Isn't it time to dial down the rhetoric and lose the self-righteousness?

by northstar at 03:04 PM on March 30, 2005

Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder. Her crime was being disabled, voiceless, and at the disposal of our media.

I grow tired of those pundits who feel, that by dint of their moral superiority and vastly superior intellect, have the right to weigh in on the Terry Schiavo case. The latest to wade in where angels rightfully fear to tread is Nat Henthoff, who really should know better.

Normally, I don't try to dismantle someone's argument point by point, but Henthoff's sanctimonious pleadings are just too much to pass up. This ought to be fun....

Argument #1: Terri Schiavo is being executed.

*For all the world to see, a 41-year-old woman, who has committed no crime, will die of dehydration and starvation in the longest public execution in American history.

Uh, first of all, Mrs. Schiavo expressed to two different people that she would never wish to live in the manner so many would now condemn her to in their battle to "Respect Life". What is so wrong with respecting the expressed wishes of Mrs. Schiavo? Oh, right; that doesn't fit your narrow agenda, does it?

Argument #2: Terri Schiavo is responsive and lucid.

*She is not brain-dead or comatose, and breathes naturally on her own. Although brain-damaged, she is not in a persistent vegetative state, according to an increasing number of radiologists and neurologists.

Well, sure, if you believe the Schindler family and/or their spiritual adviser, you'd think that Terri Schiavo is sitting up in bed dictating memos to her supporters and reading the Racing Form so that she can place her bet on the fifth race at Pimlico.

The reality is that 15 years of medical evidence contradicts Henthoff's assertion. Hell, even the report by Mrs. Schiavo's guardian ad litem, Jay Wolfson debunks the various theories of people who really WANT to believe that Terri Schiavo is a lucid, responsive human being. The notion, as put forth by Schiavo's father, that Terri is "begging for our help" flies in the face of medical reality- and it's an insult to his daughter, who he is allowing to be used as a political chess piece. If there is a crime being committed here, it is by the Schindler family, who have willingly and actively participated in turning their daughter's tragic situation into a political travesty.

Argument #3: Terri Schiavo has been denied her due process rights.

*Among many other violations of her due process rights, Terri Schiavo has never been allowed by the primary judge in her case—Florida Circuit Judge George Greer, whose conclusions have been robotically upheld by all the courts above him—to have her own lawyer represent her.

This argument is prima facie absurd. Florida Governor assigned a guardian ad litem, Jay Wolfson, to represent Mrs. Schiavo's interest. His report lays out his efforts to determine the truth of Mrs. Schiavo's physical state, and he has said in no uncertain terms that, despite his best efforts to the contrary, he was unable to see anything that indicated she was in anything but a persistent vegetative state.

Argument #4: Judge Greer is a blind, doddering old fool who would run over his own mother to further his ignorant, tyrannical Liberal agenda.

*Greer has declared Terri Schiavo to be in a persistent vegetative state, but he has never gone to see her. His eyesight is very poor, but surely he could have visited her along with another member of his staff. Unlike people in a persistent vegetative state, Terri Schiavo is indeed responsive beyond mere reflexes.

This is indeed one of Henthoff's sillier arguments. Greer is a judge, not a medical doctor. His job is to dispassionately decide the merits of the case based ON THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, not to make medical, political, or emotional decisions. Just because Greer's decision sticks in your craw, it by no means indicates that he was incorrect or incompetent.

Argument #5: The ACLU has been complicit in assisting Michael Schiavo's evil desire to execute his wife.

*While lawyers and judges have engaged in a minuet of death, the American Civil Liberties Union, which would be passionately criticizing state court decisions and demanding due process if Terri were a convict on death row, has shamefully served as co-counsel for her husband, Michael Schiavo, in his insistent desire to have her die.

No doubt the ACLU is representing Michael Schiavo because, under Florida law, it is the duty and legal responsibility of the remaining spouse to represent the interests of the incapacitated spouse. Casting stones at the ACLU is probably the oldest canard in the book (Yeah, well, the ACLU would represent Saddam Hussein given half a chance....).

