Does the Media Know that Bush's Texas Law Is Allowing Deaths?

Update [2005-3-21 0:41:43 by Armando]: Extended use of original material with permission of the author.

A facetious question (I hope so anyway.) From Digby:

By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.

Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schiavo's because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.

And those of us who read liberal blogs also know that this grandstanding by the congress is a purely political move designed to appease the religious right and that the legal maneuverings being employed would be anathema to any true small government conservative.

Those who don't read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is "stepping in to save Terry Schiavo" mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain.

This is why we cannot trust the mainstream media. Most people get their news from television. And television is presenting this issue as a round the clock one dimensional soap opera pitting the "family", the congress and the church against this woman's husband and the judicial system that upheld Terry Schiavo's right and explicit request that she be allowed to die if extraordinary means were required to keep her alive. The ghoulish infotainment industry is making a killing by acceding once again to trumped up right wing sensationalism.

What he said. More Digby on the flip.

This issue gets to the essence of the culture war. Shall the state be allowed to interfere in the most delicate, complicated personal matters of life, death and health because a particular religious constituency holds that their belief system should override each individual's right to make these personal decisions for him or herself. And it isn't the allegedly statist/communist/socialist left that is agitating for the government to tell Americans how they must live and how they must die.

One of the things that we need to help America understand is that there is a big difference between the way the two parties perceive the role of government in its citizens personal lives. Democrats want the government to collect money from all its citizens in order to deliver services to the people. The Republicans want the government to collect money from working people in order to dictate individual citizen's personal decisions. You tell me which is the bigger intrusion into the average American's liberty?

Digby and I and others have been advocating a polarizing political strategy of exposing the extremism that is today's GOP. I agree with Digby that this travesty is Exhibit A of why this is the right way to go.

•  i've got the answer

  We need legislation to exclude Florida from the Union. Quick, call Congress in from recess.

  by thirdparty on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:10:47 PM PDT

  •  add texas

    to that idea.  i've always advocated cutting both of them lose -- florida to cuba/haiti and texas to mexico.  

    by bkny on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:14:01 PM PDT

    •  Um, who gets Mississippi?

      by gmb on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:23:41 PM PDT

      •  I'll give you Delaware and see you a

        Connecticut!

        by Barbara H on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:13:12 PM PDT

        •  Hi...quick Hannity question

          What have you been able to find out about him pre 1996?

          I've found nothing other than a weak bio stating he got an electrician's license in the 80s.

          We need to Gannonize him.

          The Freedom Alliance and Ollie North are dubious friends to have IMO.

          It might be easier to take him down if we find out who the hell he is.

          Anyway back to the thread....

          Go Armando!!
          

          by AnonymousArmy on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:16:22 PM PDT

          •  He was in Alabama

            He worked for a tiny talk-radio station in Huntsville, AL during the late eighties and maybe into the early 90's.

            Here's the station link that touts the goober.  We were at least happy here in North Alabama to have him gone, but apologize for foisting him off on the rest of the country!

            http://www.wvnn.com/Host/ContentCache/4.html
            

            by countrycat on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 06:49:35 AM PDT

          •  there isn't a whole lot handy...

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Hannity

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones
            (ok there's not much there but it's worth a read)

            http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01?_HANNITY_SEAN_

            http://www.hannity.com/
            (you never know what someone'll leave dangling..)

            by blogopogo on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 11:35:20 PM PDT

  •  How about you just give Florida ...

    ...back to us Seminoles and Mikosukees?

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:23:32 PM PDT

    •  Ahhh...

      I was beginning to think I might actually have to leave this shit hole...
      But..as long as the Indians are in control I think I'll be ok.
      See ya later, suckas!

      Ryan from Bradenton, Fl...home of the World Famous Linger Lodge

      by god less force on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:29:39 PM PDT

    •  i'm surpirsed

      you'd even want it back at this point. ;)

      It's as if Florida and Texas are the dual loci of lunacy and evil (respectively) that are propelling the American empire towards whatever very bad place it's eventually headed.

      by thirdparty on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:37:44 PM PDT

  •  hey now none of this usa out of the un dish

    try and see the difference between floridians and the jerks who rule over them at the moment.  plenty of folks there fought pretty hard to get the election out from under the corruption at the top, we should be giving them way more help instead of trashing them; we'll need the experienced help as more states fall prey to the mutating franchise of "grassroots" electoral fraud.

    by blogopogo on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 09:27:00 PM PDT

•  AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  He said it all.  I can't BELIEVE that this is happening.  I truly cannot believe it.  While Senators like Harry Reid travel to Iraq to see the true state of the "war" politicians like Delay have all the time in the world to grandstand.  What CAN BE DONE????

  by jenhoward on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:13:53 PM PDT

  •  THIS is what I am doing--Blogswarming..

    The The Democracy Cell Project and Majikthise are doing a blogswarm of the media.

    The media has not reported at all on Bush's law, or the fact that DeLay's district had a black baby removed from a feeding tube last week, with nary a peep for the Bugman.  Push them to report the hypocrisy.  Click on the link and follow the directions.

    by jibsail on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:31:46 PM PDT

    •  Blogswarm addresses:

      [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

      Courtesy of Majikthise

      by Radiowalla on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:04:32 PM PDT

      •  what I sent

        to all the addresses on the list:

        I am writing to express my grave concern with the course that Terri Schiavo's case has taken over the last several days.  The decisions about her care should always have been a private matter between her and her husband.  All the doctors involved and all the courts that have reviewed the case over the last 8 years have agreed that her husband has the right to interpret her wishes as her legal next of kin and as the person who knows/knew her best.

        The religious right is being unbelievably hypocritical in (at least) two enormous ways:

        First, they are invading what should be the sanctity of marriage - something they claim to care deeply about - to reverse a private, personal decision.

        Second, they are claiming to care about the life of this woman - against her husband's wishes and her own -  in Florida when George W. Bush himself signed a law in Texas the "Texas Futile Care Law" which expressly gives hospitals permission to cease providing life support for those who can't pay if the hospital decides they have no chance of recovery.   A baby was taken off life support against his mother's wishes in Tom Delay's district just last week.

        No one here is "saving Terri Schiavo's life."  The protesters, the parents, and now the Congress of the United States are interfering with the private wishes of a woman and her husband's desire to carry those wishes out.

        I hope the media will cover the real facts of this issue, not just the noise of the protestors and the spin of the religious right.

