Terri Schiavo is not a legislative issue

Terri Schiavo slipped into a "persistent vegetative state" approximately 15 years ago in February of 1990 after a heart attack caused by a potassium imbalance from bulimia. After two earlier attempts by her husband, Michael Schiavo, to have the feeding tube keeping her alive removed, the tube was taken out Friday, March 18. In the days since, conservatives have slipped into high gear, first asking Florida courts to step in and then, when Florida courts refused to intervene, having Congress pass a bill giving control of the case to federal courts.

Congress's actions are blatantly inappropriate, considering the highly religious motives behind them, the previous actions taken in this case and the possible unconstitutionality of the congressional actions.

Virtually all of the doctors who have examined Schiavo agree that she is in a "persistent vegetative state." According to an article on Healthlink of the Medical College of Wisconsin, someone with a persistent vegetative state has "lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retains noncognitive function and a preserved sleep-wake cycle." In other words, the person is effectively brain dead, but his or her bodily functions still occur.

Ever since this legal battle over ending Terri Schiavo's life began in 1998, her husband has advocated that should a situation like this one occur, she indicated that she would not want to be kept alive. However, Schiavo's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, have stated that as Schiavo wrote no "living will," a document designed to convey the wishes of a person who is unable to communicate with the outside world, she cannot be taken off life support.

Nearly all of the support for the Schindlers' position is religious. As this attempt to remove Schiavo's feeding tube began, many religious protestors gathered outside Michael Schiavo's home and the hospice where Schiavo is currently residing. While their religious convictions are certainly strong, they should not drive both the House and Senate to pass a bill setting a precedent that will surely be followed in later cases, a precedent based almost entirely on religion.

In fact, in a disturbing turn of events, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill), who presided over the three-hour session of the House of Representatives to decide this matter, quoted Pope John Paul II on the floor of the House, according to a Washington Post article.

The Schiavo case was appealed to 19 different courtrooms by Schiavo's parents before Congress intervened in the case. These courts have almost exclusively ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo. Additionally, when the Florida legislature passed a law allowing Florida Governor Jeb Bush to personally order the reinsertion of the tube, Florida's Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court again refused the Schindlers' appeal in a one-sentence decision today, March 24. The case had been refused by the Supreme Court at least three instances prior to the most recent one. Additionally, since the passing of the congressional act that brought the case to a federal level, the Schindlers have been turned down on appeal by "a federal district judge in Florida, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in Atlanta and the full appeals," according to another Washington Post article.

This clear decision by the courts indicates that Michael Schiavo has the right to make this difficult choice. Although no one really would like to see Terri Schiavo die, the course of action Michael Schiavo has chosen seems to be the most prudent under the circumstances, a course that the Schindlers have no legal grounds to dispute.

The use of Congress to take this case out of the state courts by the Schindlers raises serious concerns, according to House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as quoted in a Washington Post article. "Congressional leaders have no business substituting their judgment for that of multiple state courts that have extensively considered the issues in this intensely personal family matter. The actions of the majority in attempting to pass constitutionally dubious legislation are highly irregular and an improper use of legislative authority," Pelosi stated. Members of one family using Congress to enforce their will on other members of their family certainly seems to be outside of Congress's purview.

Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass) also believes that Congress simply was not prepared to make this decision, according to a quote in The Washington Post. "Every aggrieved party in any similar litigation now will go to Congress, come to Congress and ask us to make a series of decisions. This is a terribly difficult decision, which we are, institutionally, totally incompetent to make," Frank told The Washington Post. A member of Congress stating that he does not feel competent to rule on a bill raises serious concerns about the grounds that other members of Congress are basing their decisions on.

While Schiavo's situation is undoubtedly hard on her parents, they do not have the right to choose in this case. The legal decisions, which have been massively in favor of Michael Schiavo both on a state and federal level, indicate that he does have to choose in this instance. Trying to bring the Schiavo case into the limelight and the courts also brings religion and the government far closer together than is prudent. Although conservatives want to draw this case into the public eye, it really should not be and should have remained where it started, as a tragic family feud that is settled in court, not Congress.