Daily Cal Counterweight

Week of March 28 - April 1

By Kerry Eskenas and Andrew R Quinio
Posted on 04/01/05

COLUMN: Persistent Legislative State

Shane Goldmacher picked a particularly insensitive day to publish an article in the Daily Cal titled “Persistent Legislative State.” His article was published the morning of Terri’s death. In this article, Goldmacher blindly repeats the Democrats’ usual complaint: The Republican Party is full of Christian fundamentalists who wanted Terri to live for irrational and religion-based reasons. That of course eliminates the existence of non-religious people like myself who supported Terri’s life. Goldmacher and the Democrats have a central argument in the Terri Schiavo case: The courts have made a ruling, and therefore it is not the place of the legislative or executive branches to question that ruling. However, there is a reason that the United States has a system of checks and balances—and that reason is clear in the Terri Schiavo case. The courts did not conduct a thorough investigation, and the courts’ irresponsibility led to a verdict that was morally wrong. The question that many are asking is, “Can a single judge ignore the will of the Senate, House of Representatives, and the President himself?” According to the Democrats, the answer is yes. According to current law, the answer is also yes. However, this only displays a deep flaw in the law of this country, which is supposed to be conducted in the system of checks and balances. The courts do not have absolute power in this country, and the other branches of government should be allowed to intervene when a verdict is issued that came from an incomplete investigation of evidence.

Goldmacher makes a completely uninformed claim at the center of his article. He states that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s father “suffered brain damage in a tragic tram accident” and that DeLay took his father off life support. He then asks how DeLay could take the opposite position in Terri’s case. The fact of the matter is that DeLay’s father was literally on life support—he could not breathe on his own, and as Goldmacher points out in his article, he was comatose. Terri Schiavo was neither on life support nor was she comatose. The two situations are not comparable. Schiavo was a mentally disabled woman who simply needed an alternative method of eating and drinking. No proof has emerged that she was in a “persistent vegetative state,” and there are doctors and nurses who have taken care of Terri who have told the media that they believe she was conscious.

On Fox News, a visitor to Terri’s hospice told a reporter that the sight of Terri dying from dehydration and starvation was anything but “peaceful,” as Michael Schiavo’s spokesman had claimed it appeared. He said that the flowers that people had brought to Terri were lying next to her, well watered and taken care of. However, a woman was being legally starved to death in the bed next to these flowers. When the judicial system concludes that such a picture is just, it is time for the other two branches of government to intervene. It is only a very sick and twisted logic that could arrive at such a horrific conclusion. This court case was a battle of words between two sets of people. And in a battle of words in which one verdict yields lethal consequences, the courts should rule, as President Bush said, in favor of life.

COLUMN: Making Life Decisions

Columnist Aaron Azlant offers his thoughts on the Terri Schiavo situation and poses as an advocate of personal choice. Azlant, however, chooses not to report all of the facts or put anything in perspective. Looking past the pro-life advocates, Azlant writes, “There is much to be said as well for erring on the side of dignity.” Tell me about it. Starving to death is such a dignified way to go. Azlant writes of dying with “dignity” but forgets that Schiavo reached her end by the cruelest of means. According to Dr. David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical Association, Terri may not have died peacefully and painlessly because she was not terminally ill or near death when they removed her feeding tube. When doctors say that death by starvation is painless, they are referring to cancer patients or other near-death patients whose bodies are already shutting down. Terri was not near death, and only needed basic care to live out her life. If we are to assume that Terri Schiavo really did want to die, what gives us the right to assume that we are allowed to bring about that death by any means necessary, no matter how cruel?

Azlant continues with a refreshing defense of Michael Schiavo. He writes, “Whatever you argue about Michael Schiavo’s private ethical conduct, at least he had never said—in front of a court of law—that he would disregard the explicit wishes of Terri in favor of his own principles, as have her parents.” Well now that I know Michael Schiavo would carry out his wife’s death sentence to its fullest, I have so much more respect for him.

Azlant asks us to consider a scary hypothetical: “Think about this for a second. Can you imagine if your own parents (or Congress) were handed an ultimate veto over similar decisions in your own life?” No, I can’t imagine that, but I can imagine a state court having an ultimate veto over my life. I can also imagine a shady spouse with another family on the side having an ultimate veto over my life. Sound familiar? If my hypotheticals seem far more possible then Azlant’s, it is because they actually did happen to Terri Schiavo. Azlant has a huge problem with one’s parents struggling to keep their child from death, but seems to have no problem with a court having ultimate power to prevent life.

NEWS: Introducing the ASUC Candidates

The Daily Cal has been running a series for the ASUC election, introducing the various executive candidates and their agendas. It would probably be easier to let the Defend Affirmative Action Party shoot themselves in the foot, as they have regularly done so in the past, but there is no harm in providing the ammo. While every candidate from every party claims that they want to “serve the students,” only DAAP has already made it obvious that they don’t care about Cal students. The only thing that has to be said: $15,000. If they truly cared about Berkeley students, they would not have taken $15,000 of the students’ ASUC money.

Check out the Patriot’s ASUC Endorsements in the April Issue!

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot