THE TERRI SCHIAVO CASE
World Watching, But No Consensus on Ethics of Death
Many nations have themselves wrestled with the right-to-die issue.
By John Daniszewski | Los Angeles Times |March 26, 2005
LONDON — While U.S. politicians and courts debated the implications of removing
Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, the rest of the world looked on this week with a
mixture of revulsion and approval.
Many commentators disagreed with the intervention of President Bush and Congress
in the case of the brain-damaged 41-year-old, saying such vital, complex decisions
are best left to courts, physicians and the family. They accused Bush and his
religious-right allies of hypocrisy and political posturing.
Other commentators gave plaudits to Bush — or at least welcomed the attention
on Schiavo, saying it had revived much-needed public debate on when and how to
prolong life in apparently hopeless cases.
"American moral melodramas quite often prove to be soap operas, but at least
serve some useful purpose in focusing public attention on important issues that
might otherwise be ignored," Australia's Canberra Times said about the Schiavo
case.
Across the globe, there is no consensus on a patient's right to die. Many developing
nations simply don't have the medical resources to keep coma patients alive indefinitely,
nor the expectation that anyone would do so.
In Western Europe and in Australia and other developed countries, however, the
question of when to allow patients to die has been argued for decades. Several
countries have adjudicated cases broadly similar to Schiavo's, and European courts
in recent years have tended to allow life support to end if physicians and a competent
patient or guardian agree the case is hopeless.
Belgium and the Netherlands are the most radical. Both countries allow doctors
to commit euthanasia, or mercy killing, of patients who state that wish and who
are deemed to be suffering unbearably with little or no hope of recovery. Other
European countries have backed away from that, fearing the authorization could
be abused.
"I do make a distinction between giving a lethal injection and withdrawing
treatment," said Dr. Piers Benn, a lecturer in medical ethics at London's
Imperial College.
The Schiavo case is additionally troubling because the patient, although in what
doctors say is a persistent vegetative state, is not otherwise in a crisis, he
said.
"If there is a proper diagnosis of persistent vegetative state, and if there
is no prospect of any conscious life, and there is another [medical] crisis, then
I think it would be legitimate not to resuscitate," Benn said. Absent a crisis,
he said, he is not sure.
Polly Toynbee, a writer for Britain's left-leaning Guardian newspaper, cited the
drawn-out, "unkindly" death of her own ill mother in a column Friday
arguing that doctors should be allowed to induce death.
Toynbee complained that the "religious lobby forces people to die in pain
and indignity due to beliefs on the nature of life and death shared by very few."
In Switzerland, doctors may supply lethal drugs to a patient who wishes to commit
suicide, but they may not administer them.
In Britain, the courts have allowed a sort of loophole, saying doctors may give
potentially lethal doses of drugs to terminal patients if the aim is to relieve
pain, not to deliberately bring about death. No one knows how many British patients
have died in this way.
Israel had been weighing the right-to-die issue in recent months, even before
the Schiavo case came to prominence. In February, the Knesset gave initial approval
to a bill permitting, for the first time in the country's history, passive euthanasia
for terminally ill patients who had requested it. The parliamentary measure moved
forward on the recommendation of a two-year study by experts led by Avraham Steinberg,
a neurologist and a leading international authority on Jewish medical ethics.
Steinberg, a practicing Orthodox Jew, found what he described as ample basis in
Jewish law, or Halakha, for ending the suffering of patients whose cases were
considered hopeless.
China, too, has weighed the issue in recent years. But Zhou Xiaozheng, a sociologist
at People's University in Beijing, said he didn't expect China to legalize euthanasia
anytime soon, owing to widespread corruption. "If it were allowed here, it
could be subject to abuse by people who want to get rid of someone they don't
like," he said.
Any kind of active euthanasia is banned in Germany and is punished as murder,
manslaughter or denial of assistance, depending on circumstances. A physician
isn't allowed to assist a suicide even if it is the declared will of a patient.
The strict laws are a reaction to the Nazi era, when thousands of disabled people
were labeled "unworthy to live" and killed. But activist groups have
been lobbying for a clear law to permit patients to state their preferences for
treatment in living wills. This pressure has increased because of Schiavo's case,
which has dominated German newspapers' front pages. The main political parties
are drafting joint legislation expected to go before parliament this fall, which
would let people with terminal diseases decide in advance how they want to be
treated. Bush's intervention, meanwhile, has won some respect in Germany. The
centrist Berlin newspaper Tagesspiegel said the president's actions made moral
sense. "A person is going to starve to death who is neither suffering from
a deadly disease nor has left a living will," the newspaper said in an editorial
Tuesday. "That may be in accord with the laws in Florida, but then these
laws are simply wrong.
In November, French lawmakers passed a right-to-die law in the wake of a highly
publicized case of a 22-year-old man, partially blinded and paralyzed in an automobile
accident, whom his physician and his mother helped to die. Marie Humbert had appealed
for help to President Jacques Chirac before she administered the massive dose
of barbiturates to her son Vincent in September 2003. She and the physician, Frederic
Chaussoy, remain under criminal investigation. "Vincent is dead," Chaussoy,
52, wrote in a recent book about the case. "That's what he wanted. I just
helped him leave his prison. I just hope this won't send me into one for the rest
of my life."
In Roman Catholic Italy, the Schiavo case is under scrutiny. The Vatican and several
Italian politicians have condemned the decision to remove Schiavo's feeding tube
and have praised Bush and his brother, Jeb Bush, the Florida governor. The Vatican
does not usually comment on specific legal cases but made an exception for Schiavo.
