Shouting Over Schiavo

Everyone, it seems, has an opinion on the Terry Schiavo case, one in which there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

The media, of course, have turned this into a life-and-death soap opera, despite the fact that the case has been around for 15 years and that families routinely decide to pull the plug on loved one with no chance of recovery. The constantly broadcast images of the Florida woman in a "persistently vegetative state" fostered a climate in which Bush and Congress could declare, how dare anyone be in favor of starving this poor woman? And indeed, even those who disagree with what the Hill did obviously have sympathy for Schiavo and her family.

But still: the woman's husband says she told him she did not want to live like this (a dispute within the family thus became, literally, a federal case). Florida courts have ruled on the case again and again. But some Republican leaders, casting aside their usual distaste for judicial activism and emphasis on state's rights, saw a chance to score political points. (Anyone think Tom DeLay wouldn't rather talk about being Schiavo's savior than his own ethics problems?) To have Congress rush through a bill that affects just one person -- and then pretend that others wouldn't seize on the obvious precedent -- is quite amazing. Talk about forum-shopping.

Democrats didn't exactly distinguish themselves either. Many of them didn't like the Schiavo bill, but they clearly didn't want to be viewed by the public as pulling the plug on a hospitalized woman. So they kept quiet and went along.

The media, meanwhile, turned this serious subject into a debate about Schiavo's various family members, so that I heard people saying that the husband was so unlikable they were siding with the parents, as if the legal matter should be decided by some sort of "American Idol" vote.

And for all of the Beltway politicians' effort to force the case into federal court, they lost their fight anyway, at least in the first two rounds. An appeals court ruled early this morning against reinserting Schiavo's feeding tube, upholding a federal circuit court judge's decision.

Here's some of the details:

"A federal judge refused to order Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted Tuesday, and as their legal options dwindled her stunned parents quickly appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit," reports the New York Times.

"The parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, stayed mostly out of sight, but supporters said that they were devastated and that their daughter's condition was deteriorating as the third court in a week considered her case. In Tallahassee, other advocates of preserving Ms. Schiavo's life ratcheted up pressure on Gov. Jeb Bush and the State Legislature to find another solution as the minutes ticked away."

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick says Congress acted absurdly:

"This congressional authority to simply override years of state court fact-finding brings with it other superpowers, including the power of gratuitous name-calling: Members of Congress unable to pronounce Schiavo's name just last week are denouncing her husband as an adulterer and common law bigamist who withheld proper medical care from her. I wonder what they'd say about my parenting -- or yours -- if they decided to make a federal case out of every domestic-custody dispute currently resolved in state court proceedings.

"Members of Congress have apparently also had super-analytical powers conferred upon them, as well. Senate Majority Leader, and heart surgeon, Bill Frist felt confident last week -- after reviewing an hour of videotape -- in offering a medical diagnosis of Schiavo's condition, blithely second-guessing the court-appointed neurologists who evaluated her for days and weeks. His colleagues are similarly self-appointed neurological experts. Years of painstaking litigation, assessment, and evaluation by state courts are dismissed by Tom DeLay as the activist doings of a 'little judge sitting in a state district court in Florida.' Only the most extraordinary levels of congressional hubris could allow a group of elected citizens to substitute their personal medical, legal, and ethical judgments for those of the doctors, judges, and guardians who have been intimately involved with this heartbreakingly sad case for years."

National Review Editor Rich Lowry says, well, the Dems are worse:

"In response to the GOP-led congressional action intended to restore Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, those Democrats in opposition have attacked Republican hypocrisy in the case. Why suddenly, they ask, is the party of federalism and hostility to an overweening federal judiciary interfering in a state matter and handing the Schiavo case to a federal judge?

"If it is disorienting to see Republicans scrambling for federal intervention, at least they are acting on their deepest pro-life convictions -- life is to be treasured in whatever form it takes, and preserving it is a paramount value. The starkest inconsistencies are on the other side, on the part of liberals who ordinarily support the federalization of everything, but can't bear the thought of a federal judge reviewing the facts of the Schiavo case to determine whether or not she should be starved to death."

