|
Congress & Schiavo
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/sc...ged/index.html
Is the official policy of the Republican Party now "the federal government has the power to do whatever it wants whenever it wants" Or is that just the practice and the official policy still pretends to give a flying flip about states rights? |
dont forget a dash of religion in there.
|
I almost hit the truck that's up on the front page of CNN.com on Tuesday afternoon. It was up here in Tallahassee, parked on the side of the road, it was raining out, and that thing was sticking way too far out in the street. I had to swerve to miss the bumper.
Just thought I'd share. |
States rights is one of those things, like fiscal conservatism, that you mention when you're running for election, and toss in the nearest ditch when you get to Congress.
I don't care what side of the Schiavo debate you're on, I think most people would agree that the Congress making laws and decisions about specific people's medical care is not a good thing. |
Yeah, this case is completely disgusting. This poor lady has ben vegatative for over a decade. Most doctors support the removal of the tube, her husband does, the courts have upheld it already a few times, despite Jeb Bush's and the FLA senate's misuse of power...and now congress wants to enact a law that basically overrides the FLA high courts. All the time on TV, I hear republicans...and politicians in general...stay that the government should stay out of people's lives...less government. It appears that less government is what they want only if you conform to their religious/social agenda.
|
Quote:
I agree with that. I find it confusing that Republicans, traditionally the party advocating less interference by the government in the everyday lives of citizens, are doing what they're doing in this case (and in other issues too, of course). Honestly, what's the Republican justification here? I also find this affair sickening, and the politicians' interference doubly so. I can't imagine what the husband feels like. Quote:
|
Quote:
Well, to echo the observations of a lot of people here--it appears the Republicans (and I'm sure Democrats too) use state's rights arguments when it suits the argument they want to make. Medicinal marijuana is one issue. Gay Marriage is another--it is amazing how they will cry state's rights when an anti-gay marriage referendum is on the ballot, but will insist it is a federal issue when a state supreme court makes a pro-gay marriage decision. Watch 'em flip back to a state's rights argument if a federal court ever rules in favor of gay marriage... |
I guess they don't understand what "persistent vegetative state" means. They've called Terry Schiavo to testify before the Senate Health Committee...
hxxp://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BRAIN_DAMAGED_WOMAN?SITE=JRC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT#1 :rolleyes: I'm wondering what the legal justification is for this whole series of events? I can understand the parent's pain, but didn't their guardianship rights over her go away once she got married? And what about "ex post facto"? Even if there are laws passed today, since her injury happened before the law was passed, doesn't that mean it won't apply to any situations that occured before passing of the law? All in all, this is a pretty fucked up situation, but since there was no living will, and her husband is the legal guardian, the decision he made with the input of the doctors should be the one followed. |
Quote:
If only she were married to Scott Peterson this thing could have taken care of itself. The only thing is, the Democrats couldn't take the credit for fragging her. |
Quote:
Is that a variation of the "If only Mama Cass gave Karen Carpenter her ham sandwich, they'd still be alive today" argument? Sorry, couldn't resist... :) |
Quote:
The medicinal marijuana issue I can agree with. It was a state that passed the law and then the feds crack down and tell them that they can't have it. In the gay marriage thing it was the state's voters that passed the law, and that very state's federal judge trying to cancel out that referendum from the bench. Two different things there. |
Quote:
I was not necessarily talking about events in the same state--I was making a general statement that with the gay marriage issue (or any other issue), anti-gay rights people will champion state (anti-gay marriage referenda) or federal jurisdiction (constitutional amendment banning gay marriage) or denounce state and federal power (judicial decisions in support), as they see fit. I'm not trying to single out the Republicans here, the Democrats do it on their pet issues too. |
Quote:
Agreed. |
Quote:
I think that what you see is moderate Republicans have been pushed aside. |
Its unconscionable these tools are using this for a political/religous purpose. Every day all across America, someone is taken off of life support - when has congress ever stepped in?