L'Osservatore Romano said in a front-page editorial that she had been condemned
to "an atrocious death." "Who can decide to pull the plug, as if
we were talking about a broken or out-of-order household appliance?" the
paper said. "Who can, before God and humanity, pretend with impunity to claim
such a right?" Catholic teaching does not require extraordinary measures
to artificially extend the life of a critically ill patient, especially if there
doesn't seem to be a reasonable chance of recovery. But Pope John Paul II has
said there is a moral obligation to provide water and nourishment to a vegetative
patient.
Italian Health Minister Girolamo Sirchia branded the decision made by Schiavo's
husband, Michael, to remove the feeding tube "a horrible shortcut camouflaged
as an act of love." And he said laws to loosen restrictions on euthanasia,
such as in the Netherlands, were "very dangerous" because the practice
of assisted death could get out of hand. Italy's minister for European affairs,
Rocco Buttiglione, echoed the Vatican in branding as murder the removal of Schiavo's
feeding tube. When an Italian magazine asked Buttiglione what he would wish if
he were in an irreversible coma, he replied: "I could only pray to God to
take my life. I would never ask my children to kill me."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writers Robyn Dixon in Johannesburg, Laura King in Jerusalem, Ching-Ching
Ni in Beijing, Richard C. Paddock in Jakarta, Achrene Sicakyuz in Paris, Janet
Stobart in London, Tracy Wilkinson in Rome and Christian Retzlaff in Berlin contributed
to this report.-----
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
Top
THE TERRI SCHIAVO CASE
Case Proves Politically Touchy
With polls showing a majority unhappy with Congress' intervention, lawmakers on
both sides of the Schiavo debate have largely backed off.
By Richard Simon and Janet Hook | Los Angeles Times |March 25, 2005
WASHINGTON — After Congress' high-profile entry into the Terri Schiavo case,
most lawmakers responded in a low-key manner to Thursday's Supreme Court decision
not to intervene in the dispute, underscoring the delicate political nature of
the controversy.
The measured reactions came as polls showed public disapproval of Washington's
actions in the matter.
The terse statements from Capitol Hill on the Supreme Court's decision contrasted
with the spate of news conferences a week ago, when several lawmakers began pushing
legislation to allow federal courts to review the Schiavo case.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who spearheaded that drive, issued
a statement with House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
(R-Wis.) expressing "profound sadness and disappointment" over the court
decision. But they suggested there was nothing else that Congress could do in
the Schiavo case.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a physician who provoked controversy
with his medical comments about Schiavo's condition, issued a two-sentence statement
on the court decision, calling it a sad day for the woman's family and "for
their innocent and voiceless daughter."
His office later issued a longer statement saying that Frist's comments about
Schiavo on the Senate floor last week did not represent a diagnosis. His remarks
questioning the conclusion that Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state had
been widely interpreted as a diagnosis, and sparked criticism of Frist within
the medical community.
Thursday's statement said that Frist, a possible 2008 presidential candidate,
had sought to call attention to disagreement among doctors about her condition.
One of the stronger comments on the Supreme Court decision came from House Majority
Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who said he was "outraged" by what he called
a "dereliction of duty" by the justices.
Democratic leaders did not comment on the court decision, perhaps a reflection
of how the issue had divided their rank and file.
"This has got to be one of the most emotional, gut-wrenching issues that
Congress has debated for many years," said a Democratic senator's aide, who
asked not to be named.
The muted response from Capitol Hill to the court decision came as a CBS News
poll released Wednesday showed that 82% — including a majority of evangelicals
— disapproved of Congress' intervention in the case. Nearly three-fourths
of those surveyed expressed "widespread cynicism" about lawmakers' motives.
Polls earlier in the week also found majorities disapproving of the congressional
action.
Given the polls, members of both parties said it would be difficult for politicians
to highlight the Schiavo case in next year's House and Senate campaigns without
appearing to try to exploit a family's tragedy for political gain.
"I think it's tough for anybody to use as an election issue," said Carl
Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. "For
a lot of these members, it's personal."
But the case has emerged as an issue in at least one possible matchup in 2006.
Ron Klein, a Democratic state senator from Florida, assailed Rep. E. Clay Shaw
Jr. (R-Fla.) for missing the House vote on the Schiavo bill, which occurred Monday
morning, just past midnight. Klein, who plans to run for Shaw's seat, said, "19
of his colleagues from the Florida delegation were able to make it back to Washington
for this emergency session."
Shaw was in rural Alabama when the vote was called — more than 100 miles
away from the nearest airport, said Gail Gitcho, his press secretary. Had he been
able to make the vote, he would have supported the bill, she said.
Gitcho added, "It's unfortunate that anyone would try to score political
points at the expense of a family that is going through such an extremely difficult
time."
The Schiavo case is expected to fuel criticism of the federal judiciary by some
conservative groups, even though the Supreme Court is dominated by justices appointed
by GOP presidents, and a federal appeals court generally viewed as conservative
declined to intervene in the case.
"It reinforces the notion that when it comes to matters of social policy,
it is literally a matter of life and death in terms of who these judges are,"
said a Republican strategist, who asked not to be named.
Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, a conservative lobbying group
based in Washington, said the Schiavo case would help focus public attention on
the argument that the judicial system was out of step with traditional moral values.
"People would be hard-pressed not to come away with the idea that maybe we
do have a problem in the judiciary," Perkins said. "It adds to the overall
discussion and awareness of the problem."
Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at Duke University, expressed skepticism that
either party could use the Schiavo case for political gain.
"It is just too tragic a situation," he said. "My sense, therefore,
is it won't matter much politically. Republicans gained with their base [of social
conservatives], but that's about it."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times |
Top
How the Private Became Political
By Peter Wallsten | Los Angeles Times |March 20, 2005
CRAWFORD, Texas — Frenetic negotiations among congressional leaders, a special
weekend session and a hastily arranged trip back to Washington by the president
in the Terri Schiavo right-to-die case elevated a tragic personal issue into an
extraordinary political drama.
