Re: Terri Schiavo

The average person could be excused for believing our national legislature does little more than have posturing hearings on drugs in professional sports and on passing legislation that affects the continued existence of one person.

Gosh, don't we already have laws on the books that cover illicit drug use? And gee, we get a special session and legislation for the Schindler family (Terri Schiavo's parents), but we have to wait a while longer for a budget resolution?

For me the comic high point came last Friday, when Congress issued a subpoenae for Mrs. Schiavo to appear before it. I should think they have sufficient ghouls in their chambers, what with the existence of Zell Miller.

Yes, the temptation to weigh in on the Terri Schiavo case is just too great. Knowing little more about the facts of the case than our representatives in Washington, I feel I am at least equally qualified to express an opinion.

The political question is bigger: by what right does the Federal Government insert itself into the life of one family? Two different local courts have ruled in favor of removing Terri's feeding tube. It seems to me that this federal action unduly subverts the notion of "state's rights".

What is the motivation?

Here's the first motivation, as reflected in a memo distributed to Republican Senators obtained by ABC News and reprinted here in Saturday's Washington Post:

This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue. This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.

Another motivation was made clear by our Handsome Leader when he signed the bill: "our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life." This seems to me to be a pretty clear message to the President's Fundamentalist Base: Abortion is next.

CNN quotes our Fearless Leader as saying, "We in government have a duty to protect the weak, disabled and vulnerable." There is a deep irony in this statement, as Congressional Republicans had moved to cut SSI benefits to the disabled. There is certainly some hypocrisy here, as Mr Bush approved the execution of at least one mentally challenged person during the period he was Emperor of Texas.

I wonder whether the president and Congress would give this issue so much attention if it were not in Florida, home of the presidential brother and potential heir? I wonder why a similar case, in Mr W's "home state" of Texas, did not receive equal attention?

As Andrew Cohen, legal analyst of CBS News has noted, the only good that can come of this tragic affair is that more people might be moved to create "living wills" which clearly define what "quality of life" means for that individual.

I would only add that said "living will" best be an air-tight legal document. And, even then, there's no guarantee that some future Congress won't seize upon your continued existence as a political football.