        (if you want to send and don't have time to compose your own, feel free to copy any of mine if you deem it worthy, wordy though it is)

        by Bec H on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:30:17 PM PDT

        •  My LTE

          Steal at will:
          

          
          If Terry Schiavo lived in Texas she'd be dead by now, like the baby disconnected from life support a few days ago against its mother's wishes. That's because Governor George W. Bush signed a law letting hospitals pull the plug on patients who can't pay their bills. More recently, the Republican Congress voted to cut off Medicaid assistance for the kind of care Terry receives, and its tort "reform" would eliminate the malpractice payments that have kept Terry alive so far. So why are Republicans clapping their hands over Schiavo's tragedy and celebrating, in their words, "a great political issue?" Because Republicans have proven that, with a little smoke and mirrors, they can play the "right to life" lobby for a sucker every time.
          

          by Smallbottle on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 07:33:57 AM PDT

        •  First, they are invading what should be the

          sanctity of marriage - something they claim to care deeply about - to reverse a private, personal decision

          I believe the sanctity of that marriage went out the window shortly after she had her heart attack.  But I don't read much in this blog about his girlfriend, their two children and the settlement he won after her illness.  

          So when Bush "let's the baby die" in Texas he's a jerk.  When he works to save Terri, he's a jerk. I'll bet if he just stayed out of it he would still be a jerk, right?

          In what way would your life be adversely affected if someone were to give Terri some water?  How would letting her parents care for her make this world a lesser place to live?

          Americans see one stupid movie about euthanasia and can't wait to start pulling plugs.  God (or another higher being) help us if their is ever a movie about killing bloggers  whose life is no longer worth living!

          Letting her die might be the right thing to do but  leave the sanctity of marriage out of it this time.

          Lying with his eyes while his hands are busy
          Working overtime
          A soap impression of his wife which he ate
          And donated to the Nation Trust.
          LM

          by larry b on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 07:22:43 PM PDT

      •  Revelation

        I'm looking at the Blogswarm media contacts (I sent off a few e-mails) and I'm thinking ...Left wing-Right wing Left wing Right wing. Vis-a-vis the MSM, we are in seperate (but unequal) echo chambers now aren't we.... In the land of the blind the one eyed man is lame....How do we, How does any culture pull the plug on the propaganda?
        Religious Tryannies last longer, don't they.

        by sooner on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 11:21:11 PM PDT

      •  Thank you for posting...

        Majikthise link in the active form.  I kept trying, but I kept making a mistake, although I managed to get it to work on the ahloscn places I posted, Anyway, thank you.

        by jibsail on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 12:27:00 AM PDT

      •  Suzanne Malveaux

        Just heard her mention the 1999 legislation in passing of course today at 10:00 am. The White House says that this is a very special case--who told them that? That quack Frist. Thanks for the Blogswarm!!

        The right to life doesn't end in the delivery room

        by never forget 2000 on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 07:33:11 AM PDT

    •  blogswarming

      isn't that something that happens in Willie Wonka's chocolate factory?
      

      by Argyle on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:17:15 PM PDT

    •  I have e-mailed and faxed this all day long

      to Congress, to media, to churches

      _______

      George W. Bush, while governor of Texas, signed a law allowing hospitals to terminate life-support for incapacitated patients, even against the wishes of the family.  Especially if the patient cannot pay.  

      Here's the Houston Chronicle's story referencing the state law signed by Bush:

      http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3073295

      Hospitals can end life support
      Decision hinges on patient's ability to pay, prognosis

      and another recent Chronicle story regarding the termination of life support of an infant against the mother's wishes:

      http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3087387

      Baby dies after hospital removes breathing tube
      Case is the first in which a judge allowed a hospital to discontinue care

      (This weekend Tom DeLay gave a press conference stating that (1) patients in this condition deserve due process [this family was not able to appeal once, let alone litigate for 15 years] and (2) doctors can be wrong about a prognosis [could have been true here also]).  Where was Tom DeLay?  This story was in the news for several weeks - in his own district.
      __________

      And here's a copy of the state statute:

       Texas Health & Safety Code - Chapter 166

         § 166.046.  PROCEDURE IF NOT EFFECTUATING A DIRECTIVE OR
       TREATMENT DECISION.  (a)  If an attending physician refuses to
       honor a patient's advance directive or a health care or treatment
       decision made by or on behalf of a patient, the physician's refusal
       shall be reviewed by an ethics[0] or medical committee.  The attending
       physician may not be a member of that committee.  The patient shall
       be given life[0]-sustaining treatment during the review.
               (b)  The patient or the person responsible for the health
       care decisions of the individual who has made the decision
       regarding the directive or treatment decision:
                       (1)  may be given a written description of the ethics[0] or
       medical committee review process and any other policies and
       procedures related to this section adopted by the health care
       facility;
                       (2)  shall be informed of the committee review process
       not less than 48 hours before the meeting called to discuss the
       patient's directive, unless the time period is waived by mutual
       agreement;
                       (3)  at the time of being so informed, shall be
       provided:                  
                               (A)  a copy of the appropriate statement set forth
       in Section 166.052;  and
                               (B)  a copy of the registry list of health care
       providers and referral groups that have volunteered their readiness
       to consider accepting transfer or to assist in locating a provider
       willing to accept transfer that is posted on the website maintained
       by the Texas Health Care Information Council under Section 166.053;  
       and
                       (4)  is entitled to:                                                          
                               (A)  attend the meeting;  and                                                
                               (B)  receive a written explanation of the decision
       reached during the review process.
               (c)  The written explanation required by Subsection
       (b)(2)(B) must be included in the patient's medical record.
               (d)  If the attending physician, the patient, or the person
       responsible for the health care decisions of the individual does
       not agree with the decision reached during the review process under
       Subsection (b), the physician shall make a reasonable effort to
       transfer the patient to a physician who is willing to comply with
       the directive.  If the patient is a patient in a health care
       facility, the facility's personnel shall assist the physician in
       arranging the patient's transfer to:
                       (1)  another physician;                                                      
                       (2)  an alternative care setting within that facility;  
       or                  
                       (3)  another facility.                                                        
               (e)  If the patient or the person responsible for the health
       care decisions of the patient is requesting life[0]-sustaining
       treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review
       process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall
       be given available life[0]-sustaining treatment pending transfer
       under Subsection (d).  The patient is responsible for any costs
       incurred in transferring the patient to another facility.  The
       physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide
       life[0]-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written
       decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient
       or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the
       patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).
               (e-1)  If during a previous admission to a facility a
       patient's attending physician and the review process under
       Subsection (b) have determined that life[0]-sustaining treatment is
       inappropriate, and the patient is readmitted to the same facility
       within six months from the date of the decision reached during the
       review process conducted upon the previous admission, Subsections
       (b) through (e) need not be followed if the patient's attending
       physician and a consulting physician who is a member of the ethics[0]
       or medical committee of the facility document on the patient's
       readmission that the patient's condition either has not improved or
       has deteriorated since the review process was conducted.
               (f)  Life[0]-sustaining treatment under this section may not be
       entered in the patient's medical record as medically unnecessary
       treatment until the time period provided under Subsection (e) has
       expired.
               (g)  At the request of the patient or the person responsible
       for the health care decisions of the patient, the appropriate
       district or county court shall extend the time period provided
       under Subsection (e) only if the court finds, by a preponderance of
       the evidence, that there is a reasonable expectation that a
       physician or health care facility that will honor the patient's
       directive will be found if the time extension is granted.
               (h)  This section may not be construed to impose an
       obligation on a facility or a home and community support services
       agency licensed under Chapter 142 or similar organization that is
       beyond the scope of the services or resources of the facility or
       agency.  This section does not apply to hospice services provided by
       a home and community support services agency licensed under Chapter
       142.

       Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 450, § 1.03, eff. Sept. 1,
       1999.  Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1228, § 3, 4, eff.
       June 20, 2003

      by JLFinch on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:07:56 PM PDT

      •  Good Job!

        I like that.

        I'm keeping it simple myself (little variety for the one's that read on air).

        Please illuminate the context in which Bush's 1999 Texas Futile Care law allowed a hospital to kill a baby against the mother's wishes last week with no intervention from anyone (or coverage from you), while the government has to drop it's important work in Baseball Steroid abuse to "save Terri" no mater how big the hole in her cerebral cortext?

        by RANT on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 11:18:39 PM PDT

        •  I don't remember any intervention on the

           mother's behalf from the liberal left in the case of the baby in Texas.  Just after the fact does that baby become important.  

          BTW  The law didn't allow the hospital to kill babies.  Sorry if that disappoints you, maybe someday...

          Finally, keeping it simple was probably the best idea you've ever had.

          I'm taking my time for a number of things
          that weren't important yesterday
          and I still go

          LM

          by larry b on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 07:58:42 PM PDT

  •  Link to the Actual Legislation:

    I didn't want to send an email without a substantive link. I looked up Tonal Crow's diary from earlier today, "It's 1999. You're Terri Schiavo, but you live in Texas"

    The bill is on the Texas Legislature Online site at (leaving the full address visible here):

    http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=76&SESS=R&CHAMBER=S&BILLTYP E=B&BILLSUFFIX=01260&VERSION=5&TYPE=B

    Done, and done!

    by Gooserock on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:24:21 PM PDT

•  Ah, fun Republican hypocrisy

  Wonderful.

  by Jonathan4Dean on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:14:57 PM PDT

  •  ah, yes Mr. Kennedy (R-MN)...

    ...we WILL be judged how we treat the weakest among us.  So how's you're record on the tax cuts for the wealthy, support to gut Social Security and a general indifference to the Medicare crisis?

    Thank you for being a perfect republican hypocrite and giving us something to hold up next October!

    by joby on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:51:34 PM PDT

    •  Fultility

      I become more cynical by the minute that the true facts of this case that digby so thoroughly laid out will be lost in the black hole of media empire.  

      The media attempts to outrage us at every turn, but they march in step by not critically evaluating any story.  Instead of discussing the facts of the case, every channel spends time showing the voting live, like it's important to see congressmen milling around and pressing buttons.
      

      by BlueBaron on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:51:48 PM PDT

  •  Where's the hypocracy?

    Why is it hypocritical for Bush and DeLay to ask for congressional support for Terry Schiavo?  After all, they've both been brain dead for years while asking for support.  They're just looking after their own.

    by Calidrissp on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 12:22:17 AM PDT

•  they know

  it is just too reality-based for them.

  by mazzy on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:17:15 PM PDT

•  The most frightening thing

  is that even with a living will, and a spouse and team of doctors that say there is no hope, a group of corrupt politicians can choose to keep any of us in a vegatative state for political gain long after we are gone.

  Mark my words: we will soon have 12-week fetuses "rescued" from women's clinics on congressionally-mandated life support.

  by internetinfidel7 on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:17:25 PM PDT

  •  Unfortunately, we've got a hefty ...

    ...portion of Congress in a persistent vegetative state.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:22:02 PM PDT

  •  Or

    how about a pregnant woman who wants to get an abortion but the father is against it? What's to prevent congress from intervening in that situation.

    Talk about a slippery slop.  This is a nightmare.

    by Momagainstthedraft on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:26:27 PM PDT

    •  Slop is right

      I wonder what would happen if a few Democratic congressmen started introducing legislation everytime the plug was pulled on someone in Texas?
      

      by Argyle on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:19:10 PM PDT

      •  It would make a point worth making

        but would it be covered in the media?  Amerika's demagogue/propaganda nexus is in FULL BLOOM!

        by sooner on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 11:29:40 PM PDT

  •  The debate is both fascinating and not...

    ...as a reality-based American with more than faith-based education in science, I find this partisan debate both interesting and laughable.

    The republicans are toeing the company line about moral outrage, sanctity of life and other assorted emotional hot buttons.  The Dems are reciting and arguing Constitutional law, common law and medical findings.  Yet we have to worry that the Repugs will carry the day and overturn 229 years of separation of powers in A (yet another) blatant voter pandering publicity stunt.

    My list of losers?

    Terri Schiavo's body - it will remain in a lifeless state of artificially supported limbo.

    Micheal Schiavo - Just trying to do the right thing as he knows it with intimate knowlegde we aren't privy to

    The Schindlers - Unable to say goodbye to their lovely daughter/sister and hold on to a tragic dream of rehabilitation that will occur just after Santa appears

    The United States of America - By codifying that the ruling party can overturn any judicial decision on a whim because it doesn't suit their fancy or political goals.

    Republicans - 'Cause it's pretty clear at this point that they have unapologetically sold their collective souls to the Devil...hope it was worth it, guys.

    $

    by joby on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:31:10 PM PDT

    •  who wants what

      The Republicans inside the Capitol are, clearly, using this tragedy to placate a loyal constituency.
      The people holding signs and holding vigils to "save" Terri Schiavo are, i think, sincere in their beliefs. They have a sincere belief in the absolute preservation of life, regardless of its quality.

      But what of the Schindlers? I'm sure they're sincere in their belief, but is it simply because they cling to the hope of a miracle? Not that it's going to happen, but what would they say if convinced there was no hope for Terri's recovery?

      Would they say keep her alive? or let her go?

      by Argyle on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:23:52 PM PDT

      •  Good points

        As for the Schindlers, I don't think they would allow their daughter to pass even with direct knowledge that Terri's stance would contradict their own.

        I certainly appreciate their love and faith, but not at the cost of our democracy.

        It seems that we're saying that alot lately over the last five years.  My faith in my fellow Americans is being tested daily.

        by joby on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:44:15 PM PDT

        •  Appreciate it? I don't.

          I don't think it's love. I think it's obsession. Love puts the loved one's welfare above one's own selfish desires.

