Let me offer an additional perspective: God creates life and determines its length. Satan's true singular triumph was to create a desire for man to be like God. What greater mockery to creation than to sustain any form of life merely because we can... We try to play God, then wrap ourselves in sanctimony by suggesting that we are doing God's work.

God creates... Satan rushes in with the counterfeit.

[muawiyah]

Obviously you haven't tried to fill a prescription lately.

That sign is not there because your pharmacist thinks you should be polite. It's there because federal law and regulation require it to be there, and further require that you obey the sign.

If you can swallow such detailed micromanagement of where and how you stand in line at the drugstore why should it bother you that the federales might want to protect a woman's life from a corrupt judge.

[muawiyah]

Obviously you haven't tried to fill a prescription lately.

That sign is not there because your pharmacist thinks you should be polite. It's there because federal law and regulation require it to be there, and further require that you obey the sign.

If you can swallow such detailed micromanagement of where and how you stand in line at the drugstore why should it bother you that the federales might want to protect a woman's life from a corrupt judge.

[Dysfunctional]

Well, thanks for explaining. My answer? It shouldn't be there; neither should the Federal government step in and advance the legal system at a cost of continuing this human tragedy.

After years of medical treatment and lawyering a decision was made. Now we have a true circus. I absolutely do not know the real truth to this case, but I know religious hyperbole when I see it. I know a religious media campaign when I see. The mere fact that the husband is not staging the same thing makes me tend to believe that his wife told him what she told him. Furthermore, I have expressed the same wishes to my wife and she to me. Virtually all my family members and friends say the same thing. Given that, I believe she probably said at one time that she would not want to be kept alive.

So, now you are left with parents that can give themselves an extended sense of self worth by tending to what has virtually become less than an infant like being... I understand their emotion, but it is selfish in many ways.

The actions of the husband in seeking another life also doesn't really bother me. I have told my wife (and she me) that we would prefer that the other party get on with their life if we can no longer be a mate to them.

The courts have recognized the bonding between a man and a woman and things said between them have more merit that a parent.

Now a religious element has stepped in, joined by the greatest self interest group in the country, lawyers, to once again drag on the legal system.

Your comments about a corrupt judge are meaningless in light of the fact that this tragic process has gone on almost forever.

[muawiyah]

Interesting that you are more pissed off about what you identify as "religious hyperbole", which is absolutely none of your business anyway, than you are about the fact that the State of Florida is executing an handicapped woman.

Look, if starvation death is as good as you believe it to be, show me by doing it yourself.

I am patient. I'll watch and make sure no one bothers you.

[Dysfunctional]

You are not very Christian in your comments.

Religious hyperbole is a fairly mild way of describing what I consider overstatements by some.

In your case, meanness is transparent. I suggest you start converting others by the example of your ways versus your petty sanctimony.

My only wish is that those people suffer the same consequences they wish on others. I have a Living Will... you can be tubed and tossed for bed sores.

[muawiyah]

"Meanness" ~ you're making moral judgments here. Let's try to be as objective as possible.

You don't see me letting anybody know you're really a sociopath do you?

[muawiyah]

BTW, your "living will" is readily lost in this modern age. I suspect you're going to be semi-conscious and bed-ridden for a lot more time than you planned on.

But not to worry. Should that time come and I find out where you are, I'll keep the Killer Docs away from you just so you can enjoy every last single moment of life no matter how bad it is.

Remember, pain is our friend!

[BobsBride]

Mr. Prez can call in Federal marshals, although today a lawyer acquaintance explained to me that he most likely will not do that because it would scare too many people and make him look like a dictator since he'd be going against all the federal court rulings of this past week. I think that is just a crock. For someone's life I would think it would be worth calling on the big guns to get Terri out of there before she dies. If he doesn't, then who will be next after Terri?

BTW, I am new here and really like this site.

[NJ_gent]

You're right that they haven't "done nothing". However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a bigtime lawyer to see that a law whose scope is so unbelievably narrow that it's difficult to see it applying to more than one specific, high-profile case isn't going to be upheld. That said, once the legislature saw that its actions were insufficient, their job should have become to either pass a workable law or go after the last and final resort: constitutional amendment. A broadly-worded amendment to the state's constitution which covers this case would end this case once and for all.

Now, I don't know what all's involved in amending the Florida constitution. I know that it's typically very difficult to amend any state constitution, but the fact that it happens at all goes to show that when something's important enough, it gets done. I've seen no word from the Florida legislature regarding a push to make an amendment happen. Does it help now? Probably not this far along. Could it have helped at the time of the law being struck down? Far more likely.

[attiladhun2]

This women's individual rights were trampled upon by a tyranncial judge. There are all kinds of problems with the case. Conflict of interest for one thing. Michael Shiavo's attorney used to be on the board of directors of the hospice where she is a patient. Her doctor is a pro-euthanasia zealot. Her estranged "husband" would not have any legal standing to be her guardian in most any other state. Her "husband" would not authorize physical therapy of any kind for her. Sworn affidavits contradicting Michael Shiavo and this pro-euthanasia doctor were rejected by the tyrant Greer. In short, give me a frigging break with your "states' rights" rhetoric.

[NJ_gent]

"In short, give me a frigging break with your "states' rights" rhetoric."

In other words, you would have the Federal government forcefully overpower states in any situation where you, personally, disagree with the decision of the state? Just what exactly do you consider the term "states' rights" to mean? Let me take a shot at it...

States' Rights - misnomer - a set of privileges bestowed upon individual "states" by the Federal government contingent upon their agreement to act in accordance with the wishes of the Federal government.

That about cover it? Afraid that's directly contrary to the US Constitution, the wishes of the founders, and the best interests of the people of the United States of America. The system in Florida, in its current form, failed Terri Shiavo. To jump over onto the liberal side of the states' rights issue does no good for Terri and would actually be harmful for the 300 million of her fellow citizens. Working within the law to change the law in the state of Florida while preserving the sovereignty of the state of Florida is the right way to go about ensuring this doesn't happen happen again. The "at all costs" crowd is shortsighted, reckless, and downright dangerous. Thankfully they're in the minute minority, else we'd have all sorts of problems and possibly would have a bunch of people dead over this issue already.

That's a great advertisement for the culture of life - get people shooting at each other on the front steps of a hospice. I'm not saying you've personally advocated that, but others have called for the governor of Florida or President Bush to send in armed police to go up against the armed police guarding the hospice to enforce the judges' order. Truly a walking contradiction.