In October of 2003 Florida Governor Jeb Bush, acting on an unprecedented statute passed by state legislature called “Terri’s Law”, ordered a feeding tube reinserted into Terri Schiavo. What makes this move so important is a court had previously ordered the feeding tube to be removed six days earlier. Later in a press conference, President Bush said he supported the actions of his brother in the Schiavo case. Gives a whole new meaning to the term “big brother is watching” doesn’t it?
The bill basically says that the governor is not bound by the decisions of the courts. Law professor Steven Gay of Florida State University noted, “The statue tells the governor that he does not have to enforce judicial decisions. That’s sort of George Wallace territory,” referring to the Alabama governor who defied court orders mandating the desegregation of schools.
The legislation passed in the Florida House and Senate and the order issued by Bush are without legal foundation and in conflict with fundamental democratic and constitutional principles. Because Bush is Roman Catholic, and his faith “errs on the side of life”, he says he was “driven” to intervene. What ever happened to the separation of Church and state? Isn’t that one of our most precious Constitutional rights? Doesn’t the First Amendment expressly forbid it?
The bill passed by the legislature applied only to this one case, although it doesn’t mention Schiavo’s name, and allowed Bush to issue a “stay” of a court decision to remove feeding tubes. Such a case-specific bill is considered to be a violation of due process, since laws are supposed to be general. It is not in the power of the legislature to decide cases of fact or determine the fate of particular persons. Otherwise, the foundation of the legal system collapses, since any law can be considered on a case-by-case basis. This is another example of whatever Bush wants, in this case Jeb, Bush gets. It doesn’t matter how many rights or laws are trampled.
The issue at hand is whether her husband Michael Schiavo has the right to have her feeding tub removed. The law says he does. According to the legally established hierarchy of guardianship, if the patient cannot make decisions on their own, and has no living will, then guardianship is transferred to the husband/wife. If the patient has no husband/wife, guardianship is transferred to her children, and if she has no children,
then to her parents. Several court-appointed doctors have stated that her condition is irreversible and that her brain damage was so severe that there was no hope she would ever have any cognitive abilities. After her parents released a video, supposedly showing her interacting with them, doctors stated those reactions were just reflexes common in patients who are in persistent vegetative state. In Terri Schiavo’s case the law defers to her husband who has stated that Terri’s wish was not to be on life support or use any drastic measures to save her life. Although she is not terminally ill, she is not able to feed herself, so in her case the insertion of a feeding tube can be classified as drastic measures.
To me this case is no longer about that. Unfortunately it’s bigger than Terri now. Sadly she has become the proverbial poster-woman for right-wing forces, mainly Christian fundamentalists, to exert influence over the Republican Party. They are adding the Schiavo case to a broader campaign to end abortion rights and push for prayer in the public schools. They have long campaigned against the “right to die” on the basis that only God can make decisions on life and death, ironically a belief that does not prevent them from supporting the death penalty.
I am a Christian. No doubt about it. I believe that killing, in most instances, is wrong. I have said to my family a million times; if something happens to me, don’t pull my plug. Don’t touch it. That’s my choice. Dying was Terri Schiavos. How do we know? We can never really know 100% if she had any wishes on the matter. That’s one of the reasons we have laws in the first place. Apparently the Florida Supreme Court agrees, they ruled in September of 2004 that Governor Bush overstepped his authority and declared “Terri’s Law” unconstitutional. Fancy that… a Bush overstepping authority (sorry for the sarcasm).
Fast forward to last week, after leaving his vacation in Texas, President George Bush signed an emergency bill into law that will allow a federal court to review Terri’s case an determine whether or not her feeding tubes should be reconnected. This law called “The Palm Sunday Compromise” (I’ll let that one slide) put the case in the hands of U.S. District Judge James Whittemore. Even some conservatives were unnerved by this move. "To simply say that the 'culture of life,' or whatever you call it means that we don't have to pay attention to the principles of federalism or separation of powers is certainly not a conservative viewpoint," said former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga.
"It contradicts a lot of what those behind it say they believe: the sanctity of the family, the sacred bond between husband and wife, the ability of all of us to make private decisions without the hand of government intervening, deference to states and localities as opposed to the centralized government," said Lichtman.
In the last day or so U.S District Judge James Whittemore decided in favor of Terri’s husband Michael, and declined to have the feeding tube reinserted. Her parents appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, and they too denied their request. Their only recourse now is to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has declined to hear the case three times so far.
While I agree with the Court's analysis today, and therefore join in its opinion, I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide -- including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the [state capital city] telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve his or her life, it is up to the citizens [of the state] to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life and death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable....
- Justice Anton Scalia in his concurring opinionThe government is saying our rights are protected because the law passed only has to do with the Schiavo case. My question is what happens when another case comes along that the president feels “strongly about”. How many cases like Terri Schiavos will happen before the government presides over every case? President Bush seems very comfortable, maybe a little to comfortable, abusing his power to forward his own political and religious beliefs regardless of the law or common sense for that matter. He is so comfortable that he doesn’t mind contradicting himself. In 1999, then-Gov. Bush signed the Advance Directives Act, which lets a patient's surrogate make life-ending decisions on his or her behalf. The measure also allows Texas hospitals to disconnect patients from life-sustaining systems if a physician, in consultation with a hospital bioethics committee, concludes that the patient's condition is hopeless. Hypocrisy at it’s finest. I guess it’s like George Orwell said “All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome.”
People are saying that removing her feeding tube would take away her right to die with dignity. Her face is splashed all over the TV, eyes vacant, hands clenched into fists, being used as a political pawn. Where is the dignity in that? To top it off she is now receiving free care at the hospice she is in. Hundreds of thousands of people in the country without insurance and she gets free care.
I understand her parents’ plight to keep her alive. They love her. I can’t say I wouldn’t do the same for my child. I don’t know. What I do know is if the government continues to get involved in our personal lives and affairs we will be facing some very dark times.
