« February 2005 | Main | April 2005 »
That quote is taken from an excellent, link-rich post -- "The Schiavo Case: Bearing False Witness" -- by Cathy Young. I don't know how I missed the post when it first appeared two days ago (I'm a regular reader of Hit & Run), but if you missed it, too, read it now.
What about the cost of Terri Schiavo's care? That dimension of her tragic story was not widely covered. We were told repeatedly by their supporters that Mrs. Schiavo's parents wanted to assume responsibility for their daughter's care. But that's not precisely right. Bob and Mary Schindler were willing to assume only oversight of their daughter's care -- care that was to be provided by others, at taxpayer expense.
According to this report from Mrs. Schiavo's guardian ad litem (see p. 10), in September 1990 the Schindlers took Terri home. But after only three weeks, they returned her to the nursing facility, reporting themselves "overwhelmed" by their daughter's "care needs." That's not hard to imagine. A patient in a persistent vegetative condition requires around-the-clock care, everyday of the week, every week of the year.
Among other things, Mrs. Schiavo would have needed to be turned every two hours to prevent the development of pressure ulcers; for the same reason, she would have also needed to be changed, regardless of the hour, whenever she soiled herself. If only you and your middle-aged spouse are attending to her, you'll both have to go without sleep. In due course -- say, three weeks -- you'll be exhausted.1
It's doubtful, when they're 15 years older, that Mrs. Schiavo's parents would have been any less overwhelmed today by their daughter's care needs than they were in 1990. Accordingly, had the courts granted the Schindlers' wish to superintend the nurses to whose custody they would have committed their daughter, with the bill going to Medicaid, we would have been confronted with this question:
Do we have a right to demand open-ended medical care that imposes a financial burden on third parties? And if so, isn't the Senate correct -- and the president wrong -- about this?
With public expenditures on health care steadily rising, Americans need desperately to have a national discussion about health care financing and the ethical and policy questions attendant to it. Do we have a right to taxpayer-supported health care? And if so, what is the nature of that right and what are the limits of it, if any?
Those are the kind of questions that should have Congress convening at 1 a.m. on a holiday weekend.
1I recognize that parents routinely provide 24/7 care to their infants. But infants are easily manipulated by a lone handler, allowing parents to alternate responsibility for their child's care; however, to reposition an adult patient, you usually need two handlers. Moreover, the parents of infants are generally younger than Mrs. Schiavo's parents. For every task, there is a season.
Who knew?
Now that Mrs. Schiavo can be put to rest, I hope principle, reason and circumspection return to the quarters from which they have been vacated.
This whole sad affair has unhinged people in a way I've never seen before.
Here's why, ma'am: "Officers' decision to deploy the Taser is based on the suspects' behavior and the officers' training."
As you probably know by now, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit today denied the emergency petition from Terri Schiavo's parents for rehearing en banc. The court's order is here.
In an opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing, Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., an appointee of Bush I, concludes that the Act passed by Congress for the relief of Mrs. Schiavo's parents is unconstitutional:
Generally, the definition of an "activist judge" is one who decides the outcome of a controversy before him according to personal conviction, even one sincerely held, as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution.
In resolving the Schiavo controversy it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers’ blueprint for the governance of a free people — our Constitution. Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that Covenant, I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing en banc. I conclude that Pub. L.109-3 ("the Act") is unconstitutional and, therefore, this court and the district court are without jurisdiction in this case ...
Among other things, the Act required the federal district court to undertake a de novo review of Mrs. Schiavo's case. But that command, wrote Judge Birch, is a violation of the rule of decision:
Because these provisions constitute legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions (known as a "rule of decision"), the Act invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle.
An act of Congress violates separation of powers if it requires federal courts to exercise their Article III power "in a manner repugnant to the text, structure, and traditions of Article III." [citation omitted] By setting a particular standard of review in the district court, Section 2 of the Act purports to direct a federal court in an area traditionally left to the federal court to decide. See Fla. Progress Corp. v. Comm’r, 348 F.3d 954, 959 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting that the standard of review is for the court to determine). In fact, the establishment of a standard of review often dictates the rule of decision in a case, which is beyond Congress’s constitutional power. See United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128, 146 (1871) (noting that Congress may not prescribe a "rule of decision" for a particular case).
Associated Press:
Americans' unpaid taxes are now topping $300 billion a year, with people who underreport their income the biggest culprits.
...
The report Tuesday estimated the gap [between taxes owed and taxes paid] at $312 billion to $353 billion for 2001, about 15 percent of the total taxes owed. Taxpayers were slightly less likely to comply with tax laws than they had been at the time of the latest previous study, completed in 1988.
