posted on March 20, 2005 07:02:14 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate passed a bill that could prolong Terri Schiavo's life while House Republicans, stalled by Democrats, scrambled to bring enough lawmakers back to the Capitol for an emergency vote early Monday.
President Bush rushed back from his Texas ranch for a chance to sign the measure that Republicans view as an opportunity to strengthen their support among religious conservatives ahead of next year's congressional elections.
Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., said Sunday that Schiavo and members of her family have "become political pawns to larger political issues."
GOP leaders planned a House vote just past midnight, hours after the Senate approved the bill by voice vote.
The White House said the president would act as soon as the measure reaches him.
"We ought to err on the side of life in a case like this," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Asked about a bill that would cover a single person, he said, "I think most people recognize that this case involves some extraordinary circumstances."
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said the federal district court in Florida, which is open 24 hours a day, had already been informed that a petition would be filed as soon as the president signs the measure - with the presumption a judge will order that the tube be replaced.
"Time is not on Terri Schiavo's side," DeLay said. "The few remaining objecting House Democrats have so far cost Mrs.Schiavo two meals already today."
Even though the legislation would pave an avenue for federal jurisdiction in the legal case, there was no way to determine in advance how or when a judge would rule - or even which judge would be assigned the case by lottery.
Lawmakers who left Washington on Friday for the two-week Easter recess had to make abrupt changes in plans, backtracking for a dramatic and politically contentious vote.
Democrats expressed sympathy for the severely brain-damaged Florida woman and for the plight of her family. But they also accused Republicans of ramming through constitutionally questionable legislation to satisfy the agenda of their conservative allies.
In a special session Sunday afternoon, Democrats refused to allow the bill to be passed without a roll call vote.
Under House rules, such a vote could not occur until Monday, thus the plans for a vote at 12:01 a.m. Monday at which at least 218 of the 435-member House must appear. Also, because it was an expedited vote, the measure needed votes from two-thirds of those present for passage.
The House has 232 Republicans, 202 Democrats and one independent.
The legislation would give Schiavo's parents the right to file suit in federal court over the withdrawal of food and medical treatment needed to sustain the life of their daughter.
It says the court, after determining the merits of the suit, "shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights" of the woman. Injunctive relief in this case could mean the reinserting of feeding tubes.
"It gives Terri Schiavo another chance," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said after the late-afternoon voice vote in a near-empty Senate chamber. "It guarantees a process to help Terri, but does not guarantee a particular outcome."
Frist also noted that the bill, responding to some Democratic objections, does not affect state assisted suicide laws or serve as a precedent for future legislation.
A Senate bill passed by the House is returned to the Senate enrollment clerk's office where it is printed on parchment and, when speed is important, driven immediately to the White House by Senate personnel. There, the White House clerk takes custody of the legislation and prepares it for the president to sign into law. The procedure is routine when quick action is important, such as on overdue budget bills, and can be handled in minutes as opposed to hours.
The White House made arrangements for Bush to sign the measure at any hour, although without fanfare.
Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said members scattered across the globe were being summoned back to Washington by aides to House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
Blunt's office sent a notice to members on their handheld computers Friday to be prepared to return to Washington on Sunday, said spokeswoman Burson Taylor.
In emergencies, when that does not work, the whip's office activates a phone tree, where one member is charged with calling the next. "We do anticipate a quorum," she said.
Smith added, "It should come as no surprise to any members reading a newspaper or watching TV. Smith canceled an official trip to Albania to escort Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, to Capitol Hill press conferences Sunday.
The Democratic whip, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said his office was informing members of the vote and not discouraging them from returning to the capital. But he said the party was not counting votes and was telling members to vote their conscience on the issue.
Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. Her feeding tubes were removed Friday afternoon at the request of her husband, who says that his wife expressed to him before she fell ill that she did not want to be kept alive under such circumstances.
House and Senate committees at the end of the week issued subpoenas seeking to force the continuation of treatment, but that move was rejected by a Florida court.