|
Quote:
Life support and a feeding tube are two differnt things. This woman is going to be starved to death. What's unconscionable is that there are people who think that's ok. |
Quote:
Whenever it becomes a national news item, evidently. |
Quote:
I think the interesting point is that the fundamental values of the Republican party have shifted. Fiscal conservatism, libertarianism, small government and states' rights had been bedrock core values for the party. Now they're matters of convenience, rolled out when they can aid the new core values (the war on drugs, Christian evangelism, unrestrained executive power), ignored the rest of the time. It's a major shift and an important one. In essence, everything I ever liked about the party has been excised in favor of all the things I really don't like about the party, and yet the party is more popular and more powerful than ever. Go figure.. :confused: |
Quote:
Maybe people have different ideas about what it means to be alive. It's a matter of debate for which there is no verifiably true answer, a value judgment. But I don't think it's an unconscionable position to think that Schiavo has been effectively dead for over a decade now. |
Quote:
Exactly. To me, this is no different than putting my 36 year old uncle with Down's Syndrome in a room to starve to death because of "limited brain function". Many of you people should be ashame of yourselves. |
Quote:
So she sould starve to death then? Why not just smother her face with a pillow and get it over with. Why make her suffer for 7-10 days longer? |
Quote:
|
Can anybody think of a way that "Terri's Law" can be applied in a manner that the Florida legislature never intended?
|
If her wish was not to be kept alive, then that wish should be respected.
|
Quote:
It is conceivable that she is completely aware of her surroundings and what is going on, but is physically unable to respond. And people want to starve her to death. It's not like they'll pull the tube and her organs will stop functioning. She will slowly starve to death over the course of days. |
Where are the Feminists now? I have not heard a word from any of the "womans rights" groups. A woman is about to be killed, one would think that these woman (and men) who will march, protest and stand up for women and any of their "rights" certainly would be involved in this case. Where are they???
Also Terri is not in a "vegatative state". Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is: (a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind. (b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment. Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment. I have a 92 year old Grandma who fits the above category. I guess if Terri and her family lose this battle that would mean we can finally get rid of that damn burden of a Grandma of ours :rolleyes: . |
Quote:
|
BTW, the reason why Terry Schiavo was issued a subpoena to appear in person is quite simple: if she's dead, she can't appear. So by issuing a subpoena, you keep her alive until the 28th ( I believe that's when she's scheduled to appear), which gives you a little bit of time to come up with a resolution.
As to Congress not deciding cases based on individuals.. here's a partial list of recent bills that Congress passed (via National Review): H.R.867 Title: Private Bill; For the relief of Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum Hasan, and Iqra Hasan. Sponsor: Rep Holt, Rush D. [D-NJ-12] (introduced 2/13/2003) Committees: House Judiciary; Senate Judiciary House Reports: 108-531 Latest Major Action: 10/30/2004 Became Private Law No: 108-4. H.R.530 Title: Private Bill; For the relief of Tanya Andrea Goudeau. Sponsor: Rep Baker, Richard H. [R-LA-6] (introduced 2/4/2003) Committees: House Judiciary; Senate Judiciary House Reports: 108-529 Latest Major Action: 12/23/2004 Became Private Law No: 108-6. S.560 Title: Private Bill; A bill for the relief of Rita Mirembe Revell (a.k.a. Margaret Rita Mirembe). Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] (introduced 3/19/2001) Committees: Senate Judiciary; House Judiciary House Reports: 107-129 Latest Major Action: 7/17/2001 Became Private Law No: 107-1. S.1834 Title: Private Bill; A bill for the relief of retired Sergeant First Class James D. Benoit and Wan Sook Benoit. Sponsor: Sen Levin, Carl [D-MI] (introduced 12/14/2001) Cosponsors: (none) Committees: Senate Judiciary; House Judiciary House Reports: 107-578 Latest Major Action: 10/1/2002 Became Private Law No: 107-2. H.R.486 Title: Private Bill; For the relief of Barbara Makuch. Sponsor: Rep Reynolds, Thomas M. [R-NY-27] (introduced 2/6/2001) Cosponsors: (none) Committees: House Judiciary; Senate Judiciary House Reports: 107-445 Latest Major Action: 10/4/2002 Became Private Law No: 107-3. H.R.487 Title: Private Bill; For the relief of Eugene Makuch. Sponsor: Rep Reynolds, Thomas M. [R-NY-27] (introduced 2/6/2001) Cosponsors: (none) Committees: House Judiciary; Senate Judiciary House Reports: 107-446 Latest Major Action: 10/4/2002 Became Private Law No: 107-4. H.R.2245 Title: Private Bill; For the relief of Anisha Goveas Foti. Sponsor: Rep Lantos, Tom [D-CA-12] (introduced 6/19/2001) Committees: House Judiciary; Senate Judiciary House Reports: 107-579 Latest Major Action: 11/5/2002 Became Private Law No: 107-5. H.R.3758 Major Actions: Help Title: Private Bill; For the relief of So Hyun Jun. Sponsor: Rep McCrery, Jim [R-LA-4] (introduced 2/13/2002) Committees: House Judiciary House Reports: 107-729 Latest Major Action: 12/2/2002 Became Private Law No: 107-6. Private relief bills are not new. This is not precedent setting. As Fritz pointed out, it's simply the first case the media's really taken notice of. |
And one more thing no one has mentioned - Michael Schiavo claims to still love his wife. What kind of man would want to watch the woman he loved starve to death, regardless of her final wishes?