But at bottom, the flurry of activity reflected an everyday fact of political
life: When a powerful constituency cares passionately about something, all politicians
— whether Republicans or Democrats — yearn to respond.
In this instance, the constituency was evangelical Christian conservatives. They
played a pivotal role in reelecting President Bush and swelling GOP majorities
in both houses of Congress in November, and they have become a voting bloc as
essential to the GOP's new dominance as labor unions and minorities once were
to the Democratic Party.
And the pressure on Bush and Republican congressional leaders to respond in the
Schiavo case was all the greater because, during the first three months of the
president's second term, social conservatives had become increasingly unhappy
with what they saw as neglect of their concerns, such as banning same-sex marriage,
in favor of issues pushed by corporations: changing bankruptcy laws, curbing medical
malpractice awards and opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and
gas drilling.
"Our issues aren't on the front burner every day, but when they are on the
front burner it's on high," said Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional
Values Coalition. "This proves that Terri Schiavo was a front-burner issue."
The very fact that the case of one woman in Florida and the family quarrel over
her fate have reached the halls of Congress and captured the attention of the
president reflects the power of the evangelical base in setting an agenda, said
Richard Cizik, vice president of the National Assn. of Evangelicals. The Schiavo
case, he said, showed that social conservatives were as consumed with the end
of life as they were with life in the womb — and that the politicians were
following their lead.
Republicans' desire to respond to the Schiavo case in a highly visible way was
underscored Saturday night when the White House unexpectedly announced that Bush,
vacationing at his ranch near Crawford, Texas, would fly back to Washington to
sign the emergency legislation aiding Schiavo's parents in their effort to keep
her alive.
Schiavo — who has had severe neurological damage since 1990 when a chemical
imbalance stopped her heart and cut the oxygen supply to her brain — has
been at the center of a legal battle between her husband and her parents.
Her husband says Schiavo had told him that she would not wish to be kept alive
under dire circumstances.
The case, first taken up by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and anti-abortion activists
who viewed it as an issue aligned with their beliefs, has become a cause for evangelical
conservatives nationwide because they see assisted suicide and related procedures
as moral and religious issues of overriding importance.
Their commitment to the cause has been intensified by rising anger toward Schiavo's
husband and toward the Florida courts that sided with his position.
On Friday, the pressure on congressional Republicans escalated sharply when a
state judge ordered the feeding tube removed and a federal judge ruled that Schiavo's
parents had no legal standing in the federal court system.
The legislation that is expected to win emergency approval over the weekend would
give the parents standing in federal court, though it would not compel a federal
judge to take up the case.
As a backdrop to the dramatic weekend deliberations were the political implications
for several key players who could not afford to ignore the desires of the party
base.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is considered a candidate for his
party's presidential nomination in 2008. Frist, a physician, pushed his support
for action to the point of declaring — on the basis of television footage
— that he thought Schiavo might recover.
Gov. Bush, who has said he would not run for president in 2008, is still considered
a potential contender and has won accolades from evangelical leaders for his role
in the case. He discussed the matter with his brother on Friday, and the president's
decision to move aggressively could further solidify the governor's position with
the party's religious base.
For House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the case offered an opportunity to placate
a key constituency and divert attention from his continuing ethics problems. DeLay
had been avoiding attention much of last week but moved to the forefront of televised
appearances Friday and Saturday.
He heralded the negotiations that led to a bipartisan agreement to let the special
legislation come before the House and Senate on an emergency basis. And he took
the opportunity to personally take on Schiavo's husband.
But the overriding reason for the flurry of activity — activity that could
have little practical effect unless the federal courts agree to intervene —
was the now-established importance of the voters who were demanding action.
Schiavo's case first entered the political arena in 2003, when Gov. Bush, besieged
by petitions and e-mails from antiabortion activists, helped push through a state
law to prevent doctors from removing Schiavo's feeding tube. The law was overturned.
When other legal options seemed to run out — and the Friday deadline for
removing the feeding tube approached — the governor contacted the state's
new Republican senator, Mel Martinez, to push the matter with Congress.
Social conservatives began lobbying the issue in Washington, but some exploded
in anger late Friday when the House and Senate failed to reach an immediate agreement
and seemed prepared to let the matter drop rather than disrupt their plans for
the fast-approaching Easter recess. The message, as some conservatives saw it,
was that GOP leaders were more interested in their personal political goals than
the moral imperative of saving Schiavo's life.
"There are a lot of folks who helped create Republican majorities that were
pretty disgusted with what went down, and the inescapable reality was that while
they were dithering the tube got pulled," said Kenneth L. Connor, former
president of the conservative Family Research Council and the lawyer who represented
Gov. Bush in his efforts to keep Schiavo alive.
"That could have been avoided. The people who created this majority are interested
in product, not process."
The maneuvering was followed over the weekend by President Bush in Texas.
The president considered addressing the case for the first time on Friday, when,
by coincidence, he visited Florida at the same time doctors were removing the
feeding tube, said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), who spoke briefly about the case
with the president aboard Air Force One.
"The answer was not to do it, since the situation was so fluid with the House
and the Senate and the legal proceedings," Feeney said.
Feeney, who backs the measure, said the matter carries some political risk for
Republicans but that televised images in the coming days of a dehydrated and starving
Schiavo might spark "an epiphany for a lot of Americans who are undecided
or not paying attention to these issues."
Evangelical leader Cizik predicted that the Schiavo case would be among the first
of many to present similar issues.
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times | Top
THE GUARDIAN
Parents' Side Has Vilified Husband
The decreasing legal options for those who want Terri Schiavo kept alive are 'clearly
fueling the fires' of anger, a psychology expert says.
By Carol J. Williams | Los Angeles Times | March 24, 2005
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. — "Michael, why are you afraid to let Terri live?"