Argument #6: Michael Schiavo is a philanderer, the living embodiment of licentiousness,sin, and evil. As such, he is wholly unfit to speak on behalf of his wife.

*Months ago, in discussing this case with ACLU executive director Anthony Romero, and later reading ACLU statements, I saw no sign that this bastion of the Bill of Rights has ever examined the facts concerning the egregious conflicts of interest of her husband and guardian Michael Schiavo, who has been living with another woman for years, with whom he has two children, and has violated a long list of his legal responsibilities as her guardian, some of them directly preventing her chances for improvement. Judge Greer has ignored all of them.

Michael Schiavo's personal life is completely immaterial to this controversy, and is only used as ammunition to smear him by those who have no legal standing but plenty of agenda. Under Florida law, the ONLY issue is whether or not Michael Schiavo is meeting his obligation to provide adequate care for his wife. Over the past 15 years, Schiavo's care has been beyond adequate. In 15 years, Terri Schiavo has never had a bedsore.

As for the issue of Michael Schiavo living with another woman, how about we all try to walk a mile in his shoes. It's easy for us to place our own narrow moral expectations upon him, but can any of us say that we could meet that standard if we were in his shoes? I daresay that we could not. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or hopelessly out of touch with the reality of human needs. (Abraham Maslow, anyone??)

Argument #7: Michael Schiavo is guilty of egregiously abusing and neglecting Terri Schiavo.

*In February, Florida's Department of Children and Families presented Judge Greer with a 34-page document listing charges of neglect, abuse, and exploitation of Terri by her husband, with a request for 60 days to fully investigate the charges. Judge Greer, soon to remove Terri's feeding tube for the third time, rejected the 60-day extension. (The media have ignored these charges, and much of what follows in this article.)

Greer ruled against these charges primarily because they were baseless, politically motivated, and wholly without merit. Schiavo's family and others have had 15 years to raise these issues, and Judge Greer clearly recognized them for what they were: politically motivated delaying tactics designed to allow the Schiavo family more time to obtain yet another bite at the legal apple in their attempt to usurp Michael Schiavo's legal rights. Desperate measures taken by desperate people with no legal standing.

Argument #8: Michael Schiavo has completely failed in his responsibility to provide proper care and therapy for his wife.

*Michael Schiavo, who says he loves and continues to be devoted to Terri, has provided no therapy or rehabilitation for his wife (the legal one) since 1993. He did have her tested for a time, but stopped all testing in 1993. He insists she once told him she didn't want to survive by artificial means, but he didn't mention her alleged wishes for years after her brain damage, while saying he would care for her for the rest of his life.

Since when it is a husband's responsibility to publicly disclose private, intimate conversations he has had at one time or another with his wife? To put it bluntly, it's nobody's damn business, and Henthoff has clearly been reduced to grasping at straws. (Yeah...but...but....)

Argument #9: The only neurological opinions that count are the ones from doctors on the Right side of the political spectrum.

*Terri Schiavo has never had an MRI or a PET scan, nor a thorough neurological examination. Republican Senate leader Bill Frist, a specialist in heart-lung transplant surgery, has, as The New York Times reported on March 23, "certified [in his practice] that patients were brain dead so that their organs could be transplanted." He is not just "playing doctor" on this case.

During a speech on the Senate floor on March 17, Frist, speaking of Judge Greer's denial of a request for new testing and examinations of Terri, said reasonably, "I would think you would want a complete neurological exam" before determining she must die.

Frist added: "The attorneys for Terri's parents have submitted 33 affidavits from doctors and other medical professionals,all of whom say that Terri should be re-evaluated."

Bill Frist has never seen nor examined Terri Schiavo, and his "diagnosis" of Terri Schiavo, delivered in grand oratorical fashion on the Senate floor, came after he had watched all of an hour of videotape of Schiavo.