          And I don't think it's faith. I think it's vain self-delusion. Faith is humble submission to God's will, which includes a time of death for every living being, hard though that is to accept.

          The parents are not mentally healthy people, and they are projecting their own denial of reality upon their daughter. While I pity them, I do not think they are owed one iota of "appreciation", not even for form's sake.

          by Canadian Reader on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:37:23 PM PDT

      •  The Schindlers

        1.  I believe they are Catholics.  They no doubt believe a miracle will occur and Terri's brain will be restored.  They are probably running through the entire list of saints and potential saints daily.  If only they can keep Terri alive long enough, God will save her.
           
        2.  They believe that she really is 'in there' right now--this kind of delusion is similar to the one my mother in law had.  She thought her dog talked to her.  She wanted the dog to talk to us.  She would call up my husband and tell him Puppydog wanted to talk to his brother, and my husband would mumble stuff into the phone.  Dogs have the intelligence of about a 2 year old child.  Terri Schiavo has the intelligence of a turnip.  My mother in law was sane, compared to the Schindlers.
           
        3.  Many people would react like the Schindlers, attesting intelligence to every involuntary movement, every eye blink, every involuntary facial movement, every sound.  They don't want to believe she is already dead.

        This is a hugely sad case.

        It is the hypocrisy that is most sad.

        by LIsoundview on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 04:45:48 AM PDT

    •  I'm not laughing.

      I'm a little bit frightened actually.

      by sooner on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 11:31:25 PM PDT

•  Congresswoman Schultz mentioned it tonight

  but out of the 3 cable news channels showing the proceedings, only CNN showed any of this and it cut her off in the middle of it.
  Woodruff then proceeded to summarize what Debbie had already said, ignoring the Bush law thing completely.
  Still, this is an important angle we need to continue to push.  It's too good for the media to pass up for long.

  by MattBellamy on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:18:13 PM PDT

•  MSNBC is asking for comments

  So I gave them mine.  Something like:

  Delay speaking out in the Schiavo debate is a joke.  Did he have anything to say when his own state pulled the plug on the life support for baby Sun against his mother's wishes pursuant to a Texas statute that his beloved Bush signed into law?  Of course not.  His "advocacy" for Terri Schiavo is pure politics.  He could care less about morality.

  Voice your own opinion here:

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/

  by LawStudent on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:18:45 PM PDT

  •  Great Point

    Let's hit the media with letters and phone calls.  Here's how we can contact them:

    http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html?39
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3303518/
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77538,00.html
    

    by blank on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:41:46 PM PDT

    •  Thanks!

      I contacted CNN and MSNBC. Didn't bother with Fox News.  It would be a better use of my time to write my complaint on a paper airplane and throw it out my window...that way there would be at least a chance that some actual reporter might read it and start writing/broadcasting about this.

      by GreenSooner on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 05:15:48 AM PDT

      •  Paper Airplanes

        It would be a better use of my time to write my complaint on a paper airplane and throw it out my window...that way there would be at least a chance that some actual reporter might read it and start writing/broadcasting about this.

        That's how I feel about my congressman.  Actually, it's how I feal about my congressman, both my senators, my president, my state senator, my state representative, and my mayor.  My local newspapers are not much better either, although one of them once told me it considered but did not published one of my letters.  

        But, I did send something to CNN, and that made me feel good.
        

        by blank on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 10:28:32 AM PDT

•  Write those letters to the editor!

  All of this must be made plain as day to the editorial page and news editors of the SCLM. Keep raising a stink about this -- this is clear-cut hypocrisy and we can call them on this simply by laying out the facts.

  by trueblue illinois on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:19:35 PM PDT

•  The very name -

  Texas Futile Care Law - ought to have Randall Terry foaming at the mouth and threatening the Texas legislature with nonstop protest marches.

  Oh, yeah, I forgot. "Pro-life," when they feel like it. When it doesn't cost 'em anything. When it helps them ace out someone pro-choice in a close district.

  by Meteor Blades on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:20:59 PM PDT

  •  Pro-life should be renamed as

    pro-christian-american-life since I dont see a whole lot of protest marches in Washington for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, or the Sudanese in Darfur or the millions dying of AIDS in Africa.

    Nero and his fiddle would probably find quite a few kindred souls in this administration.

    by kosmic on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 07:39:09 AM PDT

•  More liberal

  And those who read liberal blogs are liberal readers.

  by Paulie Walnuts on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:21:43 PM PDT

•  God, how I wish we could clone Digby

  and get him onto every editorial board of every national news outlet.

  by mcjoan on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:22:15 PM PDT

  •  Ha

    they're too chicken to even ask him to join a 2 hour blogging conference.

    by BudMan on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 06:29:42 AM PDT

•  I am amazed

  Where are the major newspapers on this issue?  Why was this not on the national news tonight?  What has happened to mainstream journalism?  Where is the Republican Party that has screamed for years about states rights?  I cannot believe the grandstanding by Bush (returning to the White House to sign legislation) for this (emergency federal Schiavo law) while Texas law (under his watch) will permit terminating a life for lack of ability to pay.  What kind of "moral values" permits this sort of behavior?  

  by bloomer 101 on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:22:36 PM PDT

•  THE POPE SAYS

  http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-life20mar20,1,4979902.story?coll=la-headlines-n ation&ctrack=1&cset=true

  Sick people in a vegetative state, waiting to recover or for a natural end, have the right to basic healthcare (nutrition, hydration, hygiene, warmth, etc.)," the pope told an international conference of Catholic medical associations. "The administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical procedure.

  "Therefore, their use must be considered ordinary and proportionate and, as such, morally obligatory."

  When the vegetative state has lasted longer than a year, the pope continued, the unlikelihood of recovery "cannot ethically justify abandoning or interrupting basic care, including food and hydration, of a patient." The withdrawal of food and water from such patients "is truly euthanasia by omission."
  end snip

  The Pope has Parkinson's.  Sooner or later he would be unable to swallow and would contemplate Gtube......

  by timber on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:23:54 PM PDT

  •  Oh really?

    The Pope also says the death penalty is wrong. The Pope also said the Iraq Debacle was wrong.

    Tell you what. If Bush moves to outlaw the death penalty, I'll support him on this Schiavo business.

    by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:45:07 PM PDT

    •  Actually, I wish the pope made a more nuance posn

      What he says will resonate with  Catholic health providers, Catholic families and frankly even with him.

      Wish he did not Redefine gtube feeding as basic instead of artificial.

      And since I am a practicing Catholic and in the health field, this is very disturbing.

      by timber on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:42:19 PM PDT

      •  As a former Catholic

        I feel for you, but don't know that the Pope is very helpful in any of these situations.

        by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:45:19 PM PDT

      •  The Catholic hospice...