The sign outside Woodside Hospice, where Terri Schiavo has been without food or
water for six days, hints at the villainous motives protesters ascribe to her
husband, Michael, in his quest to let her die after 15 years in what doctors have
called a persistent vegetative state.
Demonized by his in-laws, antiabortion activists and the religious right, Michael
Schiavo has become the target of accusations that he caused her heart attack and
collapse with abusive, violent behavior; that he fabricated the story that she
wouldn't want to live this way only after collecting more than $1 million in a
malpractice claim; that he has sabotaged her therapy and barred her friends and
family from comforting visits; and that he wants her to die so he can marry a
woman with whom he has lived for the last few years and fathered two children.
Michael Schiavo has vehemently denied the accusations of abuse, greed and heartlessness
in interviews and to investigators, and an independent report to Gov. Jeb Bush
and the judicial system two years ago said "the evidence is incontrovertible
that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care."
Terri Schiavo, now 41, suffered a heart attack Feb. 25, 1990, the result of a
potassium imbalance brought on by an eating disorder.
The heart attack temporarily cut off oxygen to her brain. Schiavo, now severely
brain-damaged, can breathe on her own, but cannot eat or drink.
The exhaustive 2003 report by Jay Wolfson, professor of public health and medicine
at the University of South Florida, noted that Schiavo took his wife to California
for experimental treatment in fall 1990, when a thalamic stimulator was implanted
in her brain. Some neurologists now consider that an obstacle to further MRI scans
to assess her brain function.
Wolfson further detailed the chain of events that led to a falling-out between
Michael Schiavo and his in-laws, Bob and Mary Schindler, after four years of extensive
treatment led doctors to conclude that Terri Schiavo had no meaningful connection
with her surroundings or prospects for improvement.
In these waning days of the conflict over who has the right to make a life-or-death
decision for Terri Schiavo, neither medical facts nor judicial rulings have lessened
the vitriol from those who have sought to demonize her husband for his contention
that she wouldn't want to live this way.
And with each passing day, the animosity has ratcheted higher and the characterizations
of Michael Schiavo have taken on an increasingly vicious tone.
"He's blocked her parents from visiting for months on end. He won't allow
the shades to be opened in her room, so she's in total darkness. He was a loving
husband only for as long as it took to get the malpractice money, and now he just
wants to get rid of her," charged Carol Rubright, a Port Charlotte resident
who makes the nearly two-hour trip to the hospice daily to show solidarity with
the Schindlers.
The 1993 medical malpractice award in response to a petition filed by Michael
Schiavo on his wife's behalf created a trust in which $750,000 was deposited for
Terri Schiavo's medical care and upkeep and $300,000 went to her husband for his
suffering and loss. Most of the treatment funds have been spent in the nearly
12 years since the award.
Wolfson's report said there was "no evidence in the record of the trust administration
documents of any mismanagement of Theresa's estate, and the records on this matter
are excellently maintained."
Crowd psychology experts say demonizing those with opposing views is common in
such highly emotional confrontations as abortion rights and end-of-life decisions.
"This definitely tends to intensify over time," said Jack Aiello, a
Rutgers University psychology professor. Noting that judicial decisions have come
down against those seeking to prolong Terri Schiavo's life, Aiello said their
decreasing options are "clearly fueling the fires."
"The more strongly one side's beliefs are held, the more likely it is to
perceive the other side as an exaggeration of all that is wrong," he said
of those who oppose Michael Schiavo's position and accuse him of planning celebrations
after his wife's demise.
The attacks on his character have become talk-show fodder and high-profile commentary,
from the Wall Street Journal's editorial pages to website chat rooms and morning
drive-time call-ins. It has also raised the emotional temperature among those
standing vigil outside the hospice, where 60 to 80 protesters chant and sing in
hopes that Terri Schiavo's life will be extended and where a handful of right-to-die
advocates denounce the intrusions.
Some have come to the husband's defense, despite the overwhelming sentiment against
him at the vigil.
"Michael has done everything possible for Terri over the years," said
registered nurse Angie Olson, who doesn't know Schiavo personally but has worked
with his colleagues.
"He was a respiratory therapist before she had the accident, and you can't
tell me they never talked about life-and-death decisions. That is something he
would have been dealing with every day."
Michael Schiavo has given few interviews and could not be reached Wednesday, as
he was reportedly in the family quarters of the hospice to spend time by his wife's
bedside — alternating with her parents and siblings. But in an interview
with the St. Petersburg Times last week at the offices of his lawyers, Schiavo,
a 41-year-old nurse, said one of the most painful elements of the controversy
over his wife's future was the accusation by his in-laws that he had mistreated
her. "None of it is true," he told the paper in the March 16 interview.
Other attempts this week to reach Michael Schiavo and his attorney, George J.
Felos, were unsuccessful. No one answered a knock at Schiavo's Clearwater home,
and Felos' voice mail was full, rejecting further messages.
Michael Schiavo's brother, Brian, has also been critical of the government intrusions
and activist smearings, telling a Fox TV interviewer that they "should be
ashamed of themselves" for making a painful and emotional situation worse.
But most of those sporadically standing vigil outside the hospice as courts considered
conflicting legal motions described the man who is Terri Schiavo's legal guardian
as well as her husband of 20 years as evil incarnate.
He is compared with Scott Peterson, convicted of killing his pregnant wife, to
Nazi proponents of euthanizing the infirm, to Southern racists who sought to deprive
fellow citizens of constitutional protections. Posters abound with provocative
barbs such as, "Is Florida the Next Auschwich [sic]?" and "Michael,
are you partying yet?"
Terri Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, has used the spotlight to draw attention
to claims that his sister suffered bone fractures and other abuses. A state court
this month rejected a state agency's effort to investigate, saying the allegations
had previously been found to be groundless.
The round-the-clock protest of legal rulings against further medical intervention
has become, day by day and one appeal after another, an incubator for vilifying
Michael Schiavo and for exploring conspiracy theories.