Something smells here, and for once it ain't coming from Washington. |
Quote:
If we're going to go down this path, we can also ask the questions "where are the opponents of state-funded medicine now?" and "where are all those people decrying state support of people who have no intention of ever contributing to society?" Now that there is little money left in the trust fund, who will pay for Terri's care if she remains on life support? You guessed it. It would be doubly ironic if Republican cuts in state medicaid funding would force them to stop paying for Terri Schiavo's feeding tube... |
Quote:
Her parents have offered to pay for everything, if her husband would just stop trying to kill her. |
Quote:
How will they do that? Even if they could, who will do it when the parents are gone? |
Quote:
I think you'll find most of those are immigration cases (I haven't done the research to know for sure). The House and Senate have specific powers with regard to immigration cases. I don't think they have much relevance to this case. I tend to agree with those who believe she should be kept alive, however, I also strongly believe that Congress shouldn't be the one to make that decision. |
Quote:
Yes, true love is letting the person you care about sit and stare for 40 years while being kept alive by artificial means with...as the doctors put it...the functional capabilities of a 6 month old. I hope my wife loves me that much :rolleyes:. Her condition has not improved in over a decade, moat likely cost taxpayers oodles of money in legal and medical bills and courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of her husband. It's not eactly humane, but due process has been run over and over...even the Supreme Court refused to hear it...and now we have our lawmakers on Capitol Hill dictating individual medical issues that have already been decided by state courts. |
Quote:
You're assuming her parents won't name guardians in the event that they die and they'll just dump her off on the state. After everything they've gone through, I'm sure they know how important it is to make sure she's taken care of if they are not around to do so. |
Quote:
But you are also assuming that they actually have the assets to keep up her medical care for the next 40+ years. |
Quote:
True love is having an affair and two kids with another woman while trying to get a court order to starve your wife to death? It's not true love, and that's my point. I actually hope your wife doesn't love you that much, because I'd hate to see anyone do that to another human being. So I ask again, why not just suffocate her? |
Quote:
Isnt it the exact same thing? Shes on a feeding tube because her body is incapable of functioning. Like i said, every day this EXACT same situation plays out, being removed from a feeding tube, or artificial respiration. |
Quote:
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: And a 6 month old wouldn't feel the pain of slowly starving to death? |
Quote:
Just any FYI Klingler , Michael Schivia has spent $545 k on attorney or himself (55k in the bank). This comes out of court documents, see for yourself...He has used almost half (1.2 mil) of the money trying to kill her?? While living with another woman, does this sound like someone you would want taking care of your daughter? |
Quote:
Nope. She is incabable of feeding herself. Her heart and lungs are functioning just fine, without the assistance of machines. My grandfather is incabable of feeding himself - he has a digestive tract problem that requires my grandma feed him through a tube in his stomach. He also lost a hand in WWII, and needs help eating when Nanna's not around. Because he can't feed himself on his own means I should let him starve when Nanna's out? |
Quote:
I.e., that certain president and political party who once talked about "Welfare Queens" being needlessly supported by our tax dollars. |
Regardless, its life support. Her brain is dead to the point where she cannot even chew or swallow. Thats vastly more significant than having a problem with your digestive track (no disrespect of course).
|
Quote:
A lot of people get married to people their parent's don't get the warm and fuzzies about. But once a legal marriage takes place, any guardianship rights the parents have get transferred to the spouse. As for him, I might be wrong, but he might be trying to move on with his life. Everyone has their own way of coping with tragic situations. Here we have two diametrically opposed stances. All I can say is that in my own case, if I end up in a similar situation, I hope someone makes the call to end the suffering for me. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Same here. Once all hope for a reasonable quality of life has disappeared, please just let me die. |
Quote:
Like her husband, who says the woman wouldn't have wanted to live this way? |
Quote:
Ditto, I could not make my wife suffer with that decision. |
Quote:
Bullshit. 1. She's going to be in bed, unconscious, for the rest of your life. Your uncle isn't. 2. Her husband says she wouldn't have wanted to live this way. I'm going to assume your Uncle's closest guardian (or even your Uncle himself) has not said this. It's a completely different situation. |
Quote:
Bullshit, she's not unconscious. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.