Terri Schiavo

Over at HinesSight, Brian Hines is asking where the Democrats were on the Terri Schiavo bill.

Apparently fearing the wrath of the Christian Right minority, most Democratic legislators caved in and voted for this atrocious federal intrusion into a family disagreement. Including every Democratic Senator.

He's got some strong words for members of the Oregon delegation. Check it out.

Comments

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I was very proud of Blumenauer and Wu for being so outspoken.

  • (Show?)

    Not to defend the Senate action, but my recollection is that the Dems over there made a decision to back a Shiavo-specific bill in order to avoid taking up a more general bill on the "right to life" issue.

    I'm not at all convinced that was the right choice. But nonetheless it was a little more complicated than an outright cave.

  • (Show?)

    I think the answer is Democrats were and still are in/on a place called "Planet Earth" otherwise known as "reality" or "here in the real world". Its good to know that 70% of Americans are there with them.

  • (Show?)

    I think the answer is Democrats were and still are in/on a place called "Planet Earth" otherwise known as "reality" or "here in the real world". Its good to know that 70% of Americans are there with them.

    I don't follow this. Many Democrats supported getting involved. But most Americans did not.

    So how exactly are Americans standing with them?

  • (Show?)

    Name one Democrat who passionately supported this. I heard impassioned speaches against this from Congressmen Barney Frank and John Lewis to name a couple. A vote for something certainly doesn't equal "support" in today's politics. And haven't you heard something that goes like this..."when someone is sinking their own ship, don't stand in the way."

  • (Show?)

    I'm all for letting the religious conservatives get way out there in right field, and allowing them to take up as much rope as they want so they can eventually hang themselves.

    No need for Democrats to try to save the Republicans from themselves. Now's not the time for Democrats to argue the specifics of the Schiavo case. They're in the minority in Congress and have to pick their battles carefully. Better to wait until the fall of 2006 to argue whether people have the right to make end of life choices for themselves or not, without Congress getting involved.

    What would have happened if Democrats had put up big obstacles, protested and delayed the vote? Republicans still would have passed the bill, the bill might have been worse, and conservatives would have been able to blame Democrats if Schiavo had died in the meantime. The same result would have happened but religious conservatives would have had fresh new reasons to rally the troops against Democrats.

  • (Show?)

    The Times hit it on the head for me today:

    President Bush signed legislation yesterday giving Ms. Schiavo's parents a personal right to sue in federal court. The new law tramples on the principle that this is "a nation of laws, not of men," and it guts the power of the states. When the commotion over this one tragic woman is over, Congress and the president will have done real damage to the founders' careful plan for American democracy.
  • (Show?)

    I can't remember who -- it might have been the minority whip, because the minority leader wasn't present -- but someone said exactly that, about laws and men, at the close of the House debate on the bill. Although I think what he said was that if the bill passed, we'd be a nation of "men and politicians" instead of a nation of laws.

  • sidney (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This case underlines why it is so important to have an advanced directive. No decision here is a good one as each sets a dangerous precedent:

    • Does continuing artifical hydration and nutrition undermine death with dignity?

    and, at the same time

    • Does allowing a guardian to choose to remove this from a person with severe disabilities put all individuals with disabilities at risk? Should guardians of individuals with developmental disabilities have the right to make this choice without the consent of people with disabilities?

    It is a shame this families pain has turned into a media circus.

    People's rights to make choices about their own health care must be preserved.

    At the same time, it is crucial that we not allow anyone to be in the position of determining that anyone-- including those with severe disaiblities-- has a life not worth living. Each of us can only make that choice for ourselves. If a person cannot render that choice, it should not be made for them.

    In Schiavo's case, if there were a signed directive there would be no debate here. I certainly plan to make sure my family knows where mine is so they know my wishes should the need arise!

  • Jon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Doesnt the Constitution say it is the place of the Government to protect all citizens? Isnt that just what they did? Jeb Bush said that all avenues have been used for the state to follow. Isnt the next step federal involvement?

    On another note, I think there should be an investigation as to the dumbass husband's motives. He won money to take care of her, then refused to do just that. He even ordered them NOT to tend to infections, etc.

  • John (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You ask:

    Doesn't the Constitution say it is the place of the Government to protect all citizens?

    Where does it say that? I can't find it.

    The Constitution does delegate authority to the states (tenth amendment), and so for the state to have exhausted all avenues can mean that's the end of the issue, not that the federal government should step in.

  • Jon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry, I meant the Declaration of Independence-

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

    That government went to secure her right to life.

    The Constitution does delegate authority to the states (tenth amendment), and so for the state to have exhausted all avenues can mean that's the end of the issue, not that the federal government should step in.

    So the appeals process should end with the state courts then? For all cases?

  • terrence (unverified)
    (Show?)

    i think terri should live because she is a human just like everyone else and she deserve to live. i don't think you should take consideration appoun her husband or people that don't want her to live she hasn't eat for 7 days that is straight up murder.her husband is only looking for his own best interset.

  • juliette valle (unverified)
    (Show?)

    terri is a mother,a sister,a aunt and also an daughter.please don't let her die. let her countinue to smile with her love ones give her a second chance because God is very compasionateand also put her in your shoe's and think about how you want to be treated if you was her or one of your close reletaives. " let God be in charge"

    <hr/>
elsewhere

connect with blueoregon