        ...my grandmother died in did not permit IVs or feeding tubes.

        by lellis on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 11:12:51 PM PDT

•  It's all about biopolitics

  Biopolitics, to coin a term from that old warhorse Michel Foucault, is the mode of power that the state holds over the body.  The state's attempt to monopolize the decision of life or death is nothing less than an extension of state power into the regulation of biological life itself.

  It is in this way that it is possible to see how the intervention here in this patient's right to die is inseparable from the larger issue of Republican attempts to monopolize the domain of biological life.  This obviously includes abortion, but also involves the tacit acceptence of torture:  the Gitmo/Abu Grahib debacle demonstrates that at the very moment that the Republicans seek to intervene in the issue of Terry's death, they also seek to suspend the protections that would shield "unlawful combatants"  -- whoever they are -- from naked power over their right to life.

  Dems need first of all to not be steamrollered by the political opportunism of the Repugs.  However, more long term, they could begin to connect the dots on all of the various issues that flesh out the Republican encroachment upon the citizen's body.

  by Dale on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:25:26 PM PDT

•  I will post this on every diary I see on this

  subject. I find these diaries just as scuzzy as what the Republicans are doing. The best statement I have heard on this subject by a poster over on another diary on the subject was that the Democrats should say that we don't have an opinion other than to respect the right and privacy of the family , and keep our traps shut. This is a personal family matter that the Republicans are intruding, and now the Democrats are intruding on. I know some of you (including Armando) take the "but they did it first" approach to this, but I am one again asking you to think about the human element here. We should just stay out of it. I don't expect many of you to get this- you just aren't capable of it I don't think based on a survey of the diaries I have read, but this is not something that you should be getting into. THe right to die is a personal family matter. If you think by creating faux outrage at something of which most of you have no direct experience is helpful here then you aren't getting it. I personally have been through this. It's an impossible situation. Us sticking our nose in it, the Republicans sticking their moralistic bullshit nose in it- just will make a horrible situation for both sides worse.

  by bruh1 on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:25:31 PM PDT

  •  My outrage isn't false

    This is the the most blatantly crass and craven political move DeLay and his minions have yet enacted. I think we can very well respect the privacy of the Schiavo family, but you can't ignore this unconstitutional act of Congress, and the utterly despicable and hypocritical President backing them up. We have to call them on it. No one else is.

    by mcjoan on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:31:04 PM PDT

    •  Good grief ...

      I don't expect many of you to get this - you just aren't capable of it.

      Puhleez.

      It is a family matter. Unfortunately the family members don't agree with each other, and so the legal system (which, much as we'd like to think otherwise, is political) has become involved. We can sit on our haunches and let these politicians and their media lackeys have their way or we can challenge them. When the Tom DeLays back off, I'll back off.

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:44:18 PM PDT

      •  Well

        I quibble. The legaql system got involved because thats what the politics, in the form of laws, required.  And a final decision was rendered. Right or wrong.

        Now it used to be that that was the end of it.  But this lunatic Congress and this lunatic GOP is overturning the rule of law and imposing the law of lunatic men.

        by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:01:14 PM PDT

      •  here's the issue that I am trying to frame for you

        a) We are also trying to use this for political gain. That hardly makes us in the right here emotionally or morally with regard to the invididuals actually affected

        b) Most of the postings act like there is a yes/no to this. Either you accept the Republican frame that we need to debate this at the federal level or you endorse a full frontal assault against what the Republicans are doing. My argument isn't to do nothing- it's to make a different statement- that would have- made people like me- who have actually been through this a little bit more faithful that y ou are doing this for the right reason. Namely, that you would have said- you know what this is wrong- we need to respect the family- we are going to abstain from this horrible debate in process of the absolute wrongness of this situation. Someone in another diary suggested this- that sometimes the best answer is to make it clear there is an absolute line in the sand when it comes to human descency and that we will not play politics with this womans life. If you will read Armando's response- to me- does it sound like this site (or the poll yesterday) is really concerned about the human dimensions of this- or is the real concern political capital- which is essentially what they are arguing the Republicans are doing.

        by bruh1 on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:20:05 PM PDT

        •  What a load of crap

          That is just about the biggest load of crap I have ever read.

          So the effect of shredding of the Constitution at the most basic human level means nothing to you. You unfeeling sack of shit. If it doesn't have a point of reference in your OWN life, it can't be important,is that it?

          What a self centered narcissist you are.

          You know, I don't mean that above but that is how YOU are sounding to me. Turn it down a notch Bruh, your sanctimony is screechingly annoying.

          by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:34:10 PM PDT

          •  Easy! Real Ques.What is the sanctity of marriage?

            I agree with just about everything you and Digby said.  Hypocrisy runs true in Republican blood.  That's why they are Republicans and we are not.  Once again, Republicans do best when all the issues are cloudy, when not everyone has all the information and not everyone is able to put it all together.  That is their raison d'etre.

            I never saw that there was a written living will signed by Terri Shiavo.  That means someone or something has to decide who is better to decide Terri's fate, her husband or her immediate family.  It could be that her husband has ulterior motives, insurance, a new girlfriend or whatever and, on the other hand, her parents who love her, may be too weak to do what's right.

            The issues are not that clear cut, however, they have been looked at by a bunch of courts and the husband was given the right to let Terri rest.  The courts looked at him and looked at whether he had slefish motives, and they should have.  He wouldn't be ending the life of a woman who is vibrant, functioning, able to communicate or one who could reverse her situation.  Imagine the horror for her, if all she feels is pain and just wants it over but it seems more likely that she just exists and does not want or feel or think.

            We hear so much from the Republicans about the sanctity of marriage, yet here, they say there is no sanctity and there is no legal, spiritual or moral bond between husband and wife.  If parties in a marriage do not trust their spouses to be unselfish, then "the decisions" to prolong life or DNR can be given to others.  If the Republicans want marriage to have meaning, they had better get the hell out of this situation because there is no more intimate bond than that of protection.  In vows, we say, "in sickness and in health till death do us part."

            To Republicans, this is no different than taxes, social security, stem cells, and lying to get us into a war.  They dwell in our ignorance, our fear and our hate.  Their MO is confusion and deception where they can appear to rise above it all.  Can you be more disgusting than that?  
            If the marriage was one of convenience, as many are, then that should be so indicated in the living will by specifically not giving a spouse the power of life.
            

            by cpa1 on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 06:07:06 AM PDT

        •  Well, there have been a lot of ...

          ...Diaries, and probably 5000 comments about Shiavo on this site alone in the past 48 hours. I've read maybe half of those and have mostly seen people arguing that this should be a family matter, not something for political gain.