...
The majority of unpaid-tax cases involved individuals, not businesses. Among the people who contributed to the tax gap, most understated their income, especially business income.
Excessive deductions, exemptions, credits and other adjustments accounted for $25 billion to $30 billion of the tax gap.
For three years now, I've used the software package TurboTax to file my federal return. Among other features, TurboTax allows you to compare your deductions to the average deductions taken by taxpayers in your income bracket.
The numbers no longer faze when they pop up on my screen. But the first year TurboTax apprised me of the average deductions claimed by my peers, I laughed uproariously. "Sickly but philanthropic, aren't we?!"
Associated Press: "The 155 newly assigned agents will be pulled from elsewhere along the southern border — and not from the northern border with Canada, Homeland Security officials said."
Washington Post:
How would Bush and Kerry have fared if the electoral college determined its allocation of electoral votes on the basis of who won each congressional district, as some advocate, rather than on who wins the popular vote in each state? [Clark] Bensen [of Polidata] crunched those numbers and concluded that Bush would have won by an even larger margin, with 317 electoral votes rather than the 286 he actually captured.
Washington Post:
Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.
The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect pharmacists from being penalized -- or force them to carry out their duties.
Today I asked a pharmacist of my acquaintance what she thought of this. She said she didn't understand why colleagues who objected to birth control or "morning-after" pills didn't just say what pharmacists have been saying for years: "I'm sorry. We're out of stock on this."
For my own part, I'm sympathetic to pharmacists who have moral objections to filling certain prescriptions. In my line of work as a nurse, abortion has never come up. But I wouldn't assist in performing one. Yes, I think abortion should be legal (during the first trimester, anyway); but there's something about a mother wanting to cut a child out of her womb that gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Fatos Tarifa, Albania's ambassador to the United States:
If you believe in freedom, you believe in fighting for it. If you believe in fighting for freedom, you believe in America.
Classified by the CIA World Factbook as an "emerging democracy," Albania is 70% Muslim. She has 120 troops in Iraq.
(Editorial cartoon courtesy of Cox & Forkum.)
Wall Street Journal:
The problem, rather, is that Mr. DeLay, who rode to power in 1994 on a wave of revulsion at the everyday ways of big government, has become the living exemplar of some of its worst habits.
...
Whether Mr. DeLay violated the small print of House Ethics or campaign-finance rules is thus largely beside the point. His real fault lies in betraying the broader set of principles that brought him into office, and which, if he continues as before, sooner or later will sweep him out.
Associated Press:
A California law that gives gay couples who register as domestic partners nearly the same responsibilities and benefits as married spouses should be overturned because lawmakers undermined the will of voters, lawyers for two groups argued Friday.
The law, which went into effect Jan. 1, grants registered couples virtually every spousal right available under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes. That includes access to divorce courts, automatic parental status and responsibility for each other's debts.
The law represents the nation's most sweeping recognition of domestic partner rights after Vermont's recognition of civil unions for gay couples.
Opponents say the law is in conflict with Proposition 22, a voter-approved initiative that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Lawyers for the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Campaign for California Families told the 3rd District Court of Appeal that lawmakers could not give marriage-style benefits to unmarried couples. But the judges reportedly viewed that assertion with skepticism:
The three justices repeatedly noted the simplicity of the 14-word ballot measure, saying it said nothing about rights of domestic partners nor the Legislature's ability to grant them.
Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland said the appeals court typically interprets laws based on plain meaning. "If it's plain meaning, we use the plain meaning and stop there," he said.
The text of California's domestic partnership statute is here; the text of Proposition 22 is here.
(Thanks to Jurist.)
Question: "Are you gay?"
Answer: "You have asked a question people shouldn't have to answer."
Conclusion: "History may record, at some point, its first genuinely closeted heterosexual, but they are clearly few and far between."
ABC News:
A Tyler, Texas, man is under arrest, accused of being part of a dog fighting ring that allegedly stole family pets out of yards, then trained them to be killers or used them as bait.
A man called Tyler police earlier this week and told them his dog had been stolen and he had reason to believe the dog was at a home in his neighborhood. Police went to the home and discovered several pit bulls, mistreated and abused.
In a nearby vacant lot, police discovered the remains of six dogs believed to have been killed or used as bait in the fights. One of the fatally mauled dogs had its mouth taped shut, likely so it could not defend itself, Tyler Animal Control field supervisor Gary Chambers said.
The man who lives at the home, Demarcus Keshawn Johnson, 18, was arrested Wednesday, accused of being a member of a dog fighting ring that authorities say is responsible for one of the worst cases of animal cruelty the city has ever seen.
