Congress Debates the Schiavo Bill
I'm watching the House of Representatives debate the Terri Schiavo case right now. It's not one of the rhetorical high point of the history of the Republic.
I will say, in general, that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has a strong argument that the act under debate is, in fact, private legislation. It is worth asking why, if this measure is a worthwhile one, it can't be expressed as a general principle as opposed to a grant of jurisdiction for one individual. Given the facts on the ground, there's probably no other way to save Terri's life, but I hope that the debate continues even after the act passes. Personally, I'd like to see the law changed such that the removal of feeding tubes ceases to be legal option. I mean, we don't let healthy people starve themselves. (I understand that's not an especially broadly held view.)
Highlights of the debate, thus far:
Lots of bashing of the courts of the state of Florida. Not that they don't deserve it.
The Democrats have been the much more colorful and memorable debaters, thus far. The GOP's sent dozens of people up, who all said basically the same thing.
"Courts have found these facts. Who are we to say that they're wrong?"
Much of the debate revolves around the degree of deference we should give to judge-found facts. Is it enough that the trial court found that Terri said she wouldn't want live hooked up to machines, or that she's in a persistent vegetative state? Does that make it so?
The Most Insensitive Wording award goes to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), commenting on her parents' belief that Terri might recover: "We should not feed those illusions."
Rep. Jim "Crazy" McDermott (D-WA) thinks this bill is some attempt to direct attention from something else. What it is, he won't say.
There's something deeply odd about watching Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) give impassioned defenses of federalism, states' rights, and the finality of state court decisions. Not that they're not sincere; it's just, well, odd.
Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) gave the most even-handed (rhetorically, at least) speech. He made what I think is the core of the substantive case for killing Terri Schiavo. He said, "It is our cortex that makes us who we are," and that, while those who want to withdraw nutrition would indeed condemn her to death, those who want to keep feeding her would condemn her to a life she might very well not have wanted. (He also said, repeatedly, "We are all pro-life," which is the best evidence I've yet seen that, rhetorically at least, our side is winning, generally.)
Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) is the only example of bipartisanship thus far, speaking in opposition to the bill. (Though pro-bill forces say, and I've no reason to doubt, that there are about 30 Democrats supporting them.) He asks, "Why only Terri?"
Rep. Marilyn Musgrove (R-CO) almost broke into tears at the podium.
A couple people brought up the issue of the Texas statute, which President Bush signed as governor, that allows hospitals to remove care over the objections of families. It's a good question, though I don't think the debate is really about the president's hypocrisy or poor judgment as governor. Still, the Texas law sounds like a monstrosity. (See, this is why I want more debate on this subject.)
-->Ahh, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who's running the pro side, points out that Bush originally vetoed the bill, and signed it as a least-worst alternative to the status quo, in which Texas hospitals had unfettered discretion to deny care. So that explains why Bush did what he did. But it doesn't explain why the bad law is still in place. Texas Right to Life, get on it!
UPDATE: Always, I defer to my superiors. Amy Welborn is liveblogging the debates, with much greater thoroughness. See here, here, here and here. (There'll probably be others up in a bit.)
UPDATE AGAIN: Sensenbrenner explains why this had to be a private bill (the Senate wouldn't take up the generally worded bill) and says that he wants to move forward with a general statute regarding the rights of appeal of people in cases like these (disputed end of life cases). Good for him.
I will say, in general, that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has a strong argument that the act under debate is, in fact, private legislation. It is worth asking why, if this measure is a worthwhile one, it can't be expressed as a general principle as opposed to a grant of jurisdiction for one individual. Given the facts on the ground, there's probably no other way to save Terri's life, but I hope that the debate continues even after the act passes. Personally, I'd like to see the law changed such that the removal of feeding tubes ceases to be legal option. I mean, we don't let healthy people starve themselves. (I understand that's not an especially broadly held view.)
Highlights of the debate, thus far:
Lots of bashing of the courts of the state of Florida. Not that they don't deserve it.
The Democrats have been the much more colorful and memorable debaters, thus far. The GOP's sent dozens of people up, who all said basically the same thing.
"Courts have found these facts. Who are we to say that they're wrong?"
Much of the debate revolves around the degree of deference we should give to judge-found facts. Is it enough that the trial court found that Terri said she wouldn't want live hooked up to machines, or that she's in a persistent vegetative state? Does that make it so?
The Most Insensitive Wording award goes to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), commenting on her parents' belief that Terri might recover: "We should not feed those illusions."
Rep. Jim "Crazy" McDermott (D-WA) thinks this bill is some attempt to direct attention from something else. What it is, he won't say.
There's something deeply odd about watching Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) give impassioned defenses of federalism, states' rights, and the finality of state court decisions. Not that they're not sincere; it's just, well, odd.
Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) gave the most even-handed (rhetorically, at least) speech. He made what I think is the core of the substantive case for killing Terri Schiavo. He said, "It is our cortex that makes us who we are," and that, while those who want to withdraw nutrition would indeed condemn her to death, those who want to keep feeding her would condemn her to a life she might very well not have wanted. (He also said, repeatedly, "We are all pro-life," which is the best evidence I've yet seen that, rhetorically at least, our side is winning, generally.)
Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) is the only example of bipartisanship thus far, speaking in opposition to the bill. (Though pro-bill forces say, and I've no reason to doubt, that there are about 30 Democrats supporting them.) He asks, "Why only Terri?"
Rep. Marilyn Musgrove (R-CO) almost broke into tears at the podium.
A couple people brought up the issue of the Texas statute, which President Bush signed as governor, that allows hospitals to remove care over the objections of families. It's a good question, though I don't think the debate is really about the president's hypocrisy or poor judgment as governor. Still, the Texas law sounds like a monstrosity. (See, this is why I want more debate on this subject.)
-->Ahh, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who's running the pro side, points out that Bush originally vetoed the bill, and signed it as a least-worst alternative to the status quo, in which Texas hospitals had unfettered discretion to deny care. So that explains why Bush did what he did. But it doesn't explain why the bad law is still in place. Texas Right to Life, get on it!
UPDATE: Always, I defer to my superiors. Amy Welborn is liveblogging the debates, with much greater thoroughness. See here, here, here and here. (There'll probably be others up in a bit.)
UPDATE AGAIN: Sensenbrenner explains why this had to be a private bill (the Senate wouldn't take up the generally worded bill) and says that he wants to move forward with a general statute regarding the rights of appeal of people in cases like these (disputed end of life cases). Good for him.
<< Home