Tuesday, March 22, 2005

 

Baseball Is More Important Than Terri

Before you get mad at me for saying that, it wasn't me, it was the SAEN Editorial Board. In today's lead editorial they say "Congress out of line to 'rescue' Schiavo." However, back on March 11th they were all for Congressional hearings on steroids in baseball, saying:
The committee, set to begin the hearings Thursday, is throwing its weight around. It is about time someone did, someone besides the behemoths on the field.

But in today's editorial they say Congress is wasting it's time:
Republican leaders crafted legislation that applies to this single individual. Should they not be dealing with broad national issues?

Moreover, the lack of understanding of the Constitution shown in the editorial is mind-boggling:
This is a family matter, and her husband, if marriage is sacred, has the right to decide. Beyond that, it is a state, not federal, matter. How ironic that the party of states' rights would have the federal government intrude in this decision.

States rights? I don't think so. No matter what side you are on regarding this issue, it is safe to say that Congress was well within it's enumerated constitutional powers to act. From Article III of the Constitution:
The judicial Power of the Unites States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

So it really isn't ironic at all that the "party of states rights" intervened in this case in the way that it did. And as we learned this morning, Congress didn't "save" Terri Schiavo at all, but only gave her parents the right to pursue her case in federal court. It is now being reported that the federal judge presiding over that case just denied their motion to have the feeding tube put back.

The editorial board calls the whole thing “frightening,” but what is really frightening is the “culture of death” in this country and the newspaper editorial boards that support it. I can hardly believe that when a bunch of whales beach themselves hundreds of people show up to give them water, but when a helpless woman needs water these same people say “let her die.”

Let’s take a look at what the editorial didn’t tell you about Terri’s situation:
1. Her parents have agreed to take care of her. Her Husband can wash his hands of her by simply letting this happen. Her parents, and many doctors, believe that Terri can recover if she were to receive rehabilitation, but her husband won’t let her get the care she needs, and yet the SAEN editorial board says “let her die.”
2. One of Terri’s nurses has given an affidavit saying that she witnessed Terri speaking simple words like “Mom” and “Help,” and yet the SAEN editorial board says “let her die.” In the same affidavit, the nurse claims she witnessed Terri’s husband giving her insulin injection in the hopes it would cause her to go into shock and die, and yet the SAEN editorial board defers to his judgments and says “let her die.”
3. Terri’s “loving husband” now lives with another woman and has two children with her. Shouldn’t this mean that he relinquishes his right to speak on her behalf? And yet the SAEN editorial board says “let her die.”
Finally, no one really knows if Terri would get better if she were to be given the rehabilitation her parents want her to have, but shouldn’t we, as a society, err on the side of like and give her a chance? The SAEN editorial board just says: “let her die.”
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

archives