It's been more than a decade since I took a psychology course, but isn't there a correlation in the literature between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans? A correlation so tight as to be predictive?
Mr. Johnson was released on bond. I'm thinking that when we read about him again one day, his depravity won't be in connection with dogs. Most states have a registry for sex offenders; they ought to also have one for this sort of twisted bastard, whose pathology is at least as dark and worrisome.
You're probably familiar with One Hand Clapping. It is, after all, one of the top 100 blogs. Written by the Rev. Donald Sensing, pastor of a United Methodist Church in Tennessee, One Hand Clapping is consistently thoughtful and informative. It always repays the read. If you haven't already, bookmark it.
And please take a moment to read this post: "The Schiavo great divide." Rev. Sensing says everything I've tried to say, but he says it better.
UPDATE: I now see where Instapundit linked to that same post earlier today, and linking to something to which the professor has already linked is not unlike putting a match to a lit candle. I usually read the Big 10 first so as to avoid duplication. This time I missed.
Washington Post:
Republican lawmakers are headed for a showdown over illegal immigration, an issue that exposes a deep and bitter rift within the GOP.
The drama will unfold when Congress returns early next month and turns to finish an emergency spending bill to fund the Iraq war. The House version, approved before the Easter break, carries tough immigration restrictions, reigniting a long-simmering battle with the Senate over how to deal with the growing illegal population.
Using data from Gallup, Real Clear Politics reports that President Bush's job approval has fallen 7% in 3 days.
Reuters:
The rate of U.S. deaths in the Iraq war has fallen sharply since the historic January elections as American military leaders tout progress against the insurgency but warn of a long road ahead.
March is on pace for the lowest monthly U.S. military death toll in 13 months, and the rate of American fatalities has fallen by about 50 percent since the parliamentary elections in which millions of Iraqis defied insurgents to cast ballots.
Meanwhile, Iraqis themselves are taking to the streets to protest the insurgent violence against their countrymen.
Christian Science Monitor:
BAGHDAD - Two years after war dramatically changed Iraq's political landscape, the former ruling minority Sunnis are developing plans to participate in a government formed by elections they boycotted.
In a significant shift, several Sunni groups that hitherto shunned the political process met last weekend to create a unified front and set of demands that they will present to the Shiite and Kurdish leaders now hammering out a new government.
The meeting was a reversal for Sunni leaders who have supported insurgents and urged US troops to leave Iraq immediately.
The new effort, observers say, appears to be an admission that their strategy - to stop Iraq's election and denounce the formation of a new government - has failed.
Boston Globe:
When Diane Viza got into an argument with her son over whether she was sober, she drove to the local police station asked to take a sobriety test. That turned out to be a bad idea.
The 45-year-old woman was charged with driving while intoxicated after she showed up at the police station in the Orleans County village of Albion and asked officers to administer a breath test.
The unusual request came after she had picked up her son at a friend's house and got into an argument with him because he suspected she had been drinking.
Gee, I wonder why the boy drinks?
Washington Times:
The State Department says that the Mexican government, angry that a thousand American volunteers will begin an Arizona border vigil next month, consistently violates the rights of illegal immigrants crossing its southern border into Mexico.
Many of the illegals in Mexico, who emigrate from Central and South America, complain of "double dangers" of extortion by Mexican authorities and robbery and killings by organized gangs.
...
Although Mexico demands that its citizens' rights be protected when they illegally enter the United States, immigrants who cross illegally into Mexico "are often ripped off six ways until sundown ... "
Associated Press:
More than two-thirds of people who describe themselves as evangelicals and conservatives disapprove of the intervention by Congress and President Bush in the case of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman at the center of a national debate.
A CBS News poll found that four of five people polled opposed federal intervention, with levels of disapproval among key groups supporting the GOP almost that high.
The poll's internals, in pdf format, are here.
Among other questions, respondents were asked:
"What do you think should have happened in this case -- should the feeding tube have been removed or should it have remained?"
| What should have been done? | % TOTAL | % MEN | % WOMEN |
| Tube removed | 61 | 62 | 59 |
| Tube left | 28 | 28 | 29 |
| Don't know/no opinion | 11 | 10 | 12 |
And, "What should happen now? Should the tube be re-inserted, or not?"
| What should be done now? | % TOTAL | % MEN | % WOMEN |
| Tube re-inserted | 27 | 25 | 28 |
| Not re-inserted | 66 | 69 | 62 |
| Don't know/no opinion | 7 | 6 | 10 |
Meanwhile, for commentary on whether this is just another "push poll for euthanasia," over to you, Ed. Ed pooh-poohed this ABC News poll for failing to make clear to respondents that Mrs. Schiavo's only medical support was from a feeding tube, and not from a ventilator. The CBS poll makes that clear -- as if people didn't know it -- and the results are unchanged.
