WaxWorks
|
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Favoring a "Culture of Life" or Catering to Your Radical Evangelical Base?
What happened after the GOP Congress passes an unprecedented bill on March 21, 2005 usurping state powers and raising serious federalism and separation of powers concerns?
Why, President George W. Bush cuts his vacation short at his Crawford, Texas ranch and rushes back to Washington DC to sign the bill into law in the early morning hours.
Compare that response with what happened on August 6, 2001, after President Bush received his morning PDB during a month-long vacation in Crawford with the heading, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike inside U.S."
Bush played golf and went back to the his important brush clearing work on the ranch.
Interesting what motivates this guy, huh?
Monday, March 21, 2005
I Can't Let This One Sit
Atrios has it right -- headlining this quote by Tom DeLay with the phrase "It's not the sex; it's the lying":
Like other Republican lawmakers championing Schiavo's bill, DeLay often
suggests she is alert and potentially treatable.
"She talks and she laughs and she expresses likes and discomforts," he
said Sunday evening. "It won't take a miracle to help Terri Schiavo. It will
only take the medical care and therapy that patients require."
I can't comment any better than Sam Rosenfeld from TAPPED:
For those keeping score at home, that statement is a straight-up, non-fungible,
unambiguous, and utterly unconscionable lie. And if you were watching cable news
yesterday (as I was), it’s probably safe to say you never heard anyone call
DeLay out on it, or any number of similarly, knowingly fallacious statements
spewing forth from the mouths of our national political leaders.
A Few Thoughts
The spectacle that the Terri Schiavo case has become is very unfortunate. I feel very sorry for this family and I believe it involves some very difficult, personal issues that each person needs to evaluate for his or her own self.
But the manner in which the Republicans have politicized this issue in order to cater to their right-wing base is really despicable. Let there be no doubt that this issue is designed to play to the Christian right and to gain political points:
Republican leaders believe their attention to the Terri Schiavo issue could
pay dividends with Christian conservatives whose support they covet in the 2006
midterm elections, according to a GOP memo intended to be seen only by senators.
The one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators by party leaders,
called the debate over Schiavo legislation "a great political issue" that would
appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters. The memo singled out Sen. Bill
Nelson, D-Fla., who is up for re-election next year.
"This is an important moral issue, and the pro-life base will be excited
that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, reported by
ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. "This is a great political
issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a
co-sponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."
Moreover, the steps taken by Bill Frist to cozy up to the religious right is really quite unbelievable -- his pronoucement, after watching a video of Schiavo, that he disagreed with the diagnosis of her ON-SITE Florida doctors was nothing short of stunning. (I wonder if Frist ever made a diagnosis of a heart patient based on a video?)
Frist never fails to find some opportunity to use his MD past for political gain -- I'm reminded of the SNL caricature of Star Jones from the View, as she never fails to preface every statement with "As you know, I am a lawyer," as a way to enhance her stature. But more and more, Frist is reminding me of Bob Dole circa 1996. As far as I'm concerned, Bob Dole lost the Presidency the day he pandered to a room full of Republican activists, "If you want another Ronald Reagan, that's who I'll be." Please nominate this man in 2008, Republicans. (America hasn't even heard much about the whole cat-killing thing yet. That will go over well.)
The whole concept of passing a bill to provide jurisdiction in federal court to a single case that has been fully litigated in state court may finally be the last nail in Republican attempts to argue state's rights and federalism with a straight face. Although perhaps Bush v. Gore was the beginning of the end -- there is another similarity too. Just as the legislation here expressly covers only the Schiavo case, Bush v. Gore, remember, was limited only to the present case by the Supreme Court. Here's the text of the bill:
For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo. . . .
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or
claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any
right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United
States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical
treatment necessary to sustain her life.
Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit
under this Act. . . . The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit
without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and
regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been
exhausted.
After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the
District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be
necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution
and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food,
fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
This type of results-oriented federalism should finally, once and for all, put the shame to the whole "state's rights" argument used during the civil rights and segregation era. It was a lie then, a political instrument, without any foundational principle, just as Bush v. Gore and the Schiavo case have proven.
Finally, I'll end where I so often begin: the hypocrisy of George W. Bush. As has been widely reported, Bush flew back from his vacation to sign the Schiavo bill because, as he put it:
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... I will continue to stand
on the side of those defending life for all Americans, including those with
disabilities.
But look at the Texas law (referred to as the "Texas Futile Care Law") that Bush signed in 1999 (before he was reelected on the backs of the relgious right) for patients whose families cannot continue to pay for medical care, but wish to continue to provide life support to their family members and that was used to pull the plug on a six month old recently:
Texas law allows hospitals can discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient
family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a
hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written
notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.
So life is precious except when it is not? And I'd be remiss if I didn't also note that there is a difference between Schiavo and the six month old who died in Texas under Bush's law -- the $1 million, including punitive damages, that Schiavo's family received in two medical malpractice lawsuits. If they had their way, Frist and Bush, of course, would eliminate the ability of families like the Schiavos to receive punitive damages and would cap pain and suffering damages at a quarter of what the Schiavos received. Sometimes it's not the high profile legislation that matters, but the accumulation of these small acts. The Republicans are all hat and no cattle.