Schiavo could linger for one or two weeks if the tube is not reinserted, as has happened twice before.
Republicans defined their extraordinary efforts in the context of the sanctity of life: "A society is judged by the way that it treats its most vulnerable citizens," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.
"No person in America should be deprived of the right to life without due process of law and Terri Schiavo is no different," Pence said.
But Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., spoke of "the manifestation of a constitutional crisis" where Congress, for ideological reasons, was ignoring the separations of power written into the Constitution.
Republicans distanced themselves from a memo suggesting GOP lawmakers could use the case to appeal to Christian conservative voters and to force Democrats into a difficult vote.
"I hope we're not ... making this human tragedy a political issue," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told ABC's "This Week.""We've got plenty of other issues that are political in nature for us to fight about."
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on March 20, 2005 09:35:42 PM
Do you think all democrats are not in favor of this bill? I find that hard to understand that if it is true. Give her parents the chance to take control of her life. It is probably to late for rehabilitation but she still has life. I know it would be hard to lose a loved one. I have just had that experience in September and I am still grieving. My brother was only 62. Even if her husband says he loves her I think it is more pity than love. There is a fine line between the two. He has another life why doesn't he just move on. Even if Teri had those wishes when this happened, is it fair to starve her to death.
posted on March 21, 2005 04:34:39 AM
Bear,Linda K,Libra, The lines below says it all nothing more nothing less.
"Democrats expressed sympathy for the severely brain-damaged Florida woman and for the plight of her family. But they also accused Republicans of ramming through constitutionally questionable legislation to satisfy the agenda of their conservative allies."
The public poll I saw and posted here taken by AOL showed the majority of the American people didn't want new laws about this case. That public poll backs up what the Democrats said above.
This White House promised less Federal Government in your personal lives.
posted on March 21, 2005 09:30:35 AM
Libra63,
Once again "Democrats expressed sympathy for the severely brain-damaged Florida woman and for the plight of her family. But they also accused Republicans of ramming through constitutionally questionable legislation to satisfy the agenda of their conservative allies." If you can't see that you are brain damaged yourself.
desquirrel, I hear what you are saying. About who is paying for all the Honorable Republicans like Tom Delay to travel to Washington? WE ALL ARE. I would love to know all the final cost to the majority of American tax payers that didn't want this intervention.
posted on March 21, 2005 10:03:22 AM
desquirrel - I have rarely disagreed with your opinions but I do on this issue.
You say:There is no Teri "to save[/i]".
That is your opinion, other believe there is. Many doctors have said the original diagnosis was incorrect....and we can argue the different doctors 'sides' all day.
To me this isn't only about this one family's situation...but rather at what point do we as a society decide WHICH disabled person deserves to be given a death sentence. This one's too far gone...so let's withdraw their food and water, rather than letting they die of natural causes.
[i]Why is it I suspect these parents are not footing the bill to preserve their little fantasy[i]??? Medicaid has been paying the bills. And the hospice facility she's in only 'charges' what the patients can pay. It's costing her husband nothing.
In addition to that...her parents HAVE said they're willing to pay and take care of her themselves. Because her bills from tests, therapy, etc would still be paid by medicaid.
There's no way anyone will convince me that this husband doesn't and hasn't had GOOD reason to want his injured wife to be starved to death. Few people would starve their dogs/cats to death...let alone a human being. How cruel.
---------------------
As far as our Congress and President stepping in....that's their job requirement....to protect the lives of all citizens and insure their 'rights' are being honored. And now they've done that.
A Fed. FL judge will give his decision on whether or not Terri's feeding tube should be reinserted until this case can be reviewed further. That should happen around 3:00PM EST today.
posted on March 21, 2005 04:57:25 PM new
She's been in a vegetative state for 15 YEARS for Pete's sake. You people act as though she suffered the heart attack a month ago. I'm sure the hospitals, caregivers and doctors have enjoyed a nice income off of her.