Washington Post:
While Social Security benefits are scheduled to exceed tax revenue by 2017, Medicare's trust fund, which finances hospitalization of the elderly, reached that juncture last year. The trustees project the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted by 2041, one year sooner than projected last year. But Medicare's trust will be depleted more than two decades earlier, in 2020.
...
The government would have to put aside $11.1 trillion today to finance Social Security's promised benefits indefinitely, the trustees reported. But just the new Medicare prescription drug benefit included in the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act has an unfunded liability of $18.2 trillion projected out infinitely.
Medicare's overall unfunded liability is reportedly $65.4 trillion -- six times that of Social Security's.
None of this belittles the problems facing Social Security or the president's call for personal retirement accounts, even though the latter won't fix the former. But it does make you wonder why, in addition to Social Security reform, we're not also having a national discussion about the catastrophic deficits confronting Medicare.
(Source: "Report emphasizes shortfall in medicare," Washington Post, Thursday, March 24, 2005)
The U.S. Supreme Court's one sentence order denying the request of Terri Schiavo's parents for a stay is here.
Since I doubt many of my readers get over to him often, here's Joe Carter at The Evangelical Outpost:
Many well-meaning people mistakenly believe this issue is about the “right-to-die.” But at its core, the Schiavo case is not about bioethics, living wills, or medical choices. It’s about the failure to protect the institution of marriage.
...
Social conservatives spend an inordinate amount of hand-wringing over the threat to traditional marriage posed by the legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Gay marriage is, of course, a legitimate concern. But it would take an army of homosexual rights activists several decades to do as much damage to the sacred institution as heterosexuals have done by tolerating no-fault divorce and the repeal of common law marriage.
I myself have wondered why evangelical conservatives aren't at least as worried about our tolerance for adultery and no-fault divorce as they are about same-sex marriage. After all, the push for same-sex marriage is merely a symptom of what ails traditional marriage; it isn't the cause.
In a follow-up to the congressional inquiry on steroid use among professional baseball players, the Washington Post baits Congress:
Even more widespread among high school athletes, however, is the use of over-the-counter supplements, such as creatine, to help improve performance. With few, if any, rules regarding supplement distribution or consumption, coaches and athletes say supplements are growing in popularity.
With "few, if any, rules," are hearings and legislation far behind?
We are, I fear, approaching the day in America when every form of human conduct will fall into one of two categories: the compulsory and the forbidden.
Why on earth does North Dakota have two Democratic U.S. senators?
From Mitch at Shot in the Dark:
I suggest because pork trumps record. Or to put it somewhat less cynically, self-interest trumps ideology. North Dakota's farmers, being inherently conservative, vote for Repubican presidents; strong defense and conservative national policy on most issues are winners among the farm community...
...until the farm bills are debated. Suddenly, the farmers of the Great Plains are as statist as the most goggle-brained AFSCME cheerleader.
If Mitch is right about that -- and I believe he is -- then it's a problem the GOP can easily overcome. After all, does anybody still seriously doubt the ability of Republicans to deliver pork? In fact, as prospective members of the majority, Republican senatorial candidates from North Dakota could run on a platform of new and improved pork.
If we're not going "nuclear" on judicial appointments, guys, then we have to find a way to pick up 5 senate seats. Better bacon may be the key to two of them.
Associated Press:
Conservative and liberal groups normally at each other's throats over the direction of government are finding common cause in wanting to gut major provisions of the government's premier anti-terrorism law.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform and the Free Congress Foundation are among several groups that formed a coalition — Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances — to lobby Congress to repeal three key provisions of the USA Patriot Act.
On the one hand ...
Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said the law "contains strong civil liberties safeguards and has a proven track record of being an effective tool in the war on terror."
"Any suggestion of civil liberties violations is an effort to shift the focus of the discussion away from the facts," Scolinos said. "There have been no verified civil liberties violations filed against the Patriot Act. Period."
On the other hand ...
... just because the Patriot Act hasn't been abused yet doesn't mean it won't be by government officials in the future, said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
"Many of us remember what happened with RICO," the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Norquist said. "It was originally passed and they were going to go after organized crime figures in dark shirts and they ended up using it against pro-life demonstrators years later."
The acronym USA PATRIOT Act is derived from Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. The U.S. Dept. of Justice maintains this website in support of the law.
(Editorial cartoon courtesy of Cox & Forkum.)
