The House has acted and President Bush has signed the bill so the ball in the complex legal, political and ethical cases involving Florida’s Terri Schiavo and who has the right to decide on whether her feeding tube is removed has now been tossed back into court.
Right down the line this case is unprecedented, in nearly every way: the intensely bitter family fight, Congress’ involvement amid pressure from Christian Evangelicals, the President speeding back from Crawford, Texas to sign the bill. So expect that in the end — no matter how lower or middle level courts rule in this — it’ll go straight to the Supreme Court, which refused to get involved late last week but may do so after decisions are made at other levels and either side runs out of options.
Despite protests from some Democrats who accused Republicans of inappropriately injecting Congress into medical decisions related to the severely brain damaged Florida woman, the House voted 203 to 58 for the bill at the end of four tumultuous days and an emotional debate that began Sunday night at 9 and ended shortly after midnight.Voting yes were 156 Republicans and 47 Democrats, while 53 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted no.
Later, a lawyer for Ms. Schiavo’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, arrived at Federal District Court in Tampa, Fla., and filed a request for an emergency injunction to keep their daughter fed.
Asked if he had any indication when the judge would rule on the request, the lawyer, David Gibbs, said: “I have no way to know, just that it’s in the hands of the court.”
Note that the Democrats are split. If this is a political issue it’ll be suggested that Democrats all want the tube removed and no Republicans voted no…which is not true. If this is a serious ethical issue, there will be acknowledgement that many in Congress felt the issues required Congressional and Presidential intervention so the grey areas can be hammered out.
The Senate, with no objections, approved the measure to intervene in the case Sunday afternoon by a voice vote with just a few senators on hand. Its backers hope that it will result in a federal court order as quickly as Monday to restore a feeding tube that was removed Friday afternoon at the direction of a state judge.
President Bush said in a statement just after 1 a.m.: “In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. This presumption is especially critical for those like Terri Schiavo, who live at the mercy of others.”
The Democrats who voted against the measure did so, interestingly enough, using a reasoning that sounded like they were classic conservative Republicans — while the Republicans on this issue sounded like they were espousing a view on federal/state relationships that traditionally came from Democrats. To wit:
While the Senate acted without any objection, the bill ran into resistance from some House Democrats, who said the Republican-led Congress had overstepped its authority by inserting itself into what was a family matter best left to state authorities.“These actions today are a clear threat to our democracy,” said Representative Jim Davis of Florida, one of three Democrats from Ms. Schiavo’s home state who joined others in temporarily stalling the bill…..
As the House opened debate just after 9 p.m., Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Ms. Schiavo needed to be protected from a “merciless directive” from a state judge.
“The Florida courts have brought Terri and the nation to an ugly crossroads by commanding medical professionals sworn to protect life to end Terri’s life,” Mr. Sensenbrenner said.
But Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat and an opponent of the bill, told colleagues that Congress was substituting its judgment for that of the Florida judges and doctors who have been intimately involved in the case.
“This is heart-wrenching for all Americans,” Mr. Wexler said. “But the issue before this Congress is not an emotional one. It is simply one that respects the rule of law.”
OUTLOOK: Now that it’s back in the courts, this issue will continue full force over the ethical issues and, in the long term, over how each party in practice perceives federal/state powers and government’s role.
It simply could be that in 21st Century America both parties are redefining their traditional philosophies and that the conventional wisdoms simply no longer fit. Man has adapted throughout the centuries, so it stands to reason parties can, too.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.