Well, to solve any problems my family may have if this happens to me, I got a Living Will. That should take care of the government's interference with my right to die.
posted on March 21, 2005 05:14:36 PM new
The whole thing is grotesque. Shame on the Republicans for making this private issue into a partisan one. Congressional elections coming up, gotta keep the bible thumpers happy. And shame on the dems for the same reason. Rolled over (or bent over) again. What a disappointment.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on March 21, 2005 05:25:42 PM new
You are right on the "money" as usual, prof. It now takes a bill to tell us whether or not we have the right to die. They've finally found a way to appease the religious right fanatics that supported this administration's win. I was wondering how they'd manage it. Using a sick and dying woman in a vegetative state who cannot voice her own opinions to do it. . .now that's a new low.
posted on March 21, 2005 09:31:02 PM new
Before I get on the Repulican Democrat thing it is important to note that about 65 to 70 percent of people polled think she should be allowed to die.
First the Republicans tell us that marriage is sacred, between a man and woman, forever. Then suddenly the mother and father of the woman mean more in the relationship than the husband. My take on it is he loves her and wants to see her wishes carried out.
There is also the angle of the Republican talking points and how well their stand will play with the Evangelical Christian base.
There is also Bush the hypocrite who signed a right to die law in Texas when he was governor. According to Knight Ridder Newspapers, "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....."The Texas law signed in 1999 allowed next of kin to decide what the patient wanted, if competent," said John Robertson, a University of Texas bioethicist.....While Congress and the White House were considering legislation recently in the Schiavo case, Bush's Texas law faced its first high-profile test. With the permission of a judge, a Houston hospital disconnected a critically ill infant from his breathing tube last week against his mother's wishes after doctors determined that continuing life support would be futile."
Lastly for now, if life is so important why are people allowed to die because they can't afford live saving drugs for HIV and other terminal diseases Why are old people making the choice between food and drugs and why are children going hungry in Amerika?
posted on March 21, 2005 09:52:48 PM new
This husband is not an unbiased source. He, imo, should not be the one deciding if she's starved to death or not.
It's only HIS word that this was her wish. AND he didn't make this supposed wish known....during the lawsuit filed on her behalf. No...then he promised all this money would be spent on her care...rehabilition. It wasn't.
I've read over and over that dems think it's just so inhumane that we don't provide water to the illegals that cross into our country, because they're sympathic to the fact they're dying of dehydration....but think it's okay to deny water and nutrition to this ill women who is a US citizen WITH RIGHTS to life. How wrong can you be?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 21, 2005 10:27:49 PM new
Linda - do you honestly believe that the only person that 18 different judges that have been involved in this case have listened to is her husband?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 21, 2005 10:58:49 PM new
fenix - Here's what I believe. You didn't think this was going to be short did you?
The judges were only making their decisions on Florida law...which says a husband CAN make the life/death decision.
It doesn't mean they each viewed all her records - they just were going on his 'say-so'....about her wishes.
Had this husband told the jury that he didn't plan on any rehabilition for is wife....I seriously doubt either would have received such a large settlement. He didn't tell them but after receiving the money he proceeded to not allow her even the basic care ...like for two infections she got. Let alone any therapy to see if she could be trained to swollow again. He ordered that she receive no treatment. He denied her parents visitation. He denied her ANY visual stimulation what-so-ever. This in my opinion is NOT the act of a loving husband. This is the act of someone who wants her to die.
Then...within a couple years of the jury award...he starts living with another woman...the one he's had two children by. I don't think a man who's really committed to his wife/marriage....who loves her....would start a new life WHILE continuing to fight for his wife's death.
Her own family has fought, all these years, for her to receive treatment. He has refused. Did you ever read some of her caregiver's statements on how they saw his treatment of her? His total lack of for her care?
So...I feel just as strongly that her family has a right to care for and love their daughter/sister. And let this husband go on his own way - which he should have done years ago.
But another thing is what I mentioned above. And that's all the disabled groups that have supported her being put back on water and nutrition. Spina bifita groups...etc....are questioning since so many of them are VERY disabled...will this same fate [death] happen to them because *others judge they're lives aren't the way they think life should be*.