It's 11:35 p.m. EST and I assume now, as I did last night at this time when we hadn't heard from the federal district court, that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will not undo the state court decision to order the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Time is winding down; the judges know this.
In part because I work with brain injured patients, I've followed Mrs. Schiavo's story with great interest. Among Republican bloggers, I'm part of a minority that thinks the GOP-controlled Congress overstepped its authority when it inserted itself -- and the federal courts -- into her case. I also believe in something many of my fellow Republicans apparently do not: the legal significance of Mrs. Schiavo's marriage. I didn't decide whom Terri Schiavo married; she decided that. But I believe we owe deference to her decision and that we should accept the consequences that flow from it. Husbands speak for their incapacitated wives, and vice versa. This is our custom. This is our law.
I have no trouble at all believing that Terri Schiavo shared with her husband her views on life-prolonging treatment, and that she expressed aversion to being sustained in the condition in which she now lies. After all, the aversion attributed to Mrs. Schiavo by her husband is commonly held. Would you want to be kept alive in her condition? Do you even know anyone who would? If so, I submit you're the exception.
Mrs. Schiavo's personal tragedy was compounded by my party's attempt to make her into a fiction. The members of Congress who flew back to Washington to vote at 1 a.m. on an unprecedented piece of legislation didn't care about what Mrs. Schiavo wanted. I listened to them as they debated. They cared about what they wanted. Mrs. Schiavo was incidental.
Still, Terri Schiavo will leave an authentic legacy. She's given new attention to the importance of advanced directives and living wills; she's reminded people that their marriages have legal consequences; and she may serve as the catalyst for a desperately needed national discussion about the financing of health care:
As Republican leaders in Congress move to trim billions of dollars from the Medicaid health program, they are simultaneously intervening to save the life of possibly the highest-profile Medicaid patient: Terri Schiavo.
The Schiavo case may put a human face on the problem of rising medical costs, both at the state and federal levels. In Florida, where Gov. Jeb Bush (R) is pushing a dramatic restructuring of the Medicaid program, the cost of Schiavo's care has become political fodder. In Washington, where a fight over Medicaid spending threatens to scuttle the 2006 budget plan, the role of the program in preserving Schiavo's life is beginning to receive attention.
By e-mail, Doug -- who finds this site's design "nice" and its commentary "tolerable" -- writes to inquire about my opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas. (I had written a fair amount on Lawrence, but those posts were lost back in November when I upgraded to the newest version of Movable Type.)
The short answer is: I'm a gay Texan, and as a matter of policy I like the result in Lawrence. But as a matter of constitutional law, I think Lawrence -- like Roe -- is just awful. Were it up to me, I'd overturn Lawrence in a heartbeat.
I started to write a longer answer and explain my "strict constructionist" views on the relationship between democracy, law and constitutional interpretation. But that explanation has already been ably offered by others; for anyone genuinely interested in an exposition of it, I commend to your attention this book by Justice Antonin Scalia.
Suffice it to say that I'm a democrat. I believe in the power of the majority to make law. Law is expressed in words. Words have meaning. Accordingly, when we interpret law, including the (democratically-adopted) Constitution, we ought to read its words as its authors read them.
Christian Science Monitor:
Concern is growing at the top levels of government about the US-Mexican border becoming a back door for terrorists entering the United States. While Al Qaeda infiltration across the nation's southern border has been a constant concern since 9/11, US officials cite recent intelligence giving the most definitive evidence yet that terrorists are planning to use it as an entry point - if they haven't already.
Learn more here about the Hon. James Whittemore of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; Judge Whittemore is the jurist who will hear the Schiavo case at 3 p.m. EST today.
This is the text of the bill the House of Representatives will vote on at midnight (or thereabouts) "[f]or the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo:"
AN ACTFor the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,SECTION 1. 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.SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.
Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. 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.SEC. 3. RELIEF.
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.SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.
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.SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--
(1) to assisting suicide, or
(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.
Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.
Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990.SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
It is the Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider
policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.
Now assuming, arguendo, that this legislation is not prohibited by the U.S. Constitution's ex post facto clause1, it will, I predict, give rise to equal protection claims -- Section 7 of the bill notwithstanding.
Other parents who lose state court battles with their son-in-law (or daughter-in-law) over the medical care of their married, adult child will want the same federal review this bill promises to the Schindlers.
1An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes its legal consequences.
(Thanks to Health Law Prof.)
UPDATE: The bill passed 203-58, with 174 members not voting. You can see the results of the roll call here.
In a comment to this post, Chris wrote:
As the bill only allows for review of a decision, it wouldn't seem to run afoul of the EPF clause.
