Hypocrisy: Bush signing of Schiavo Legislation
As governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed into law a piece of legislation that made it legal for hospitals to disconnect the feeding tubes of people whose families WANTED THEM KEPT ALIVE. Tom DeLay, of course, is fully aware of this.
Blogosphere-dissemination credit to Mark A.R. Kleiman
But
Digby said it best:
By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.
Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.
Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.
Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schivos because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.
And those of us who read liberal blogs also know that this grandstanding by the congress is a purely political move designed to appease the religious right and that the legal maneuverings being employed would be anathema to any true small government conservative.
Those who don't read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is "stepping in to save Terry Schiavo" mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain.
Hear, hear! [Tip o' hat to Atrios]
posted by Democra-she @ 3:38 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I do think we should focus public health spending towards keeping people healthy in their prime rather than keeping people alive through extensive proceedures in their older age or keeping people alive who have no hope of recovery. If people want to use private means to maintain at this point that is fine.
Anyway, that is beside the point, the Republicans have been shameless in this instance and again shown them to be the party of big, intrusive government. Really, when a government wants to control every detail of its people it is called fascism.
John Conyers of the Great State of Michigan said, " By passing this bill, in this form, we will be intruding in the most sensitive possible family decision at the most ill-opportune time. It will be hard for this member to envision a case or circumstance that Congress will not be willing to involve itself in under this precedent.
By passing legislation which takes sides in an ongoing legal dispute, we will be casting aside the principle of separation of powers. We will be abandoning our role as a serious legislative branch, and take on the role not only of Judge, but of Doctor, Priest, Parent and Spouse.
By passing legislation which wrests jurisdiction away from a state judge and sends it to a single preselected federal court, we will abandon any pretense of federalism. The concept of a Jeffersonian Democracy as envisioned by the founders, and the states as "laboratories of democracy" as articulated by Justice Brandeis will lie in tatters.
By passing this legislation, in the complete absence of hearings or a committee markup, and with no opportunity for amendments, in complete violation of what we used to call "regular order," we will send a signal that the usual rules of conduct and procedure no longer apply when they are inconvenient to the Majority Party.
By passing this legislation, and taking this sensitive decision away from a spouse and giving it to a federal court, we will make it abundantly clear that all the talk last year about marriage being a "sacred trust between a man and a woman" was just that - talk.
My friends on the other side of the aisle will declare that this legislation is about principle, and morals and values.
But if this legislation was only about principle, why would the Majority party be distributing talking points in the other body declaring that "this is a great political issue" and that by passing this bill, "the pro-life base will be excited."?
If the president really cared about the issue of the removal of feeding tubes, why would he have signed a bill in Texas that allows hospitals to save money by removing feeding tubes over a family's objection?
If we really cared about saving lives, why would the Congress sit idly by while 40 million Americans have no health insurance, or while the president tries to cut billions of dollars from Medicaid - a virtual lifeline for millions of our citizens?
When all is said and done, this bill is about taking sides in a legal dispute. Last year, the Majority passed two bills stripping the federal courts of their power to review cases involving the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of Allegiance because they feared they would read the Constitution too broadly. Last month, the Majority passed a class action bill that took jurisdiction away from state courts because they feared they would treat corporate wrongdoers too harshly. Today we are sending a case from the state courts to the federal courts even though it is the most extensively litigated "right to die" case in our nation's history.
There is only one principle at stake here - manipulating the court system to achieve pre-determined substantive outcomes. By passing this law, it should be obvious to all that we are no longer a nation of laws, but have been reduced to a nation of men. By passing this law, we will be telling our friends abroad that even though we expect them to live by the rule of law, Congress can ignore it when it doesn't suit our needs. By passing this law we diminish our nation as a democracy and ourselves as legislators.
I think there are only two important issues for the Bush camp here: 1) Jeb involved himself in this, Jeb's a Bush with a possible political future, and is identified with the President, so Jeb Bush must be seen to win no matter what it takes (in this case, "an act of Congress," literally, emphasis on the "act"). and 2) Because of the really nasty email and whispering campaign on this topic, it's become a cause celebre for the Right to Life movement. They've turned Mrs. Schiavo into a fetus. It costs nothing and gains RtL ground politically for Congress and GWBush to show how "life-affirming" they are in this one case while cutting millions for programs which save the lives of so many less famous Americans on a week-to-week basis.
I think Ed Schultz sums it up,"How can someone be Pro-Life when they are Pro-Death Penalty?"
Post a Comment
<< Home