Some have come from the Schindlers themselves. In a petition filed Feb. 28 seeking
a divorce for their daughter, they contended that her marriage to Michael Schiavo
was "irretrievably broken" because he had committed adultery and undermined
his wife's care and comfort.
Michael Schiavo met Theresa Marie Schindler in 1982, when she was a 19-year-old
freshman at Bucks County Community College in Pennsylvania and he was preparing
for a career in nursing. They married in November 1984, and Michael Schiavo was
initially so close to his in-laws that the newlyweds lived in their home and moved
with them to Florida less than two years later.
Conservative groups and disabled advocacy organizations have disseminated garish
parodies of the husband they see as relishing his wife's potential demise. "I,
Michael Schiavo, Am Starving My Wife Today (and I feel good)," said the headline
of a mock letter distributed by a group called the Hospice Patients Alliance.In
the St. Petersburg Times interview, Schiavo accused lawmakers of "pandering
to the religious groups and the antiabortion groups and the Christian Coalition.
They're doing this for the votes," he concluded. A few of those gathered
outside the hospice this week supported the beleaguered husband and his cause
of allowing his wife to escape what they believe is a life of hopeless incapacity.
Said Tim Harmon, a Tampa hairstylist hoisting an "I support Michael Schiavo"
poster in the hostile crowd: "I think they're desperate and that's why they
are making all of these appalling accusations. If there was any truth to them,
why didn't they mention it years ago?"
--------------------------------------------
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times | Top
POLITICAL AFTERMATH
Some in GOP Fear Effort May Alienate Voters
Advocates of smaller government could be turned off, analysts say. But others
insist the action will inspire religious conservatives.
By Janet Hook | Los Angeles Times| March 22, 2005
WASHINGTON — The extraordinary steps taken by congressional Republicans to
save the life of Terri Schiavo have won plaudits from evangelical Christians and
other conservative activists, but some Republicans worry about a potential backlash
among others who view the intervention as an overbearing use of government power.
Just as Congress passed and President Bush signed legislation allowing federal
courts to review whether Schiavo's feeding tube should be withdrawn, a poll by
ABC News found that 70% of those surveyed believed congressional intervention
was inappropriate.
Though some GOP strategists have argued that the issue is a political winner for
the party because it appeals to religious conservatives, other Republicans warn
that the bold maneuver risks alienating swing voters as well as Republicans worried
about government invasions of individual privacy.
"It goes beyond shameless politics," said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican
pollster. "It becomes a more crystallized proof point that we are no longer
the party of smaller government. We have become a party of 'It doesn't matter
what size government is as long as it is imposing our set of values.' "
Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), before voting against the bill Bush later signed,
asked: "How deep is this Congress going to reach into the personal lives
of each and every one of us?"
Still, some Republican analysts say the immediate poll results — and the
concerns raised by Shays and others — are not politically significant because
the activists pushing to keep Schiavo alive care more passionately than those
opposing that view.
"Intensity matters," said Gary Bauer, a conservative leader who ran
for the GOP presidential nomination in 2000. "The people who know the most
about this controversy are the most likely to believe" that Schiavo should
be allowed to live.
The Schiavo controversy does not split lawmakers or the country strictly along
ideological lines; many people are influenced as much by their personal experiences
as they are by political leanings.
The decisive legislative action on the Schiavo controversy is widely viewed within
the political community as a show of strength for social conservatives, who are
preparing for even bigger congressional battles.
Many of the activists are urging GOP leaders to move more aggressively this spring
to win confirmation of Bush's judicial nominees.
They argue that the Schiavo case reinforces the importance of placing conservatives
in the judiciary.
"This is just one more perfect portrait of why we need to have fair and just
men on the bench," said Lanier Swann, director of government relations for
Concerned Women of America, a conservative group that has made the Schiavo case
a priority.
Bauer said the Schiavo controversy was the beginning of a much larger debate that
would shape U.S. politics for years to come.
"We're on the cusp of a really gigantic national debate about life and advances
in medicine," Bauer said. The Schiavo controversy "touches in a very
important way in the whole debate on the sanctity of life, and it will encourage
voters to believe that it is something Republicans feel strongly about."
The fight over whether to remove the feeding tube that has kept Schiavo alive
since a heart malfunction caused severe neurological damage in 1990 has become
a cause celebre for the Christian evangelicals and antiabortion activists who
were crucial to Bush's reelection.
The issue came to a head in an extraordinary weekend session of Congress, when
lawmakers were recalled from spring recess to vote on a bill to allow Schiavo's
parents to bring the case to federal court.
The political advantages of pursuing the legislation were trumpeted in a GOP staff
memo circulated in the Senate late last week, although Senate Majority Leader
Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said he had no knowledge of the memo.
"This is a great political issue," the memo said, because it puts Democrats
in a difficult position and because "the pro-life base will be very excited
that the Senate is debating this important issue."
But the ABC poll, conducted by telephone Sunday as Congress was acting, found
that 63% supported removal of Schiavo's feeding tube and 28% opposed it.
The poll also found that among Republicans, Congress' action did not win strong
backing. According to the poll, 58% of Republicans believed the intervention in
the case was inappropriate, and 61% supported removing Schiavo's tube.
The survey's margin of error for its entire sample of 501 adults was plus or minus
4.5 percentage points.
Among the Republicans surveyed, the margin of error was plus or minus 8 points.
The legislation passed the Senate on Sunday under the chamber's unanimous consent
rules. Three senators were on the floor — Frist, Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and
John W. Warner (R-Va.).
In the House, the bill passed at 12:45 a.m. EST Monday, 203 to 58, with 174 members
not voting. Supporting it were 156 Republicans and 47 Democrats; opposing it were
five Republicans and 53 Democrats.