If the bill made it a crime to order the removal of a tube and applied it to Michael Schiavo or Judge Greer, then it'd be problematic.
But as it's ltd to merely allowing an Art III court to review it, it's probably fine in that regard.
Yes, Chris is right. The bill doesn't compel an outcome; it doesn't penalize anybody for decisions already made; and it doesn't change existing law. It gives the Schindlers the opportunity to claim that their daughter's extant federal rights have been violated.
Interestingly, a federal district court in Florida has previously denied the Schindlers' habeas petition. As I understand it, federal habeas review generally requires deference to the fact-finding of the state court. This bill permits the federal court to review the facts de novo. That change in standard may prove pivotal. The Supreme Court has already said people have a right to refuse medical care. So I imagine the Schindlers' will argue that, contrary to the assertions of her husband and the finding of the state court, Mrs. Schiavo would not have refused the feeding tube.
I was struck by this statement -- and the attitude it represents -- from our well-traveled House majority leader:
I don't care what her husband said.
Tom DeLay was referring, of course, to Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael. About Mrs. Schiavo's views on life-prolonging medical intervention, the congressman from Texas doesn't care what her husband has to say. I believe him. The one time you know a politician is telling the truth is when he says he thinks he knows best.
But if you suspect, as I do, that discussion of same-sex marriage is made possible only by the general disrepair of heterosexual marriage, then Rep. DeLay's remark is another bit of evidence for our theory. There was a time when it would have been shocking for an American politician to declare his indifference to a husband's pronouncements on the care of his debilitated wife. To take a man's hand in marriage, or so it would have been thought, is a plenary endorsement of his right to make decisions for you in case of your incapacitation, and vice versa. This was one reason among many why marriage was viewed with solemnity.
But if, as I surmise, the argument for same-sex marriage is inseverable from the failure of heterosexuals to take their own marriages seriously, then Rep. DeLay's comment is instructive. Is the manner in which he dismisses Mrs. Schiavo's husband distinguishable from the manner in which he would dismiss ... a gay man's partner? I doubt gay relationships have risen in Rep. DeLay's estimation; rather, the significance of heterosexual ones have fallen. In this he is not alone.
Republicans in Congress, otherwise busy fiddling as Rome readies itself to burn, insist that we amend the U.S. Constitution to make static the law of marriage. And yet these same Republicans berate the state courts for applying extant Florida law to Mrs. Schiavo's case -- law that respects a traditional right of spouses; meanwhile, they've crafted ex post facto legislation, at least in part for baldly political reasons, to substitute their own judgment for that of Mrs. Schiavo's legal husband and to federalize a private tragedy. This belies the party's ostensible commitment to traditional marriage, limited government, separation of powers and states' rights.
Today we invade the precincts of one only marriage and trounce the laws of only one state. But tomorrow? Or next year, just before the mid-terms?
Don't wait to find out. Put your own wishes about life-prolonging treatment in writing, will you? Should your case present my party with the opportunity to expand its majority in Congress, I'm thinking our leaders won't care what your spouse has to say either.
Washington Post:
Republican officials declared, in a memo that was supposed to be seen only by senators, that they believe the Schiavo case "is a great political issue" that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives, whose support is essential in midterm elections such as those coming up in 2006.
... it's how they protect their own prerogatives.
Associated Press:
The Republican National Committee raised $11.6 million in the month of February to give it more than a 2-1 advantage in money raised over the Democrats during the first two months of this year.
Republicans announced Friday the amount the party raised in February, in addition to $10.2 million raised in January. The GOP had $22.4 million on hand at the end of February.
More than 423,000 donors, including 37,000 who gave for their first time, chipped in with an average contribution of $46.54. So much for the theory that all Republicans are "fat cats."
Fox News:
Overburdened by the uninsured and overwhelmed by illegal immigration, public health care in Los Angeles is on life support.
Sixty percent of the county's uninsured patients are not U.S. citizens. More than half are here illegally. About 2 million undocumented aliens in Los Angeles County alone are crowding emergency rooms because they can't afford to see a doctor.
According to the State Association of Hospitals, California's public health system is "on the brink of collapse." In Los Angeles County, patients can wait four days for a hospital bed and up to two years for gallbladder surgery.
...
Mike Antonovich, the Los Angeles County supervisor, said the system has been "basically bankrupted."
The Department of Health has a $1.2 billion deficit. Caring for illegals is siphoning money from other services and forcing clinics, trauma centers and emergency rooms to close, he said.