There are thousands of people just like Terri....who are alive and functioning without the need for 'life support'. And there are also many otherwise healthy people who need a feed tube to receive water and nutrition. Do we want to kill them too?
Food and water isn't considered 'life support' legally, to anybody. It's a needed neccessity.
So, fenix, just who would be hurt by letting her family care for her for however long she has to live? No one has answered that yet. Everyone seems in such a hurry to starve her to death.
posted on March 21, 2005 11:22:21 PM new
Linda - No one would be "hurt" but the fact remains that her husband is her legal guardian and he has stated that this was not her deisre and I find it hard to believe that it would be anyones desire. You say that he denied her rehab efforts but that's not exactly the truth. He put an end to years of unsuccessful therapy.
Her cerebral cortex is blown. Other than to placate parents that are unable accept the reality of the situation what exactly is the point of keeping her alive?
Why in gods name do you that hundreds of thousands of dollars should be spent to care and rehab an unrehabable person but think that money invested in feeding underpriviledged children is unneccessary.
All I can think is that this is a parental thing because it has NOTHING to do with logic.
You consistantly argue on the side of less government involvement but now you advocate the federal government overriding EIGHTEEN judges to interfere in the case of a single vegatative individual. I don't get it.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 21, 2005 11:32:28 PM new
This is an article by a journalist whose op-ed's I often find myself agreeing with. Especially do in Terri's case.
Cruel and unusual'
Thomas Sowell (back to web version) | Send
March 22, 2005
If the tragic case of Terri Schiavo shows nothing else, it shows how easily "the right to die" can become the right to kill. It is hard to believe that anyone, regardless of their position on euthanasia, would have chosen the agony of starvation and dehydration as the way to end someone's life.
A New York Times headline on March 20th tried to assure us: "Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death" but you can find experts to say anything. In a December 2, 2002 story in the same New York Times, people starving in India were reported as dying, "often clutching pained stomachs."
No murderer would be allowed to be killed this way, which would almost certainly be declared "cruel and unusual punishment," in violation of the Constitution, by virtually any court.
Terri Schiavo's only crime is that she has become an inconvenience -- and is caught in the merciless machinery of the law. Those who think law is the answer to our problems need to face the reality that law is a crude and blunt instrument.
Make no mistake about it, Terri Schiavo is being killed. She is not being "allowed to die."
She is not like someone whose breathing, blood circulation, kidney function, or other vital work of the body is being performed by machines. What she is getting by machine is what all of us get otherwise every day -- food and water.
Depriving any of us of food and water would kill us just as surely, and just as agonizingly, as it is killing Terri Schiavo.
Would I want to be kept alive in Terri Schiavo's condition? No. Would I want to be killed so slowly and painfully? No. Would anyone? I doubt it.
Every member of Terri Schiavo's family wants her kept alive -- except the one person who has a vested interest in her death, her husband. Her death will allow him to marry the woman he has been living with, and having children by, for years.
Legally, he is Terri's guardian and that legal technicality is all that gives him the right to starve her to death.
Courts cannot remove guardians without serious reasons. But neither should they refuse to remove guardians with a clear conflict of interest.
There are no good solutions to this wrenching situation. It is the tragedy of the human condition in its most stark form.
The extraordinary session of Congress, calling members back from around the country, with the President flying back from his home in Texas in order to be ready to sign legislation dealing with Terri Schiavo, [b]are things that do us credit as a nation[b].
Even if critics who claim that this is being done for political or ideological reasons are partially or even wholly correct, they still miss the point. It is the public's sense of concern -- in some cases, outrage -- that is reflected by their elected representatives.
What can Congress do -- and what effect will it have? We do not know and Congress does not know. Those who are pushing for legislation to save Terri Schiavo are obviously trying to avoid setting a precedent or upsetting the Constitutional balance.