Are journalists being dupes by playing down the all-important poll numbers? Salon's Eric Boehlert thinks so:

"Recent polling data, in outlets from Fox News to the Washington Post, shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans back the position of Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband, that he, and not his wife's parents, should have the final say about removing the feeding tube of his wife, who has been severely brain-damaged and incapacitated for the past 15 years. The polling data seriously undercuts the notion that Americans are deeply divided on the Schiavo case. Yet ever since March 18, when Republicans began their unprecedented push to intervene legislatively in a state court case that had already been heard by 19 judges, the press has all but disregarded the polls.

"The Schiavo episode highlights not only how far to the right the GOP-controlled Congress has lunged -- a 2003 Fox News poll found just 2 percent of Americans think the government should decide this type of right-to-die issue -- but also how paralyzed the mainstream press has become in pointing out the obvious: that the GOP leadership often operates well outside the mainstream of America. The press's timidity is important because publicizing the poll results might extend the debate from one that focuses exclusively on a complicated moral and ethical dilemma to one that also examines just how far a radical and powerful group of religious conservatives are willing to go to push their political beliefs on the public.

"Imagine how differently the televised debate would have unfolded over the past few days if journalists had simply done their job and asked Terri Schiavo's pro-life proponents why an overwhelming percentage of Americans disagree with them about this case."

Ed Kilgore, sitting in for Josh Marshall, also goes to the polls:

"Via Think Progress, here's a fascinating ABC News poll about the Terri Schiavo affair. It turns out that not only do large majorities favor removing her feeding tube and oppose federal intervention in her case, but huge majorities know perfectly well that Tom DeLay and his crew are in it solely for political advantage.

"When you drill down into the numbers, it becomes obvious that even people who support DeLay's position don't believe he has any actual concern for Terri Schiavo. Now, I realize that in one sense this doesn't matter. This whole thing isn't about majority support, it's about pandering to one specific segment of the GOP base. But here's the thing: even evangelical Christians don't support congressional intervention. Apparently the DeLay/Frist/Bush axis has dealt with this so cynically that even the people they're pandering to are uneasy about being treated with such open condescension.

"I happened upon the voice of Tom DeLay pontificating on the Schiavo case, and it made me physically ill. His claim was that what's happening to Schiavo would be illegal if it happened to a dog. The cynicism and hypocrisy of that line of reasoning is breathtaking, even coming from Tom DeLay. Untold tens of thousands of American families face the same agonizing decision -- whether or not to continue mechanical life-support in terminal cases -- every year. My own family faced it a few years ago. And very often, the issue is the same as in the Schiavo case: taking out the feeding tube, or continuing it indefinitely. The only unique thing about this case, of course, is the extended legal battle between Schiavo's husband and parents, and the media notoriety that has made it so ripe for political opportunism.

"Do DeLay, his supporters in Congress, and those Men of God so conspicuously on display down in Florida really propose to picket every intensive care unit, nursing home, and hospice in America to ensure that no family facing Schiavo's situation is allowed to let their loved one die? Is Congress really going to legislatively ban natural death so long as some theoretical means is available to continue it? Oh no, says James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and DeLay's prime enabler in this weekend's grandstand play: the 'emergency' legislation is 'narrowly targeted' and not designed to set a precedent. In other words, this is pure political exploitation of a private family conflict that's become a media sensation, even though it involves a very common, if, for the people involved, agonizing event."

Here's the anti-Michael argument, from Rense.com:

"Is Terri Schindler still legally married to Michael Schiavo?

"If not, then the power of attorney for her, during her incapacity, should fall to her next of kin, most logically -- her parents.

"Michael Schiavo is currently effectively married with children, in a common law arrangement, with another spouse, and while he has benefitted from a 1.7 million dollar lawsuit related to Terri's condition, he has abandoned Terri, hoping to be liberated from Terri upon her death, with no messy divorce necessary."

On American Prospect, Matthew Yglesias starts with a disclaimer:

"I'm not a doctor, and I'm not a lawyer. But many doctors and many lawyers have examined the sad case of Terri Schiavo. They've determined that she is in what's called a 'persistent vegetative state' -- a state, in other words, in which all the functions of consciousness, decision-making, emotion, and thought have been destroyed and from which she has no hope of recovery. They have also determined, through arduous litigation, that, to the best of our ability to know, she would not wish to persist indefinitely in this state, and that it would be in keeping with her best interests and desires to have her feeding tube removed, and to die. Good enough for me, and good enough, one would think, for any reasonable person.

