More on Schiavo

I’m fired up on this topic. I’m pissed off that my side of the aisle is behaving the way it is. I need to show the false thinking for what it is and hopefully someone will hear my point and not discount me as some lefty junkie.

In response to the pro-life argument that I repeatedly hear from Hannity, Limbaugh, Randall Terry and all of the other mouths of the right, the 14th amendment does not simply say “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property”. It says, and I quote, “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law“. Without that key clause, they might have a point. But the Schiavo case has been litigated, and litigated, and litigated through 15+ judges, multiple courts on federal and state level and through the legislatures and executive branches of the federal and state governments. DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN FOLLOWED! PERIOD!

From the 11th Circuit Court’s Decision in Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo v. Michael Schiavo (emphasis mine):

There is no denying the absolute tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo. As the Florida Second District Court of Appeals has observed, we all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children. However, we are called upon
to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law. In re Guardianship of Schiavo, ___ So. 2d ___, 2005 WL 600377, at *4 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 16, 2005). In the end, and no matter how much we wish Mrs. Schiavo had never suffered such a horrible accident, we are a nation of laws, and if we are to continue to be so, the pre-existing and well-established federal law governing injunctions (Context Comment Mine: Injunctions must come the District Court if the District Court has adequate jurisdiction. See Comments Made priort to this section of the ruling.) as well as Pub. L. No. 109-3(Context Comment: The Congressional law passed providing federal jurisdiction in the Schiavo case.) must be applied to her case. While the position of our dissenting colleague has emotional appeal, we as judges must decide this case on the law.

In response to the argument that Jeb Bush needs to go into the hospice Elian Gonzales style and take control of Schiavo and her care - what do you want him to be thrown in jail and later impeached? I’m sure you want another Bush in the Oval Office. Asking him to do such a thing would surely cause the end of his political career.

About Randall Terry. Well, he really is seeming like a political opportunist. I’m curious whose head he was referring to rolling on FoxNews the other night? And apparently the Supreme Court has affirmed a death sentence for Schiavo. That’s bull. That wasn’t even an issue any of the Federal courts looked at. They looked a DUE PROCESS, Randall! Quit Spinning.

There’s so many whacked out things happening in this case.

God bless the Schindlers, though. I sympathize deeply with them. I couldn’t even imagine going through what they are going through right now. They have decided to call legal action off. If the Christian right wants to be useful, the Schindler’s need comfort right now - not militancy. Michael Schiavo needs to re-examine his motives in this whole deal and deal with himself on what he has done. It was his decision to make and rightly so. Now he has to live with it.

Update: Good Perspective from OTB.

More Updates: Townhall columnist Jeff Jacoby brings some realistic perspective as well (Hat tip: Dave R)

My wife and I have been working on healthcare proxies that specify how we wish to be cared for should the worst ever come to pass. The scenarios we have been asked to consider are wrenching. For example: If you were in a coma or vegetative state and you had no hope of regaining awareness, would you wish to receive nutrients and fluids artificially? How about electric shock to keep your heart beating? A breathing tube? Kidney dialysis? Major surgery? Pain medications? Should you be given blood? Antibiotics? Invasive diagnostic tests?

What if there were a small chance you would recover fully? What if, instead of being in a coma, you had irreversible brain damage? What if you also had a terminal illness such as incurable cancer? Which medical procedures would you definitely want? Which would you not want? Which would you want only as long as there were improvement in your condition?

Even as hypotheticals, these are tough to wrestle with. Do you want your loved ones to keep you alive once your personality and intellect are gone? Would you ever want them to withhold medical care even if you weren’t in pain and your condition weren’t terminal? Is the sanctity of life your highest priority? Should financial cost be an issue? Some answers are clear. Others are anything but.

A decision has to be made about Terri Schiavo, and my head and heart are with those who would ”err on the side of life.” But don’t count me among the dogmatists. This is one case that calls for less certainty, and more prayer.

Tagged as: law, politics, social_issues