          And here's what Armando said as late as Saturday morning:

          I think the Dems are handling this perfectly. This should NOT be a political issue.

          I'd love to let this be a family matter, and it was until DeLay and his cronies chose to intervene because they saw it as a chance to get their rightwing faction to cling a little tighter to the GOP. Under the circumstances, abstention from this debate does not serve us, family privacy or the other Terri Shiavos of the world.  

          So when you use words like "scuzzy,"

          by Meteor Blades on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:41:00 PM PDT

        •  With all due respect...

          I have been thru a similar situation and you are wrong wrong wrong.  This was a private matter. New legislation has made it a public matter.

          As you draw the line in the sand between your response to this situation and your notions of good taste, I will say a little prayer for you that your fellow citizens will succeed in fighting against a government that would conveniently disregard law in order to insert itself into your most private moments.

          by AriesMoon on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 06:15:02 AM PDT

  •  Then you don't get it

    I don't give a shit about Terri Schiavo. If the parents had won the court case, I would have said - well, nothing, cuz I don't give a shit.

    I do care about the rule of law.

    That's the fucking issue. And what Digby points out is that the GOP is a corrupt, extremist lunatic political party.

    And it is critical that we point that out.

    That, my friend, is the ONLY human element here.

    And it is a damn sight more important than whoever's feelings you seem to be worried about.

    by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:42:18 PM PDT

    •  Armando's on it...

      At the end of the day, if the Rethuglicans won't bother to protect and defend the rule of law...it's up to us.

      Really, this is just one piece of the administration's assault on the rule of law. The Iraq invasion, secrecy, torture, Plame affair, those darn activist judges, etc, etc...

      by Danno11 on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:03:37 PM PDT

      •  i like the way you focus on his rule of law

        argument and ingore that he also says he doesn't give a shit about the patient here. Does the fact he says that bother you? If not, then are you doing anything different than the Republicans?

        by bruh1 on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:23:49 PM PDT

        •  Different than the Repiblicans?

          What the fuck? AmI shredding the Constitution cuz I don't like the result of a court case?

          You want me to say I care alot about Terri Schiavo when I don't?

          Bruh, do you specifically care about every death that occurs every fucking day? You are really a sanctimonious piece of work.

          Let me ask you this, why do you care so much about Terri Schiavo but seem not to give wo hoots about the baby who died in Texas the other day? Since Digby pointe dthat out and yopu offered not one whit of sympathy for that baby I can only conclude that you are unfeeling lout.

          That's how you play that game? did I get your technique correct Bruh? This is beneath you man. What is wrong with you today?

          by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:30:48 PM PDT

          •  Gentlemen!

            Calm down.  It's affecting your typing!  heh

            by Joon on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:48:15 AM PDT

        •  Armando's looking at the big picture here.

          We can weep for one person or fight to protect the rights of 300 million people.

          Where's the greater good? I think the answer's obvious.

          by Ascendent on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:12:22 PM PDT

      •  I am appalled also

        That 48 Democrats in the House voted for this bill. And something like only 53 voted against it.
        I am astonished.

        by wishingwell on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 11:08:25 PM PDT

        •  Why did they even show up for the vote?

          Once again,

          RATINGS WHORES!

          by Joon on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:46:57 AM PDT

  •  Offensive. Your post is.

    I don't expect many of you to get this- you just aren't capable of it

    The issue to moved to CONGRESS.  A point you appear to miss.  We may indeed comment on the proceedings and the issues at hand.

    Further this moved to COngress on the 11th.  The site has been restrained.

    According to what you are saying the atty for Mr Schiavo should not have a press conference. IN public.  On TV.

    Shall I recount to you each of my parent's deaths, both at home both at end stage of terrible illnesses?  Both in horrific struggles with physicians and hospice care and private nurses?  Shall I?  These issues matter, it all swings on privacy.

    Get over it.
    

    by Marisacat on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:55:35 PM PDT

    •  Read what Armando just wrote above

      in response to me. Is that what you endorse? If it is, I just want to be clear that you also don't give a shit about the people involved in the actual case.

      by bruh1 on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:09:43 PM PDT

      •  bruh,

        tell us your opinion on the Sun case, or stuff it.
        Your choice, which is it?
        

        by Ptah on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:40:47 PM PDT

        •  and the woman on the Sun case...

          ...actually WANTED publicity. She invited TV cameras into the hospital room to show her son to the world. The hospital wouldn't let them in citing "privacy concerns". Exactly whose privacy were they trying to protect? Their own, apparently.

          by plymouth on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 10:34:33 AM PDT

    •  as for the attorney

      he had that conference when given no choice- the husband has been fighting to take this out of the public light from what I have seen, and is responding only to the circumstances that are forcing him to do so. The difference between y ou and the husband is what Armando posted above in response to me.

      by bruh1 on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:13:38 PM PDT

      •  bruh

        tell us your opinion on the Sun case, or stuff it.
        Which is it?

        by Ptah on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:41:22 PM PDT

  •  "they did it first" approach

    So, we are supposed to simply ignore this travesty? The Repubs make a HUGE spectacle, on every news station, of this assault on one family's privacy and you'd have us RISE ABOVE IT by not mentioning it?? If this was happening in my family, I'd be IMMENSELY grateful that at least SOMEONE out there in the world had my back!

    The Repubs DID do this "first." We are the minority power and cannot do anything else BUT respond. I do not know OR care if the Dem's are going to somehow GAIN political clout from our opposition to this, but I do, without a SHRED of doubt, know that the Repubs are wrong and that SOMEONE must speak up.

    If you don't want to be a part of it, then sit on your hands - don't even respond to my comment. Go ahead, rise above it in your sanctimonious and passive silence. Won't you just be so much better than the rest of us then

    by RNinNC on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:00:28 PM PDT

  •  the situation has evolved

    I think you're raising a lot of hackles because you haven't adjusted your formerly reasonable position to the changing circumstances.

    We aren't butting into the Terry Schiavo case.  Congress is doing that.  And initially, a stance of "let Congress make fools of themselves, while we stay out of it", made some sense.

    But what  we are butting into, is the media coverage of Congress's actions, because the media is making a circus of it all, while misrepresenting it in a way that makes Congress look like the heroes stepping in for a rescue, rather than the hypocritical grandstanding meddling moralizers they actually are here.

    The point is that the media is aiding and abetting Congress.  That is what we're butting into, and it's entirely the right thing to do.  If we don't, Congress will get away with it, and look good doing so.

    by cos on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:31:38 PM PDT

  •  but bro

    The dems tried to keep Congress hands off the isssue, rightfully claiming it's a family issue. It's ON now because they failed. It is a national issue because the issue is PROPAGANDA and demagoguery and the continuing demonization (literally!) of the Left. This is not a "lesser of the 2 evils thing."
    We live in comic/cosmic book times now, tks to the refux and the religious beliefs of a large part of their base, and so it HAS now become a fight between good and evil. For real.

    by sooner on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 12:04:34 AM PDT

  •  Hell-OH!