Some of the conservative critics of Congress' action say the issue goes to the
core of what kind of party the GOP will become. They worry it will further erode
the party's commitment to limiting the role of the federal government.
"Conservatives who have criticized the idea that Washington should run everything
ought to be sheepish" about getting involved in the Schiavo case, said David
Boaz, an analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
-----------------------------------------
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times | Top
List of Schiavo Donors
Will Be Sold by Direct-Marketing Firm
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and JOHN SCHWARTZ | The New York Times | March 29, 2005
WASHINGTON, March 28 - The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative
direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely
that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of
solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups.
"These compassionate pro-lifers donated toward Bob Schindler's legal battle
to keep Terri's estranged husband from removing the feeding tube from Terri,"
says a description of the list on the Web site of the firm, Response Unlimited,
which is asking $150 a month for 6,000 names and $500 a month for 4,000 e-mail
addresses of people who responded last month to an e-mail plea from Ms. Schiavo's
father. "These individuals are passionate about the way they value human
life, adamantly oppose euthanasia and are pro-life in every sense of the word!"
Privacy experts said the sale of the list was legal and even predictable, if ghoulish.
"I think it's amusing," said Robert Gellman, a privacy and information
policy consultant. "I think it's absolutely classic America. Everything is
for sale in America, every type of personal information."
Executives of Response Unlimited declined to comment. Gary McCullough, director
of the Christian Communication Network and a spokesman for Ms. Schiavo's parents,
confirmed that Mr. Schindler had agreed to let Response Unlimited rent out the
list as part of a deal for the firm to send an e-mail solicitation raising money
on the family's behalf.
The Schindlers have waged a lengthy legal battle against their son-in-law Michael
Schiavo to prevent the removal of the feeding tube from their daughter, who doctors
say is in a persistent vegetative state.
Mr. McCullough said he was present when Mr. Schindler agreed to the arrangement
in a conversation with Phil Sheldon, the co-founder of a conservative online marketing
organization, RightMarch.com, who acted as a broker for Response Unlimited.
"So the Schindlers do know the details," Mr. McCullough said on Monday.
How much attention they paid to the matter is hard to assess, he added. "The
Schindlers right now know that their daughter is starving to death, and if I ask
about anything else, they say, 'I don't want to hear about it.' "
Direct mail and mass e-mailings are ubiquitous fund-raising tools of interest
groups on the left as well as the right, and others in the direct-mail business
defended the sale of lists like the roster of donors to the Schindlers as a useful
way for potential donors to learn of causes that might appeal to them.
Pamela Hennessy, an unpaid spokeswoman for the Schindlers, said she was initially
appalled when she learned of the list's existence.
"It is possibly the most distasteful thing I have ever seen," Ms. Hennessy
said. "Everybody is making a buck off of her."
Ms. Hennessy, who operates the Schindlers' Web site, www.terrisfight.org, said
the family had not released any of the names or e-mail addresses gathered there.
"Obviously these people are enterprising, and they are taking advantage of
this very desperate father," she said.
On Sunday, as the Schindlers gave up on their legal battle and their daughter
passed her 10th day without food, others continued to rally supporters and solicit
money in an effort to restore the feeding tube.
"This time, we have a real chance to break through the 'roadblocks' that
the enemies of life have been putting up in front of us," said a mass e-mailing
from RightMarch.com, asking supporters to urge Gov. Jeb Bush to intervene somehow.
The message added: "We're asking you to give a donation to help with our
activism efforts to save Terri's life. Battles cost money; resources cost money;
media costs money; we could go on, but you get the picture."
Mr. Sheldon - whose father, the Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values
Coalition, has also sent appeals urging support for Ms. Schiavo - apparently played
a dual role as a partner in RightMarch.com, which is working with the anti-abortion
activist Randall Terry, and as a broker for Response Unlimited. Mr. Sheldon did
not respond to phone calls yesterday.
"I think it sounds a little unusual right now because of the situation where
she is in the process of dying," said Richard Viguerie, another major conservative
direct-mail operator. "If you came across this information six months or
a year from now, I don't think you would give it too much thought."
------------------------------------------
Copyright 2005 The New York Times
New Order of Catholic
Priests Is Forming to Fight Abortions
By Scott Gold | Los Angeles Times Staff | March 31, 2005
AMARILLO, Texas — The Roman Catholic Church plans to establish its first
religious society devoted exclusively to fighting euthanasia and abortion, church
leaders said this week.
The male-only Missionaries of the Gospel of Life — founded by Father Frank
A. Pavone, an outspoken opponent of abortion rights — will be housed in a
vacant Catholic high school and dormitory on the grounds of the Diocese of Amarillo.
The order will have a decidedly political bent, and will be active rather than
contemplative, Pavone said.
Its priests will be trained to conduct voter-registration drives, use the media
to get out their antiabortion message and lobby lawmakers to restrict abortion
rights.
They also will learn to lead demonstrations outside offices where abortions and
family-planning services are provided.
"There is a difference between knowing the teachings and knowing how to effectively
advance a movement," Pavone said.
In recent months, Pavone has been focused on marshaling religious conservatives
around Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman whose feeding tube was removed
March 18.
Pavone also is director of an association of antiabortion priests called Priests
for Life.
In a prepared statement outlining his plan, Pavone called abortion the "fundamental
human-rights issue of our day."
"The church finds herself battling a plague as spiritually fatal as any she
has ever fought before — the plague of the culture of death," Pavone
wrote.
The society will begin accepting priests and seminarians this summer, Pavone said,
with training to start in the fall. Activists and other members of the lay community
probably will be trained there as well.
The priest said he had received "a couple of hundred e-mails and calls"
from young men interested in joining the society; a document sent to church leaders
that outlined Pavone's plan suggested the number of priests could be "40
or 400."