Charles Krauthammer:
Now that the real Arab street has risen to claim rights that the West takes for granted, the left takes note. It is forced to acknowledge that those brutish Americans led by their simpleton cowboy might have been right. It has no choice. It is shamed. A Lebanese, amid a sea of a million other Lebanese, raises a placard reading "Thank you, George W. Bush," and all that Euro-pretense, moral and intellectual, collapses.
The Hill:
Going yet further and getting yet more insistent, [Sen. Chuck] Grassley [R-IA] said that if Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) carries out his threat to shut down the chamber in response [to changing the filibuster rule], Frist should send the senators home. The outspoken senator believes that this would work as well for the Democrats as the government shutdown worked for the Republicans in 1995 — in other words, terribly.
Such thinking, particularly from a cool customer like Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, is a measure of how frustrated Republicans have become over the way some of President Bush’s judicial nominees have been blocked. The senator is not alone in believing that Republican voters across the country will punish the GOP in the 2006 and 2008 elections if it fails to overcome the obstacles put in its way by the minority party.
As I've indicated before, I have no objection to the Democrats shutting down the Senate. The Senate is making a mess of things anyway. But the suggestion that Mr. Frist send the senators home is even better; it would be therapeutic for our liberties if they all took a long holiday.
So I say drop the bomb and tell the survivors to run for the hills.
Associated Press:
Working on at least four fronts, lawmakers and lawyers in Florida and in Washington raced to prevent the removal of a brain-damaged Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, but their options appeared to dwindle Thursday as the hours slipped away.
Under court order, the feeding tube was set to be removed at 1 p.m. Friday, in what could be the final act in the long-running right-to-die drama.
The Florida House passed a bill 78-37 to block the withholding of food and water from patients in a persistent vegetative state who did not leave specific instructions regarding their care. But hours later, the Senate defeated a different measure 21-16, and one of the nine Republicans voting against indicated that any further votes would be futile.
If you've never read it, I commend to your attention this report by Jay Wolfson. Mr. Wolfson, a Florida attorney, was appointed guardian ad litem for Terri Schiavo under authority of "Terri's Law," signed by Gov. Jeb Bush. Mr. Wolfson was charged with recommending to the governor whether he should lift the stay he had entered preventing the removal of Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube.
Ultimately, a unanimous Florida Supreme Court, including both of Governor Bush's own appointees, would hold "Terri's Law" unconstitutional and itself vacate the governor's stay. Nevertheless, Mr. Wolfson's 40-page review of the case is elucidating.
Associated Press:
PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds signed a series of anti-abortion bills, including one that requires doctors to tell women the procedure ends the lives of humans, his office announced Thursday.
The bill-signings further tighten state abortion restrictions that some characterize as among the toughest in the nation.
One of the four new laws requires doctors to inform pregnant women, in writing and in person, no later than two hours before an abortion that the procedure ends the lives of humans and terminates the constitutional relationship women have with their fetuses.
Women also must be told that some women die during abortions and the procedure can lead to later depression and other problems.
The governor also signed a bill that would automatically ban most abortions if the U.S. Supreme Court ever overrules Roe v. Wade.
Associated Press:
America's war on drugs is inflicting deep and disproportionate harm on women — most of them mothers — who are filling prisons in ever-rising numbers despite their typically minor roles in drug rings, the American Civil Liberties Union and two other groups contend in a major new report.
You can download the report, "Caught in the net: the impact of drug policies on women and families," here.
Professor Bainbridge:
My theory is that Bush has reverted to his frat boy days and is basically mooning the world community, especially "Old Europe."
Not that I object, mind you.
No, of course not. It's Washington, D.C., where law-abiding people are disarmed. So here's what was found instead: Wanda Alston's body.
Demand is expected to continue outpacing supply, which means there's no relief in sight. Blame the Chinese:
"U.S. crude supplies rose last week but with the growth of China there's going to be more competition for barrels in the months ahead," said Phil Flynn, vice president of risk management with Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago. "We're worried about the high-demand period this summer and our ability to keep up with gasoline consumption."
China's fuel use will rise 7.9 percent this year, or 500,000 barrels a day, to 6.88 million barrels a day, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency. China is the second-biggest oil consumer after the U.S.
The Senate Judiciary Committee votes tomorrow on the nomination of William Myers to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Myers is one of 10 nominees resubmitted by the president after being denied an up or down floor vote in the last session of Congress. From the Christian Science Monitor:
The Judiciary Committee is expected to send his nomination to the full Senate with a 10-8 party-line vote - a signal that Democrats plan to filibuster the nomination on the floor. When they do, Republicans plan to use their Senate majority to change the rule for ending debate - killing filibusters with a majority, not the 60 votes now required.
