Time to move on
Now that a judge has refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube the entire US population should breath a collective sigh of relief. The US Government's pressure on the Federal court system to challenge fundamentally state issues could have had dire consequences. Had James Whittemore ruled in favor of the Schindlers it would have set a precedent despite claims by representatives to the contrary. I think the outcome of an appeal is a foregone conclusion. I would be shocked if the appeals court ordered her fed at this point. But who knows...
I don't really think the Republicans will stop now that Whittemore has ruled for Michael Schiavo. From the PATRIOT Act to No Child Left Behind they have persistently legislated without really caring about the negative ramifications for the citizenry.
On a related note it's interesting that law makers were silent on the case of a black baby in Texas that was recently removed from life support at the request of the hospital. Apparently Bush signed the bill into law that allowed the hospital to pull the plug.
Why are people that are protesting outside Schiavo's hospice being portrayed by the media as supporters of Terri Schiavo? Sure they support her parent's contention but obviously they don't support her wish to die and therefore they don't support her.
I don't really think the Republicans will stop now that Whittemore has ruled for Michael Schiavo. From the PATRIOT Act to No Child Left Behind they have persistently legislated without really caring about the negative ramifications for the citizenry.
On a related note it's interesting that law makers were silent on the case of a black baby in Texas that was recently removed from life support at the request of the hospital. Apparently Bush signed the bill into law that allowed the hospital to pull the plug.
Why are people that are protesting outside Schiavo's hospice being portrayed by the media as supporters of Terri Schiavo? Sure they support her parent's contention but obviously they don't support her wish to die and therefore they don't support her.
posted by mochi at 6:45 AM
10 Comments:
How about if a state outlawed abortion? If the Federal Gov't stepped in on that issue, would it be interference?
(asked seriously)
-Jack
My interpretations could be completely off, I'd be interested in your response.
In the Row versus Wade decision the Supreme Court ruled that women prior to the point of viability had the right to choose. If a State Law was created that challenged this ruling then I would think there would be a Constitional law basis to challenge it in the Supreme Court.
In the Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health decision the Supreme Court ruled (8-1) that the right-to-die is a freedom protected by the Due Process Clause. In this case the only basis for a challenge would appear to be if a state legislated to deny a citezens the right-to-die. This of course excludes assisted suicide laws. The Supreme Court has made their opinion clear on that twice.
In regard to the federal government involving themselves in issues of constitional law. The government should never propse bills that contradict Supreme court precedent. They are always doomed to failure. But then again, they probably knew that...
Nope, seriously, Mochi, was wanting your perspective. You make a good point, and valid.
A follow up--do you think that abortion should be a state's rights issue?
I see where you are headed. As long as state law doesn't contradict a supreme court ruling then yes it can be a state issue. In fact when you look at state laws regarding abortion there are some glaring differences, the only simalarity is that they are within the bounds of R v W.
What is this argument, "if States outlawed abortion?" The fact that Jack would even compare a moral debate over keeping Terry in her current state to a constitutional right is completely non-germaine. Right now, the country is mired in MORAL DEBATE over an issue with what can certainly be described as having "moral ambiguity" - do we keep Terry alive, but confined to a situation where she may never "live" her life, or do we let her continue on to eternal rest? For Jack to offer the scenario of the federal govt stepping in on a state outlawing abortion as "interference," and using that as an argument for what Congress is doing right now is a feeble smokescreen. There is no written law right now stating that either side in Terry's case is right or wrong. While there is moral debate over abortion, there is no LEGAL debate; its legality is written in our constitution.
I think we all know Jack is smart enough that he should not have to use fallacy in his argument. Given that he is now throwing out misleading scenarios to attempt to prove his point, he is essentially stating he has no logical argument regarding this matter anymore. The fact you would throw up a red herring and say it is a serious question reveals your stubborness and inability to concede that yes, maybe Terry is better off with eternal rest.
Mochi,
On the right to die situation I am in total agreement that anyone should be able to choose death as an alternative to life support. I worry a little about this case as Terri's decision is unknown. As a former judge, what I know about her husband, would render his testimony suspect, and I would not be able to assign it much weight. Without corroborating evidence (such as a living will or material witness from another family member) I would be hard pressed to determine what Terri's decision might be in her circumstance. In addition, unlike many people, I am unwilling to confer upon Terri or anyone else what I think they would want--some may want to hold on indefinitely with the hope of recovery, while some may want to end it.
I do believe the judge who made the last decision made the only decision available to him given jurisdictional precedence, and I think too that the congressional vote was largely symbolic (they knew the outcome before they did it--Republicans and Democrats alike) given the national attention the case has received.
Another thing I'm a little leery of is precedent. I believe that elected officials should be beholden to the will of the people, and that laws (constitutional amendments, bills, etc.) should be a reflection of the will of the people. Many judgeships are lifetime appointments with little accountability to the will of the people. Precedent is usually outside of the democratic process and needs close scrutiny.
Chickenhawk,
I'm not sure in the Constitution where it says that abortion is a right? In relation to this discussion, though, the question was more in asking what Mochi's thought concerning state's rights, where they begin and end, etc. more so than to compare abortion to euthanasia. I wasn't intending it as a feeble smokescreen, as I endeavor to look for similarities, correlations and inconsistencies. I had a genuine question as to whether he thought that abortion should be a states rights issue rather than a federal one.
But in regards to Terri, think of it this way, Chickenhawk, I may be better off in eternal rest too, but I think that it should be left up to me to decide. We don't know Terri's feelings on the matter, nor should we play God trying to divine them or assume that what we want is what someone else would want. When it comes to living or dying, I'm very pro-choice.
It's not only the husband that contends those were her wishes. From memory there were 3 witnesses. I could be wrong. Let me check.
You are right it isnt written in the original consitution, but there sure as hell was that amendment. Either way, there is the issue that she cannot decide. Therefore, her husband, as legal guardian, should have the right to decide for her. While we should always make an attempt to preserve life at all costs, how can you argue that for 15 years Terry’s family has not been doing that? Of course, people have been in Terry’s state before (or something like it) and have emerged from it. However, there comes a point when you have to be practical and realize that it might not be in anyone’s best interest to be their own body’s prisoner, and that no one is morally corrupt for asking that an “artificial” feeding device be removed. Terry has not really lived for 15 years and at this point there is a question of whether this is about preserving life as much as it is about creating a medical, and now political, experiment.
If that's the case, Mochi, then it should be pretty solid. This should have been taken care of then years ago.
CH, realize its not a cut and dried issue. See your points.
(Oh, I was asking about where is the right to an abortion in the Constitution...)
Post a Comment
<< Home