|
Starving Justice-The Tragedy of Terri Schiavo
By Virginia C. Armstrong, Ph.D.*, National Chairman
Terri Schiavo is dead, and a bit of America has died with her. The right to life has become the right to die, and the right to die has become the right to kill. Only a few of the circumstances of this tragedy have been trumpeted by the mainline media. At the core of Terri Schiavo's death are the facts that two weeks ago a young woman suffering from a handicap but no terminal illness, not in a state of dying, and connected to only one external device-a feeding tube such as is used by a number of fully functional Americans-is now dead. And her death is attributable only to her being lethally starved and dehydrated-traumas that would kill the healthiest of us. This grisly killing-(not a "mercy killing" or "death with dignity") resulted from the brutal callousness of her estranged and suspect husband and a handful of American judges, both national and state. Their accomplices were the U. S. President and Congress and numerous Florida state officials.
The arguments against granting a full hearing to new evidence presented by Terri's birth family, the Schindlers, have also been trumpeted by the mainline media:
- "Respect for state power demands that the rulings of Florida officials (primarily one low-level state judge, George Greer) against Terri be respected." I am a daughter of the South, with an above-average affection for states' rights. But federalism was an instrumental value, one designed by the Constitutional Framers to protect ultimate values-the right to life being the most basic. This ultimate right precedes the Constitution, being the very gift of God himself, not our Founders. No state has the power to deprive a person of the right to life without due process of law. Terri was denied this due process.
- "Separation of powers" requires that legislative branches (e.g., the U. S. Congress, President, and Florida Legislature and Governor) not intrude into the realm of judicial power." "Separation of powers," like federalism, is an instrumental value. This instrumental value is also trumped by the ultimate value of the right to life. No official in any branch of government has the authority to deprive a person of the right to life without due process of law. Terri was denied this due process by judicial action and executive and legislative inaction.
- "Judges in both Florida and the federal judiciary exercised judicial restraint by refusing to over-turn lower state court decisions." This argument expresses an increasingly serious error bandied about in American political debate today. Authentic "judicial restraint" does not mean that judges should refuse to over-turn actions of their brethren-"precedents." Authentic "judicial restraint" means that no one-including, or especially judges, can act in violation of the U. S. Constitution. In Terri's case, a plethora of officials violated the U. S. Constitution by depriving her of life without due process of law.
- "The facts of Terri's condition have been more than sufficiently considered." This is false for several reasons:
- One is that the guardianship of Terri should have been transferred by the courts long ago from her highly suspect husband, Michael, to her caring parents, Bob and Mary Schindler.
- Another is that the diagnosis made early on that Terri was in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) is suspect. Medical studies now show that PVS diagnoses are wrong 40-60% of the time.
- Dozens of doctors were ready to testify that Terri was not PVS now. And Terri has never been given the most powerful and precise medical tests now available such as MRIs or PETs to clarify her true condition.
- "The rule of law has been followed in Terri's case." The rule of law has been flouted, not followed:
- There is no precedent allowing the federal judges refused to hear Terri's case on the merits, ordering the feeding tube left in place during the hearing.
- There are several precedents at both the U. S. Supreme Court and federal appellate level that required current courts to hear Terri's case.
- "Equitable principles," "the extraordinary circumstances presented [by this petition]," "the qualities of mercy and practicality," and "the ends of justice entrusted to it [the court]" demand full judicial hearing of the merits of the Schindlers' case.
- The judges accepted Judge Greer's finding that there was "clear and convincing evidence" of Terri's desire never to be in the condition of the last years. But how could the judges be so sure of the evidence when they would not even hear it? A full view of all data shows that the evidence regarding Terri's wishes is, at best, very unclear and unconvincing.
- The judges concluded that there was not "a substantial likelihood" of Terri's case "succeeding on the merits" if it were heard. But how did the court know that when it refused to hear the merits? Furthermore, precedents clearly set forth additional standards in addition to the "success on the merits" that must be considered in a court's decision whether to grant a hearing. Because these other factors were so strong in Terri's case, she had to do no more than show "some likelihood of success on the merits," to gain a court hearing-which her petition most certainly showed.
- "Congressional legislation enabling federal courts to hear Terri's petition was unconstitutional." The Congressional act was fully within legislative power. Even the U. S. Supreme Court has acknowledged similar Congressional actions, in 1996 and 1997, for example. The Constitution granted Congress alone the power to create and empower the lower federal courts and govern most of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. What was unconstitutional in this case was Judge Whittemore's refusal hold a trial de novo (a new hearing on the evidence not bound by any past decisions or actions). For this, he should have been held in contempt of Congress and dealt with accordingly.
Rest in peace, Terri. But may America learn vital lessons from you about the God-given right to life and how our courts must be recaptured in order to protect that right and reclaim our culture and our Constitution.
|
|
Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum
|
|
Eagle Forum