Meanwhile:
"I sense that many are banging the drum not primarily for Terri but for their own political "life agenda," which contains many praiseworthy things but which cannot tell us whether we are doing what she wants."
Threshold question: do we have a right to refuse medical care? Most of us would say we do. Our bodies belong to us and not to others.
And if a married patient, having left no written directive, is unable to speak for himself or herself, to whom do we look to be informed of the patient's wishes? To the spouse, yes? That's our law and our custom.
Terri's husband says she didn't want to to kept alive by tubes or machines or both. Barring compelling evidence to the contrary, you and I are in no position to contradict him. And neither is the Florida Legislature.
Why are Iraqi insurgents confessing on a "wildly popular" national television program to all kinds of terrorist acts? " ... the bruises are a clue."
From David, via e-mail, on the entry immediately below:
Since apparently I can't get to typekey's registration completion page from work...
Do Dems honestly think the American people will blame /Republicans/ if Dems start forcing everything, including mundanities such as breaking for lunch, to a vote?
Hey, here's a great idea, Dems! Actually perform the filibusters you threaten! That will make the American people love you as you talk for 20+ hours!
Who does a shutdown of Congress backlash onto? The ones who cause the shutdown.
He has a point, doesn't he?
Incidentally, I'd favor forgoing the "nuclear option" if, as David suggests, the Democrats were to carry out old-fashioned filibusters -- the kind where the Senate stays in session around the clock, with a member standing in the well reading the phone book while the others are sleeping in their offices or on a cot in the hall, all ready to vote at a moment's notice. Ultimately, one side or the other succumbs to exhaustion and gives up.
I believe I'm correct in saying that the longest filibuster in U.S. history -- in opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- lasted a little longer than 22 days. We haven't seen a filibuster like that in ages, owing to a gentlemen's agreement against it. The members want to threaten a filibuster, but they don't want to do the work of actually carrying one out. (With the possible exception of Mrs. Clinton, U.S. senators are no longer the tough, corn-fed sons of bitches they used to be.)
If Bill Frist, the majority leader, would rather not deploy the nuke, here's the alternative: bring one of the president's "controversial" judicial appointments to the floor and announce that the Senate will remain in session -- 24/7 -- until either the nominee is rejected or the filibuster is defeated.
Boston Globe:
The proposal has been nicknamed the "nuclear option" because of the likely fallout: Democrats vow to shut down the Senate by forcing every matter to be brought to a vote, even breaking for lunch, and forcing every item to be read in full.
"The nuclear option will wreak havoc on the Senate and bring Senate business to a screeching halt," said Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice.
Please, Mary. Is that supposed to be a threat? The "business" of the Senate, as often as not, is to jack up the American people. A "screeching halt" to that, you say? You promise?!
The nuclear launch code is 202-225-3121. Please join me and others in opening the silo.
Reuters:
In a victory for gay rights groups, a California Superior Court judge ruled on Monday that the state's voter-approved ban on homosexual marriage is unconstitutional.
Both gay marriage advocates and opponents said the decision was just one step in a legal battle that may continue for years. Similar disputes are under review in other U.S. states.
"This is an important day but hardly is this effort complete," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told reporters. "It is inevitable there will be an appeal."
The ruling follows Newsom's decision last year to grant more than 4,000 gay marriage licenses. The California Supreme Court ruled that he had exceeded his authority but asked a lower court to consider the broader issue.
Cathy Young, columnist for the Boston Globe and an occasional reader of this blog, in an essay on the "latest brouhaha at Harvard:"
Of course, this does not mean that gays shouldn't have equal rights or legal protections for their relationships, or that homosexuality is somehow wrong; human nature has many variations. But it's a huge step from tolerance and acceptance (which still have a long way to go in our culture) to the demand for acknowledgment in every reference to relationships. Such an insistence is especially ridiculous in Pinkett Smith's case, since she was talking about men's and women's changing roles in partnership with each other.
One performer in the Cultural Rhythms show, Ofole Mgbako, wisely noted to the Crimson that "you'll always in some way be exclusive." Indeed.
When I pooh-poohed the fuss over Jada Pinkett Smith’s "heteronormative" remarks, one reader commented in protest:
Heterosexuals would act the same way if we treated them like that.
Here's a test. The next time you meet some random guy and you're talking to him, instead of asking him if he's married or has a girlfriend, ask him if he has a boyfriend instead. In other words, just assume he's gay and leave it for him to correct you and tell you he's straight.
How ironic, I thought, that the commenter should make his point against assumptions of statistical normality by assuming himself that this random guy could hear. (How else would I be "talking" to him?) After all, tens of thousands of Americans are deaf.
" ... you'll always in some way be exclusive."