It is an old truism that hard cases make bad law. No one wants all such cases to end up in either Congress or the federal courts. But neither do decent people want an innocent woman killed because she was inconvenient and a court refused to recognize the conflict of interests in her legal guardian.
The fervor of those who want to save Terri Schiavo's life is understandable and should be respected, even by those who disagree. What is harder to understand is the fervor and even venom of those liberals who have gone ballistic -- ostensibly over state's rights, over the Constitutional separation of powers, and even over the sanctity of family decisions.
These are not things that liberals have any track record of caring about. Is what really bothers them the idea of the sanctity of life and what that implies for their abortion issue? Or do they hate any challenge to the supremacy of judges -- on which the whole liberal agenda depends -- a supremacy that the Constitution never gave the judiciary?
If nothing else comes out of all this, there needs to be a national discussion of some humane way to end life in those cases when it has to be ended -- and this may not be one of those cases.
posted on March 21, 2005 11:42:24 PM new
fenix - I don't know who to say it any differently than her husband should not be the one making this decision.
Let's just agree on the issue of brain damage. Okay...so what...if her husband has been telling the truth. I don't personally believe he has...but for the argument...lets say he is telling the truth.
Is she going to know her 'wishes' aren't being honored. Do you think that if her brain is 'blown' and her family wants to care for her she'd object? I don't. I've seen the way she responds with a smile to them when they come into her room. Doctors, on her families side, have stated over and over that she is NOT in a vegetative state and that a diagnosis of DPV...can easily be misdiagnosed. Especially since almost all these tests were done years and years ago.
Her husband hasn't allowed any new tests to be done on her. Medical advances have improved greatly since she first became disabled.
When there is no living will....signed by the patient themself....and when there is HUGE doubt/disagreement to the husbands motives...I say 'choose life'.
I think her case, if nothing else, brings up the WAY she's being killed. Just like my above article points out....in this day and age there are much less painful ways ...like giving someone a shot...than letting them starve to death for two weeks or more.
posted on March 22, 2005 03:52:16 AM new
An ABC News poll released Monday found that a strong majority of Americans don't agree that the federal government should have stepped into this case.
According to the poll, 63 percent of respondents said they support the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, 60 percent said they oppose legislative action on the case and 70 percent said it was inappropriate for Congress to get involved.
The survey also indicated that respondents' views on the issue were based on their feelings about their own care if they were in the same situation. Of those surveyed, 78 percent said they would not want to be left on artificial life-supporting measures."
The decision came down an hour ago. The federal judge refused to allow the feeding tube to be re-inserted. A clear message that the government has no right to get involved in this issue.
posted on March 22, 2005 03:53:22 AM new
TAMPA, Fla. — A federal judge early Tuesday morning refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, leaving the fate of the severely brain-damaged Florida woman unresolved.
posted on March 22, 2005 04:02:44 AM newWhy in gods name do you that hundreds of thousands of dollars should be spent to care and rehab an unrehabable person ......
......All I can think is that this is a parental thing because it has NOTHING to do with logic.
My God, fenix, how depraved are you? It sounds like to you it all comes down to "money" and that's spells "logic".
Love isnt always about money or logic. This "husband" has long ago abandoned any "guardianship" of this woman in the spirit of the law in which it was granted to him.
wtf? with the amount of #*!@ our tax dollars are spent on wastefully, entitling parents to their daughter's life is just not logical?
pfffst. What a crock of sh*.
But the courts have now made the ruling because of this ashol* guardian the husband, who hasnt been a husband for 15 years!
edit to change "only" daughter, as that is factually incorrect.
posted on March 22, 2005 04:05:04 AM new
Cheryl, I just heard they think an infection has set in as well.
I am really sick about this.
Doctors are not GOD!! What do any of them really know about who gives life and who takes life? -Will these so-called experts (doctors) now go against their oath and not treat the infection too? oh yippee! that should kill her off real fast and we can all cheer for vulcan logic!
I sure hope none of you ever have to petition the courts where your children are concerned.