    WE didn't make a federal case (literally) out of this. OUR government is decimating the Constitution over this and you think we should STFU because it's a "private" matter. YOU are the one who doesn't "get it", dude.

    by outragemeter on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 12:40:46 AM PDT

  •  Cannot let this pass uncommented.

    I saw, first hand, what the living death looks like.  I watched my mother die.  Slowly.  All she could scrawl on the notepad (talking being impossible through the artificial breathing tube) was, barely legibly, "tired".  That's all she could "say".  In fact, it's the last thing she communicated before died several days later.  Who are these immoral, inconcistent, unethical, corporate ASSHOLES doing, interfering in this most personal situation?  The assholes are simply abusing other people the way they abuse our tax dollars to screw us out of our representation.

    The self-serving "pro-life" republicans invited our comments as a consequence of grandstanding, a political trick, abusing the plight of ordinary people for their own short-term, narrowminded political games.

    To use the personal tragedies of people experiencing great pain and difficult decisions for political gain is so far beyond the pale that it must not ever go without comment.

    If you think by creating faux outrage at something of which most of you have no direct experience is helpful here then you aren't getting it.
    

    Many of us have directly relevant experience and know based on that direct firsthand experience that it's difficult enough without the most inhumane political grandstanding that I think I've ever seen.

    by lenski on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 12:34:18 PM PDT

•  Let me pose the sleaze question of the day

  Terri Shiavo has been under continuous health care for 15 years. I know nothing about the personal finances of either her husband or her parents.

  That said, 24/7 healthcare for 15 years is very expensive. Who is paying the bills? The family or Medicaid? Who's fronting all the legal bills on either side of this tragedy?

  Medical and legal bills together must be a monster whichever way you slice it. Who gives?

  by towit on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:25:49 PM PDT

  •  Rumor: $$ are from a malpractice settlement

    I've read in blogdom somewhere. Any confirmation?

    by astuar on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:38:48 PM PDT

    •  malpractice then medicaid?

      Just passing along hearsay, but I understand that the malpractice ($1m) paid for the healthcare for a number of years then a judge passed it onto medicaid after the malpractice money ran out.

      by ferg on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:51:38 PM PDT

  •  Here's what google turned up

    As case draws out, cash dries up for Terri Schiavo's care
    

    As the battle over Terri Schiavo's life rages in the courtrooms and halls of government, the 41-year-old brain-damaged woman lies in a hospice bed, dependent on Florida taxpayers and charity for her care.

    The $1 million received by her and her husband, Michael, in a medical malpractice case in 1993 is nearly gone, attorneys say, spent on her care and the husband's legal quest during the past seven years to stop her artificial feedings so she can die.
    ...
    Terri Schiavo lives at the Woodside Hospice, part of a not-for-profit hospice network in Florida, among terminally ill patients. She is permitted to stay there for free because she is considered indigent, Bushnell said. Patients who can afford it pay about $80,000 a year to stay at the hospice.

    Citing privacy laws, hospice spokeswoman Louise Cleary would not answer questions about the Schiavo case but said, "We never turn anyone away. If they need our care, we take care of them."

    Terri Schiavo's medical costs, which Bushnell says are relatively small, have been paid for the past couple of years by the state's Medicaid program for needy people.

    I'm not up to it tonight, but I'm sure there is somebody here in full-throttle snark mode who can make the necessary remarks about those damned "frivolous medical malpractice suits" the ReThugs rail about. When the President said in the 2005 State of the Union:
    

    To protect the doctor-patient relationship, and keep good doctors doing good work, we must eliminate wasteful and frivolous medical lawsuits

    did he mean that the Schiavos shouldn't have won that $1 million judgment back in 1993?

    Oh, hey, maybe I am in full bore snark mode.

    by sheba on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:20:30 PM PDT

    •  How many families of indigents would like

      such a deal?

      "Terri Schiavo lives at the Woodside Hospice, part of a not-for-profit hospice network in Florida, among terminally ill patients. She is permitted to stay there for free because she is considered indigent, Bushnell said. Patients who can afford it pay about $80,000 a year to stay at the hospice."

      Well now, maybe we're on to something.

      by towit on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:50:13 PM PDT

•  Gov. Bush - TX

  I need help clarifying Bush's actions as then Governor of Texas. From East Bay Molly's post:

  Under chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, if an attending physician disagrees with a surrogate over a life-and-death treatment decision, there must be an ethics committee consultation (with notice to the surrogate and an opportunity to participate).  In a futility case such as Sun Hudson's, in which the treatment team is seeking to stop treatment deemed to be nonbeneficial, if the ethics committee agrees with the team, the hospital will be authorized to discontinue the disputed treatment (after a 10-day delay, during which the hospital must help try to find a facility that will accept a transfer of the patient).  These provisions, which were added to Texas law in 1999, originally applied only to adult patients; in 2003; they were made applicable to disputes over treatment decisions for or on behalf of minors.  (I hasten to add that one of the co-drafters in both 1999 and 2003 was the National Right to Life Committee.  Witnesses who testified in support of the bill in 1999 included representatives of National Right to Life, Texas Right to Life, and the Hemlock Society.  Our bill passed both houses, unanimously, both years, and the 1999 law was signed by then Governor George W. Bush.)

  But then I read this in the Houston Chronicle:

  The law was passed in 1999 and amended two years ago. Acting as a negotiator for Houston-based Texas Right to Life, Burke Balch flew in from Washington "20 to 25 times" to sit at a table with represent-
  atives of the Texas Hospital Association and other parties to negotiate the law and its amendment. - - Right to Life was at the table partly because then-Gov. George W. Bush had vetoed a similar bill two years earlier at the request of some members of the religious right, according to its sponsor, then-Sen. Mike Moncrief, now mayor of Fort Worth.

  Did Gov. George W. Bush veto an early version of the bill or sign the bill for adults in 1999? I'm still not clear on the facts.

  by joejoejoe on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:27:00 PM PDT

  •  More on the Texas Law

    This is in regards to Spiro Nikolouzos (Sun Hudson is covered by a revision to the law in 2003 as a minor) - Bush vetoed the 1997 version. From a blog entry from Hope, a former staffer of Mike Moncrief:

    And without any warning, Bush vetoed the bill. We were surprised. No one had opposed the bill as it wound its way through the legislative process. No one from Bush's office had ever contacted us to say the governor had a problem with the bill. We just heard about the veto after the fact. So my boss and his chief of staff and I got on the phone with - you guessed it - Alberto Gonzales to determine what the problem was. (The veto proclamation was, as most are, unhelpful in really understanding why the bill was vetoed.)