If you put 50 neurologists together into the same room, it is quite likely that you could well end up with 50 different opinions. And that's BEFORE you introduce ideology into the equation. Thirty-three doctors and "other medical professionals" is all well and good, but opinion-shopping is akin to the national sport for those trying to make a political point- such as the Schindler family and their supporters.

Argument #10: Nineteen judges are WRONG.

*In death penalty cases, defense counsel for retarded and otherwise mentally disabled clients submit extensive medical tests. Ignoring the absence of complete neurological exams, supporters of the deadly decisions by Judge Greer and the trail of appellate jurists keep reminding us how extensive the litigation in this case has been—19 judges in six courts is the mantra. And more have been added. So too in many death penalty cases, but increasingly, close to execution, inmates have been saved by DNA.

First of all, this is not a death penalty case, and using that sort of rhetoric is useful only to inflame the argument at hand. Secondly, Henthoff might want to consider this reality: perhaps the reason that 19 different justices have rendered similar decisions IS THAT THE LAW ON THIS MATTER IS CRYSTAL CLEAR. The Schindler family's strategy all along has been the willingly suffer staggering losses in a valiant search for that one lone judge in the woodpile who favors Conservative ideology above the law. To the credit of all the jurists involved, they have held true to their responsibility: interpreting the law. This is as it should be.

Argument #11: Nineteen judges are WRONG.

*As David Gibbs, the lawyer for Terri's parents, has pointed out, there has been a manifest need for a new federal, Fourteenth Amendment review of the case because Terri's death sentence has been based on seven years of "fatally flawed" state court findings—all based on the invincible neglect of elementary due process by Judge George Greer.

The arrogance of this attitude almost defies description. "Fatally flawed" is a highly inflammatory and ideological epithet to be tossing at the judiciary. Judges are paid to INTERPRET the law, not weigh ideology and political advantage. Again, the fact that so many judges have rendered similar decisions for so long speaks to the fact THAT THE LAW ON THIS MATTER IS CRYSTAL CLEAR. Period. End of story. There is no more apple left off which the Schindlers might sneak another bite.

Argument #12: I'll be back to kick @$$ and take names again....

*I will be returning to the legacy of Terri Schiavo in the weeks ahead because there will certainly be long-term reverberations from this case and its fracturing of the rule of law in the Florida courts and then the federal courts—as well as the disgracefully ignorant coverage of the case by the great majority of the media, including such pillars of the trade as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Miami Herald, and [T]he Los Angeles Times as they copied each other's misinformation, like Terri Schiavo being "in a persistent vegetative state."

Gee, thank, Nat; I can hardly wait to be blessed with another of your paper-thin arguments that more closely resemble Swiss cheese for all of the holes than a coherent ideological whole. If you can come back with something different and better constructed than this sorry excuse for a case, I'm listening. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and (more importantly) mine. For someone who has such an impressive reputation as an ideologue and an intellectual, you've sure managed to put together one sorry-@$$ argument here.

Your contention that the Schiavo case represents the "fracturing of the rule of law in the Florida courts and then the federal courts" is on it's face absurd. The fact that nineteen judges in various jurisdictions have consistently sided with Michael Schiavo should be taken as leaving no doubt THAT THE LAW ON THIS MATTER IS CRYSTAL CLEAR. The only thing that has been fractured is the confidence of Social Conservatives in their ability to legislatively force their narrow agenda down our throats. If anything, the justices who have been involved in the Schiavo case have done an excellent job of staving off numerous attempts by a vocal, committed minority to create judicial tyranny.

A media outlet failing to share your narrow ideology is not indicative of misinformation; neither is it an indication that they are incorrect. Methinks you might be better off taking a good long look at your narrow, intolerant ideology and ask yourself one simple question: How would YOU handle the 15 years of hell that Michael and Terri Schiavo have been through? If the argument you've put forth here is any indication, you would have failed the test on Day One.