Basically, the US house of representatives has passed a bill designed to keep Terri Schiavo on the feeding tube. The bill requires that cases such as hers, where someone in a vegetative state didn’t leave instructions concerning life support, be decided in a federal court.
On one hand, I can understand her parents desire to not let go, but frankly this is getting fucking pathological. They’ve had their day in court. They’ve had a SHITLOAD of days in court. They’ve had Jeb and the Florida legislature cram through special legislation to “save” her, and they’ve had an additional shitload of days in court has that legislation was ruled unconstitutional. And now a completely different government has decided to get involved!
Do we really need the federal government getting involved in intensely personal family feuds like this? How many of the congressmen who support this have, at one time or another, talked about how important “states rights” are? Or advocated a stricter interpretation of the constitution (AFAIK, no one in Georgia has imposed a trade tarrif on Terri Schiavo related products)? Hell, how many of the legislators supporting this have talked about the “sanctity of marriage”? How sancrosanct can they think marriage is if they want a federal judge to make decisions like this instead of her husband?
Fuckers, all of 'em. Stop beating the damn horse–it ain’t waking up!
I cannot imagine what her husband must be going through. He cannot grieve the death of his wife, but must suffer in limbo. She is not dead but not alive either. The question is who gets to decide these issues. I feel morally his wife is no longer a child and his is the closest legal relationship and the decision should be his not her parents.
I can’t. I have children, and if one of them was in a vegetative state for 14+ years, I can’t fathom what principles would prevent me from removing the tubes. Honestly, I can’t. I don’t imagine it can still be denial after so long a period. I’d think if you’ve got an unwavering view of what constitutes life and its sanctity, a decade (and change) of such a situation might be enough to cause you to re-think your position. But what do I know? It does indeed seem pathological.
I’m a little confused by all this. Will this delay anything? Will the Federal Court just turn down the case yet again? This is all so far beyond the pale…
I agree that this is not properly an issue for federal legislation.
But then, I don’t think abortion is, either. I don’t quite see how anyone can believe abortion IS a federal issue, but this isn’t. I believe that abortion is not a federal issue, and this is not a federal issue.
So - if you decry federal involvement in this area, but you support abortion as a federal question, perhaps you could clarify for me what distinctions you draw. I’m quite curious.
My understanding is that, if this bill gets signed into law, the federal courts could not turn down the case, because the bill basically says that they must take the case. However, IANAL, and I have no clue how it would likely play out. Hopefully Bricker, minty green, or some other lawyer doper can fill us in.
It’s an ugly situation that has prompted TheLadylion and myself to make living wills. I’m on her husband’s side in this but I feel for her parents who probably do believe there is hope.
Well, conceivably, if abortion was a state or local issue, you could end up with people who wanted abortions (let’s say for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, to keep it as non-political as possible) that wouldn’t be able to afford to travel across the country in order to get them, or who’d be unable to do so because of personal/work demands, etc. I can’t see the same issue coming up for someone in a vegetative state - “I’ll just fly her out to California so they can take out the tubes!” Can you?
Then again, this isn’t about abortion, unless you consider all tangentials of “right to life” exactly the same.
I’d guess it’s that there’s as many words in the constitution about the right to an abortion as there are about the right to prevent your son-in-law from making medical decisions about his wife…
I believe he is referring to the notion that both of these issues should more properly be decided by the states in which they occur. Federal intrusion into states’ rights is an issue that I agree with the right on, although while many politicians blather on about it, few actually will go to the mat to defend against it.
The right to die and the right of choice are issues that can and should be decided by state legislatures and courts, not by Washington, DC.
Exactly right. The federal constitution defines the extent of Congress’ powers. It was an activist judge that stretched those powers to include abortion, and, if it makes it that far, it will be an activist judge that decides the federal government has a role in Ms. Schiavo’s proxied choice to live or die.
Personally, on the merits of the case, I do not believe her husband is accurately presenting her wishes, and I believe her parents are more credible than she is. But that has nothing to do with this thread: if I had to decide, as a federal judge, what should happen with this federal legislation, I’d scuttle it as overreaching Congress’ powers.
Metacom’s position is the opposite of mine, but internally consistent: pro-choice while I am pro-life, he nonetheless acknowledges that abortion is not a federal issue, and he acknowledges that the Schiavo matter is not a federal issue. He and I may disagree on how the case should be handled, but we agree that the federal government is not the right place to handle it.
It’s like the politicians of the US are passing this woman’s body around until they can all make their own little career over it. Political necromancy. Ghoulish, and it makes me sick to my stomach.
This case has made me really think that a living will (or equivalent) should be a requisite for getting a marriage license. Since a marriage marks where responsibility for your post-death arrangements are transferred from your parents (or other relative) to your spouse, there should be a clear statement of what your wishes are to prevent this kind of thing from happening.
Not that I think more regulation is a good thing (it almost never is), but since people tend not to think of things like this, it may be best to require it.
I second, or third, or whatever, in codemning the despicable political grandstanding goin on around this case as well.
Are you talking about Roe or some other abortion decision? Because while it’s been a while since I’ve read Roe, my recollection is that it dealt with the power of the states to make abortion illegal, not the federal government. Which decisions imparted to Congress the power to regulate abortion (as opposed to, say, denying Medicade funding for abortion)?