    And do you know what he told us? The governor himself didn't have a problem with the bill, but that they didn't want to do anything to ruffle right-to-life supporters at that time (I can't remember exactly what reason he gave). Gonzales told Moncrief to re-file the bill the following legislative session and Bush would sign it the next time.

    So Bush vetoes the bill in 1997 but signs virtually the same bill in 1999? What happened to his convictions? Could it be because he was running for President and shifted positions?

    Text of the 1997 veto is here
     - see SB 414.
    History of 1999 bill passed is here - SB 414.

    Is the bill identical? If so, why did Bush flip flop?

    by joejoejoe on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:59:48 PM PDT

  •  Bush signed the 1999 bill for adults

    the amendment to include minors was signed in 2003.
    Texas Health & Safety Code
    

    by truthbearer on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:15:19 PM PDT

    •  So did Bush sign the same bill he vetoed in '97?

      Read this comment again from then TX State Senator Mike Moncrief's staffer (Moncrief sponsered the bill, twice):

      And do you know what (Alberto Gonzales) told us? The governor himself didn't have a problem with the bill, but that they didn't want to do anything to ruffle right-to-life supporters at that time (I can't remember exactly what reason he gave). Gonzales told Moncrief to re-file the bill the following legislative session and Bush would sign it the next time.

      So did Bush just sign the same bill in 1999? What kind of moral guide is that? Bush is on both sides of the issue inside of two years - what kind of moral leadership is that? So people know where he stands? This could blow up in Bush's face if he signed the same bill in 1999 during a Presidential Campaign that he vetoed in 1997. Bush is one hollow son of a bitch.

      by joejoejoe on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:27:44 PM PDT

•  Changing the "role" of the press ...

  ... has to be one of our top priorities.  We need think tanks and strategy sessions and public action and whatever else is necessary to get to this point:

  The proper role of the press is NOT to "present both sides of the story"; the proper role of the press is to find and report the TRUTH.

  The reality today is that there are no lies and no truth; there are only opinions, all of them equally worth reflecting in print or on television.

  This reality helps explain why Republicans can be considered the party of small government despite running up extraordinary deficits; how they can be considered the party of limited government while they seek to control women's bodies and prevent certain people from marrying; how President Bush can be considered the man who will keep us safe, despite his continued vacation in the summer of 2001 after continued warnings about an Al Quaeda attack, but a disruption of his vacation now to return to Washington to try and help "save" one woman's life.

  The truth is present nowhere in these realities, but that's because the truth has no place in the media today.  It's all about presenting various opinions, baby, and let the people figure it all out for themselves ...

  We will have a hard time regaining political power until the press decides that it has a responsibility to report the truth.  We would do well to work on finding ways to make that day come sooner rather than later .....
  

  by shurley on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:27:05 PM PDT

  •  The truth is now

    what people choose to believe. We are living in a faith based world where there are no facts. This is the reality of Bush's realm which we live in.

    by observer393 on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:24:10 PM PDT

    •  humming...

      When the "truth" is found
      To be lies,
      And all the joy
      Within you dies...

      by Joon on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:35:55 AM PDT

  •  The American System Doesn't Provide

    for a Press.

    It does prevent government from interfering with one if it happens to exist, but that's all.

    There's not much Constitution or law to mass media spaces, so they're operated as private property where society and individuals other than the owners have almost no rights.

    The country is built to operate this way.

    by Gooserock on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:37:18 PM PDT

    •  Of course not

      But it DOES exist, and it DOES play an unofficial role in our political process ... and just like everything else in this old world or ours, it IS subject to change.

      Changing it should be a priority of ours, is all I'm trying to say, because if -- by public pressure, or advertising boycotts, or think tank studies, or long-term infiltration plans -- we could get the press less focused on the political gamesmanship, and more focused on the TRUTH, we Democrats would win many more elections than we do now!

      by shurley on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:28:53 AM PDT

•  MSNBC

  Matthews is doing a special Hardball on this right now. And he was not easy on the Pro Lifer. He was really trying to pin them down as to why they are fighting for the reconnection and the answer was it would not make a difference if Terri was a vegetable or not. She would still want to save her due to the starvation factor.
  And, they kept bringing up the fact that her husband is living with another woman and has 2 kids. To which Chris pointed out it has been 15 years. Etc.

   I am sending the first paragraph of the diary and the link to them now.

  by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:30:38 PM PDT

  •  Disagree

    Matthews is pounding on whether Terri Schiavo is a vegetable or not. With due respect, who cares? Do you beieve in the Constitution or not? Is 7 years of litigation brought to a final judgment enough or not?

    If you don't like a court decision, can you get a law passed overturning it or not?

    It used to be you could not. Has Tweety asked about THAT/ Fuck no, he hasn't.

    Due respect to you, please don't praise Tweety on this - he absolutely sucks. And is an idiot to boot.

    by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:37:51 PM PDT

    •  Actually, fat cats get court decisions overturned

      by legislation all of the time -- a fact not widely known. Legislatures are generally prohibited by their respective constitutions from passing legislation to help a single person. So they draft it in a way that purports to apply broadly but actually has very narrow application.

      For example, the legislation might apply to all patients who have been on life support for more than 6 years in a private hospital in a county with over 1 million people. That turns out to be one person.

      Its wrong but its common. This case is more blatant. The reason: its an attempt to gain votes not "save" a life. In this case they want transparancy.

      As for Mathews, he is not a newsman or even a commentator. He is a carnival act.

      by muledriver on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:23:12 PM PDT

      •  Actually they don't

        Court decisions NEVER get overturned by legislation. The specific case is over.

        Prospective rights are of course, overturned all the time, but that won't change the specific result of the case.

        You are talking about something different.

        by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:26:43 PM PDT

        •  Actually this didn't

          The legislation did NOT (to use your emphasis) overturn a court decision. It created jurisdiction in a federal court which may or may not effecitely overturn the decision.

          http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/bill31905.html

          by muledriver on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 07:49:51 AM PDT

          •  Oohhhhh

            I guess you missed the part about res judicata being inoperative in this case.

            by Armando on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:13:11 AM PDT

            •  Nooooooo

              I guess I didn't -- that is why I said the court may (or may not) effectively overturn the decision.

              Maybe this will settle you down, Emily Litella: my point is not that this legislation was appropriate. To the contrary. My point is that outrageous legislation like this happens more frequently than people realize. Fat cats go to legislatures and get special legislation -- that in reality helps only them -- all the frigging time. Sometimes it happens after they go to court and lose. The legislature then comes back in and changes the law to help them. It is wrong.

              This Schiavo bill was not fat cat legislation, it was political base legislation -- designed to help Republica