The Catholic Church already has similar organizations. In 1991, the late Cardinal
John O'Connor of New York established a women's religious community called Sisters
of Life, dedicated to "protecting and advancing a sense of the sacredness
of human life."
But, Pavone said, this is the first time the church has established an apostolic
society for priests who will concentrate exclusively on abortion and euthanasia.
The society will be funded through private donations, Amarillo Bishop John W.
Yanta said, and is being established with the knowledge and blessing of the Vatican.
In a statement from Rome, Cardinal Renato Martino, the head of the Vatican's Pontifical
Council for Justice and Peace, said the new order "may be just what the world
of today needs."
The society's priests will be given the general mission of "preaching and
teaching the pro-life message effectively," Pavone said.
They also will "bring healing and forgiveness" to those who have had
abortions and will provide what they describe as counseling services to women
who are "tempted to abort their child," he said.
According to the Internal Revenue Service, churches risk losing their tax-exempt
status if they endorse or oppose political candidates.
But they can adopt political positions and, to a limited degree, lobby to influence
legislation.
Antiabortion organizations applauded establishment of the Missionaries of the
Gospel of Life. Cheryl Sullenger, outreach coordinator for Operation Rescue, said
that although some of the group's supporters were Catholic, it sometimes had a
difficult time coordinating activities with the church.
"To have an extra avenue into the Catholic church would be very beneficial
to our work," she said.
But in a prepared statement, Planned Parenthood of Amarillo and the Texas Panhandle
expressed concerns that the society could attract extremists who might resort
to violence to further the antiabortion cause.
Planned Parenthood said it feared that people trained by the society would use
hardball tactics against healthcare providers, such as organizing clinic blockades.
Healthcare professionals and women's right advocates often criticize such tactics
as acts of intimidation intended to shame women who already are facing difficult
decisions
If there is increased activity of that sort, Planned Parenthood said, money likely
will be diverted from healthcare to security. And if women are afraid to go to
area clinics, the number of unintended pregnancies could rise, the group's statement
said.
Yanta, the bishop of Amarillo, scoffed at the notion that the society might invite
violence, but said it would not shy away from aggressive strategies. "We
are living in a very secular culture," Yanta said. "There are many institutions
that think they are the center of the world. Jesus Christ should be the center.
We are going to act like Jesus. Jesus wasn't afraid of controversy."
Although the order's mission would be to fight for an end to abortion, other facets
of the "culture of death" — such as euthanasia and the death penalty,
both of which are opposed by the church — also would be addressed, Yanta
said.
The establishment of such a specialized religious society surprised some church
observers, who noted that the church was struggling to address a shortage of priests.
"It's certainly not going to help," said Sister Christine Schenk, executive
director of FutureChurch.
The Cleveland organization advocates loosening church laws — including eliminating
celibacy requirements for priests — to draw more people into the priesthood
and attract a wider group of followers.
Schenk said she would support the establishment of the society, provided that
its priests addressed the full spectrum of church life.
Yanta said some priests would eventually be sent out to perform more general parish
duties, although they would maintain a special focus on abortion.
Pavone said he believed the society would draw more people to the priesthood because
abortion was such a passionate cause to so many people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
Anger Likely to Shift
to Judiciary
Conservative criticism of court rulings in the case indicates that the war
by the GOP and Democrats over nominations is likely to escalate.
NEWS ANALYSIS | By Ronald Brownstein | Los Angeles Times | April
1, 2005
WASHINGTON — Conservative lawmakers' denunciations of the courts on Thursday
signaled that Terri Schiavo's death was likely to escalate the war between the
parties over President Bush's judicial nominations.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) —
two leading advocates of congressional intervention in the case — criticized
the state and federal courts involved following the death of the Florida woman.
"This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who
need protection most, and that will change," DeLay said. "The time will
come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today,"
he said, referring to the judges.
Santorum called repeated decisions by courts that blocked efforts to keep Schiavo
alive "unconscionable."
Her death may also intensify conservatives' demands that Senate Republicans rewrite
the chamber's rules to eliminate the Democratic filibusters that have blocked
confirmation of some of Bush's federal judicial nominees. Critics call that the
"nuclear option."
The Schiavo case "will animate and bring more emotion into the view held
by many conservatives already that the courts are rewriting the Constitution to
suit their own value system," said Gary Bauer, a social conservative activist.
"The case provided an additional spur, if they needed any, to move ahead"
with prohibiting filibusters for judicial nominees.
Yet Democrats and their allies believe Schiavo's death simultaneously weakens
the GOP hand in that dispute. Democrats are preparing to link the Republican move
against filibusters with Washington's last-minute effort to require additional
judicial review in the Schiavo case — a step polls showed was opposed by
a large majority of Americans.
Rewriting Senate rules "would be yet another demonstration of the fact that
if Republicans don't like the rules, they are prepared to change the rules,"
said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Many of the leading figures in the political debate over Schiavo limited their
comments Thursday largely to comforting her family.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a surgeon who faced criticism for
appearing to second-guess the diagnosis of doctors in the case, said that he would
"pray for her mother and father, her family and all those involved in this
regrettable loss of life."
The president was slightly more expansive, urging "all those who honor Terri
Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life."
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) issued a statement consoling the family, but
condemning DeLay's statement as "irresponsible and reprehensible."
Kennedy implied that DeLay was inciting violence against judges and called on
him to make clear he was not. Dan Allen, DeLay's spokesman, described Kennedy's
charge as "absolutely over the top [and] unbelievable."
Strategists in both parties were left to wonder about the political implications
of a case that has dominated media attention for two weeks. The consensus is that
the dispute's specifics are likely to fade for most voters before the midterm
elections in 2006 and the 2008 presidential race.
Yet the controversy may reverberate in other ways.
