Exploiting The Terri Schiavo Case

24 March 2005 |permalink | email article

It is impossible to overstate the emotionally charged moral, legal, political and privacy issues in this human tragedy as the life of the 15-year brain damaged Florida woman hangs in the balance.

Let’s start with W.’s comment after signing the Schiavo bill: “It is wisest to always err on the side of life.” The right to life is a sacred matter. But the definition of what constitutes life without hope of recovery when a person is in a “persistent vegetative state” and has no living will is open to serious debate. The president’s dramatic action reeks of hypocrisy and agenda-driven politics. His action is inconsistent with a Texas law he signed as governor in 1999. That law, which did provide some patient protections from a 1997 bill which he vetoed, allows a patient’s surrogate, like Schiavo’s husband, the right to make end-of-life decisions. But it ultimately gives hospitals the right to withdraw life support if there is no hope of revival, regardless of family wishes.

Evangelical Christians and other conservative activists are energized by the unprecedented steps taken by the congressional Republican leadership. But the backlash has been huge among many Republicans who have been traditionally concerned about the intervention of federal power and invasion of privacy rights. It has long been a cornerstone of conservative philosophy to oppose intervening by lawmakers in a ruling of a state court. That leaked memo to ABC News distributed only to GOP senators which suggested that the Schiavo case could pay big dividends in courting Christian conservatives in midterm elections will long haunt the White House. It has the potential of creating a serious clash within the party, as The New York Times‘ Adam Nagourney reported, between “social conservatives and process conservatives.”

Liberal comment has been predictably critical. The New York Times called the congressional action “a blow to the rule of law.” Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick wondered whether a federal district judge can “set aside virtually every bedrock constitutional principle on which the nation was founded, just so members of the United States Congress may constitutionalize the nowhere-to-be-found legal principle that a ‘culture of life’ is a good thing?” Strong opposition was widely expressed in conservative editorials. The Boston Herald: “...the utter shameless of Majority Leader Bill Frist...a heart surgeon...who insisted after watching a video that Terry Schiavo ‘has a level of consciousness.’ “ Said The New York Post: “Political opportunism? No question about.”

Democrats, unanimously in the Senate and for the most part in the House, stayed out of the Schiavo bill issue. But the party opposite has no solid position on dealing with the escalating “life” issue which will explode again in the ‘06 election cycle. There is now agreement in both parties that the Schiavo case will ignite a “bench-clearing, abuse of power brawl” in the Senate on Bush’s choices for federal judgeships as well as coming battles over Supreme Court vacancies.  Uber-conservative direct mail king Richard Viguerie told The New York Times that “it is very dramatic proof of what we have been saying: that the judiciary is out of control.” In other words, we want only judges who agree with us.

Opinion polls by huge margins have been lopsided against GOP intervention in the Schiavo issue. But minority intensity still matters. An op-ed piece in The New York Times by Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center is a startling read. He notes that the Congressional vote underscores the success of Christian conservatives in defining the last election as having been decided by moral values. But he suggests that political strategists may not want to bank too heavily on this assessment. “Especially on life-and-death issues, support for moral values among Americans must contend with a deeply held pragmatism.” Baby boomers, he opines, want to confront death in their own way.

It is safe to conclude that the right-to-die issue will not disappear soon in Congress. The Los Angeles Times‘ Richard Simon reported a congressional hearing about whether additional federal legislation is needed is expected to be held next week. Burned Congressional Republicans were vague about their next move. Why am I not surprised? And then there is the face that the Schiavo case, as Washington Post‘s Jonathan Weisman and Ceci Connolly write, puts on rising medical costs. “As Republican leader in Congress move to trim billions of dollars from the Medicaid health program, they are simultaneously intervening to save the life of possibly the highest-profile Medicaid patient: Terri Schiavo.”
Republicans are now trapped between expressing concern for the disabled and rhetoric that betrays their actions. Are Democrats capable of exploiting this weakness?

L.A. Politic

The Democratic deli beat: Mayor Jim Hahn and City Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa, finalists in the May 17 runoff, court third-place finisher Bob Hertzberg. Each wants his endorsement because the former Assembly Speaker had a strong conservative-to-moderate base of support, especially in the San Fernando Valley. What’s clear is that Hertzberg will not back Hahn and is virtually certain not to back Villaraigosa. The former Sacramento roomates feuded when Villaraigosa was slow to turn over the Speakership to Hertzberg. The rivalry intensified after Hertzberg filed for mayor and Villaraigosa broke his pledge to serve a full term and entered the race. Several informed sources say another unstated reason is this: Villaraigosa, the front-runner who picked up endorsements this week from the Democratic County Central Committee and fifth place Sen. Richard Alarcon, has made a number of powerful and unforgiving political enemies within in the Latina community dating back to his 2001 campaign. . . .The Gnomes of Spring Street, who occasionally surface from manholes in front of City Hall, report a massive independent $$$$$ expenditure, involving city unions in support of Hahn, and featuring a heavy mail/TV blitz, is in formation.

NFL return: The word is league owners should be in a position at their May 24-25 meeting in Washington to select one of four competing L.A.-area stadium concepts for the return of pro football - the Coliseum, the Rose Bowl, Carson or Anaheim. Forget Carson. Which reminds that Condi Rice, in a another very recent interview with ABC News about running for president in ‘08, changed the subject. The secretary of state, when not blasting away at North Korea, again insisted that her post-Washington goal is to return to Stanford or get involved with the NFL. Maybe reuniting with close buddy Carmen Policy, the ‘49ers wizard GM in their heyday, as part of an L.A. franchise?

480