"But not good enough for the Republican Party, which, as I write this, is busy casting all the values of family and the rule of law, precedent, federalism, and common decency aside to provide for the federal court system to hear the case all over again -- and not out of a genuine belief that there is any realistic possibility the courts will produce a new decision but out of a stomach-turning wish to prolong the spectacle to try to reap partisan gain. As a memo obtained by ABC News explains, Republican senators have been instructed that 'the pro-life base will be excited' by the debate, which is 'a great political issue' and 'a tough issue for Democrats.' Nauseating, yes, but not nearly as nauseating as the knowledge that in the state of Texas, thanks to a bill signed in 1999 by then-Governor George W. Bush, conscious, living human beings are deprived of life support against their express wishes (and those of their family) in order to save money from the Medicaid budget and make room for tax cuts."

Dan Kennedy proposes a simple test, based on Bill Frist saying he could see signs of responses in that videotape:

"If Schiavo really isn't in a persistent vegetative state, that should make this all the easier. Just ask her! Either Judge Greer or a designated representative, accompanied by Schiavo's family, should spend a few hours at her bedside to attempt to determine whether she is capable of responding to questions about her fate, as the family's lawyer, Barbara Weller, claimed the other day. If she is, and she expresses a desire to live, then that obviously supersedes what she told her husband, Michael, many years ago. If she isn't, then we have to accept that this is a charade, as most of my fellow liberals have already concluded. At that point, she could be allowed to die with dignity, and the political grandstanding now under way could be brought to a rapid end."

Andrew Sullivan sums up his view in one paragraph:

"So it is now the federal government's role to micro-manage baseball and to prevent a single Florida woman who is trapped in a living hell from dying with dignity. We're getting to the point when conservatism has become a political philosophy that believes that government -- at the most distant level -- has the right to intervene in almost anything to achieve the right solution. Today's conservatism is becoming yesterday's liberalism."

Finally, I'm sure you've all spent a lot of time thinking about celebrity blogs. (What, it's not enough to be famous, you've gotta hog cyberspace too?) Salon's Stephanie Zacharek questions "why Melanie Griffith, minor celebrity and, let's not forget, at one time an incredibly charming actress, would feel compelled to share her tips on connecting with her inner self, complete with a form letter that goes:

"If it is your will, please reveal to me in a dream tonight the secret of my success in order to become closer to you.

"With love and respect, 'Melanie'

"Celebrities are different from you and me, and their blogs are different, too, if only because they open additional windows onto people we already assume we know. You may not have wanted to know that Griffith writes letters to her inner self. (I wonder if she uses the good stationery?) But of all the things Griffith might choose to reveal about herself -- from plastic-surgery denials to affirmations about the strength of her marriage to Antonio Banderas -- what kind of balls does it take to post something as ridiculous and as embarrassingly intimate as a form letter to one's psyche? For those who have become tired of celebrity overload (although the ever-increasing glut of big-pictures-no-text celebrity-poop magazines suggests that there might not be many who are), celebrity blogs are a welcome antidote -- they put us, the consumer, in the driver's seat. No one is flashing melaniegriffith.com in our face; if we find ourselves going there, it's our own damn fault.

"There are as many different types of celebrity blogs as there are celebrities: We have blogs from celebrities who have fallen out of the spotlight and who want back in, at least in some marginal way (Rosie O'Donnell); blogs from celebrities who are too big to need blogs but who still maintain them, at least in some cursory faction, to maintain the illusion of intimacy with their fans (Gwen Stefani); blogs from celebrities who actually seem to enjoy recording their thoughts about mundane day-to-day activities and manage to do it in a conversational, entertaining way (Moby); blogs from celebrities who feel strangely compelled to lecture us on the meaning of the universe (Fred Durst); blogs from celebrities who feel strongly about politics (Barbra Streisand) . . ."

The list of the famous and not-so-famous goes on.