The House's initial response to the Schiavo case was to pass a bill offering a
right for review in federal courts in all cases when the family cannot agree on
care for "incapacitated individuals." But the Senate rejected that broader
approach, insisting on legislation affecting only the Schiavo case.
If conservatives now press the Senate to reconsider, they may face an uphill battle,
especially after the polls found strong public opposition to Washington's intervention
in the Schiavo case.
The first measure of Senate interest should come on Wednesday, when the Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee conducts a hearing to explore these issues.
Craig Orfield, spokesman for the Republican majority, said the committee was "just
beginning the dialogue … about whether there is a need for legislation."
The next impact may be felt if Frist and other Republican leaders launch the bid
to change Senate rules to prevent filibusters from being used to thwart judicial
appointments.
It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. Although most of Bush's judicial nominees
have won confirmation, Democrats have used the filibuster, or the threat of one,
to block 10 who they charged were too conservative.
Without a filibuster, the judges would win confirmation with 51 votes.
Critics call this procedural change "the nuclear option" because it
would end the right to unlimited debate that has characterized the Senate since
the very first Congress — and could also provoke Democratic retaliation that
stalls action in the chamber.
Many observers agree with Bauer that the federal courts' refusal to order the
reconnection of Schiavo's feeding tube probably will engage social conservatives
more deeply in the judicial battle, even though Republican-appointed judges provided
critical support for the key decisions in the case.
Conversely, Senate Democrats and their allies now may be more likely to cite the
Schiavo case to support their effort to block some of Bush's most conservative
appointments.
"I think it has tremendously strengthened the idea that you need an independent
judiciary," said Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal group People for
the American Way.
The case's longer-term political impact may pivot on whether some voters are antagonized
by the influence of religious conservatives within the GOP that was demonstrated
by the Schiavo case.
The controversy aggravated long-standing but recently dormant tensions inside
the Republican party.
Libertarian conservatives, such as Grover Norquist, president of Americans for
Tax Reform, portrayed Washington's intervention as a violation of Republican efforts
to reduce the size and reach of the federal government.
The case also reinforced the concerns of GOP social moderates that the party has
identified too closely with the agenda of religious conservatives on a broad range
of issues, from a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage to the imposition
of strict limits on public support for embryonic stem cell research.
The most pointed critique along these lines came from John C. Danforth, a former
Republican senator from Missouri who served as Bush's U.N. ambassador during his
first term. In a New York Times op-ed piece this week, Danforth charged that with
initiatives such as the Schiavo legislation, "Republicans have transformed
our party into the political arm of conservative Christians."
Yet given the central role that evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives
play in the GOP coalition, many experts doubt that the concerns expressed by Danforth
and others would have much impact.
A post-election survey by the University of Akron found that Bush received 40%
of his vote in November from evangelical Protestants; traditionalist Catholics,
who often hold conservative views similar to evangelicals on political issues,
provided another 8%. By contrast, Bush received about 25% of his vote from mainline
Protestants, the party's historic base, who tend to take more moderate positions
on social issues.
"Evangelicals and other traditional Christians are too big a piece of the
GOP base to ignore," said John C. Green, a political scientist at the University
of Akron who specializes in religion and politics.
--------------------------------------
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
Much later, Professor Stanley Fish in his New York Times blog (Oct.22,2006), "Tip to Professors," writing
about another controversy cited the Schiavo case:
.... " Any course of instruction, especially in the social sciences and
humanities, will touch on deep moral and political issues. The materials students
are asked to read will be fraught with them. Wouldn’t it be impossible
to avoid discussing these issues without trivializing and impoverishing the
classroom experience? No, it’s easy. You don’t have to ignore or ban
moral and political questions. What you have to do is regard them as objects
of study rather than as alternatives you and your students might take a stand
on.
That is, instead of asking questions like “What should be done?” or
“Who is in the right?” you ask, “What are the origins of this
controversy?” or “What relationship does it have to controversies
taking place in other areas of inquiry?” or “What is the structure
of argument on both sides?” I have coined an ugly word for this way of
turning politically charged matters into the stuff of academic investigation.
The word is academicize. To academicize a topic is to detach it from the context
of its real-world urgency, where there is a decision to be made, and re-insert
it into a context of an academic urgency, where there is an analysis to be performed.
Take, for example, the Terry Schiavo tragedy. There was hardly anyone in the
country who didn’t have an opinion about what should be done and who should
do it. How might one go about academicizing something so freighted with moral,
political and theological implications? In my classroom I discuss the Terry
Schiavo case as a contemporary example of a tension that has structured American
political thought from the founding to this day; the tension between substantive
justice – justice done in response to some vision of right and wrong –
and procedural justice – justice derived from formal rules laying out the
steps to be taken and specifying the people authorized to take them. On the
one side were those who asked, “What is the moral thing to do here?”
and on the other, those who asked, “Who is legally entitled to make the
relevant decisions, irrespective of whether we find those decisions morally
satisfying.”
After having identified these two ways of looking at the matter, I trace their
sources in the work of political philosophers from John Locke to John Rawls.
And as this line of inquiry is extended, the concern to render a moral and political
judgment is replaced by the concern to fully comprehend and describe a phenomenon.
The subject has been academicized.
Anything can be academicized and everything in the classroom should be, but
this injunction will be resisted by those who believe that the purpose of higher
education is to transform students into exemplary moral and political people
(as opposed to people who simply know more). That goal is both unworkable and
misguided; unworkable because it is impossible to control what students will
do with the instruction they receive, and misguided because it forsakes the
genuine pleasure of intellectual inquiry – the pleasure of trying to figure
something out – for the hallucinogenic pleasure of trying to improve the
world. Improving the world is a good thing and I would dissuade no one from
the effort. Just don’t do it as a substitute for what you are paid to do.
Just do your job."
Top
| Group | Bonding | Pep
Talk | Home