NYT: Santorum's 'Circuslike' Position on Terry Schiavo Right-to-Die Case 'Left Public Aghast'
The latest New York Times' "Long Run" profile on Saturday's front page featured Rick Santorum ("A Passionate Persona Forged in a Brutal Defeat"), accused by reporter Katharine Seelye of having "contributed to the circuslike atmosphere" in the case of Terry Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman involved in a controversial "right-to-die" case: "The spectacle left much of the public aghast."
One reason why the public felt that way was the coverage of liberal outlets like the Times, slanted heavily toward the view of Terry's husband Michael, who fiercely advocated pulling the plug.
Rick Santorum’s prospects for re-election to the Senate were not rosy when friends and advisers urged him in 2005 not to risk making things worse.
Mr. Santorum, hurting politically in Pennsylvania because of his defense of the Iraq war and President George W. Bush, had written a book, “It Takes a Family.” It was a blistering attack on liberal “elites” and what he saw as their moral relativism as well as “radical feminists” who, he said, had devalued mothers who preferred staying home rather than going to work.
....
His loss, by 17.4 percentage points, was the biggest for any incumbent senator in Pennsylvania since at least the Civil War, according to G. Terry Madonna, a political scientist at Franklin and Marshall College. That eyepopping margin is the chief reason that few people took Mr. Santorum seriously last year when he started running for president. How could he get elected anywhere after he had lost his own state so lopsidedly?
Mr. Santorum says he was caught in “a meltdown year” for Republicans, both in Pennsylvania and nationally. That was certainly true. In Pennsylvania, they lost most offices, including four Congressional seats. In Washington, they lost the House and control of the Senate.
But if the climate was harsh, Mr. Santorum was part of it. Always brash, he had become a more rancorous figure since he last faced the voters in 2000. He was No. 3 in his party’s leadership and responsible for its messaging, which often meant either defending Mr. Bush or going on the attack.
And he took high-visibility roles on divisive issues, including abortion, homosexuality and the right-to-die case of Terri Schiavo.
....
The wrenching Schiavo case helped escalate his role in the nation’s culture wars. Ms. Schiavo, 41, had been in a vegetative state for 15 years. Her husband wanted her feeding tube removed, saying she would not want to continue that way, while her parents opposed its removal, saying she showed signs of life. After multiple legal challenges, the tube was removed on March 18, 2005, under orders from a Florida judge.
Congress quickly passed a bill, co-sponsored in the Senate by Mr. Santorum and supported by Democrats, saying federal courts, which had refused to intervene, needed to review her case. Mr. Bush rushed back to Washington from vacation to sign it into law. She died 13 days after the tube was removed.
The spectacle left much of the public aghast. In a CBS poll, 82 percent of Americans said Congress and the president should have stayed out of the case. Mr. Santorum had gone further than most. Just before Ms. Schiavo died, he visited her hospice, met with her parents there and held a news conference. Critics said he contributed to the circuslike atmosphere.
Did liberals opposed to removing Schiavo's feeding tube, like Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, and Sen. Tom Harkin, also "contribute to a circus-like atmosphere"? Or does that just apply to a Republican who may run against Obama?
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
My memory says it wasn't a "right to die" case
Submitted by pockets64 on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 9:54pm.
It was a "right to kill" case. If you pull feeding from any patient they will die.
Good evening Pockets
Submitted by cocodrie on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 10:24pm.
Terry was an involuntary suicide and her husband served as the death panel making the decision. He needed the rest of her settlement money for his new wife. There was no sense using it to rake care of Terry. She wasn't any use to him anymore so why not?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Coco
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 10:25pm.
Yes, it was immaterial that her parents were willing to assume all financial care for their daughter, and visited with her daily. No, the important thing was for her to die so he could move on with his girlfriend and children.
That girlfriend will also be called to justify her behavior on judgement day, for having an affair with another woman's husband.
Sorry, but
Submitted by syvyn11 on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 10:35pm.
her brain was goo. There was nothing left of Mrs. Shavio but a empty shell.
Many on the right think she was going to wake up and implicate her husband in her injuries. But this was a situation where there was no winners.
I do not want to be in a situation where there is no hope to be kept alive to make my parent feel good.
syvyn
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 10:41pm.
If her parents were willing to take responsibility for their daughter, why did her husband feel the need to kill her? I hope you have a living will. But, if, as you so inelegantly put it, her brain was "goo", what was the difference to her in being kept alive?
This case was appauling
Submitted by djwolf12 on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 10:25pm.
Terry Schiavo's parents pleaded and begged the jude not to let this happen to their daughter. They even begged the judge to let them take care of Terry themselves. Naturally, the judge declined and the husband went on CNN and M.S.S.R. (M-BS-NBC) for interviews about death rights. That made me want to yawn in technicolor.
As a adult, her parents had
Submitted by syvyn11 on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 10:37pm.
As a adult, her parents had no say, legally. Fact was she wasn't going to get any better.
The court should have negated his power of attorney the
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 10:39pm.
moment it was determined that the husband was just waiting for her to go so he could file the insurance claim.
As a neurologist, it would not be ethical for me to comment beyond that as she was not my patient.
As a devout Catholic, I can only pray that she is the arms of her savior and found peace and everlasting light and love in the presence of God.
The Libs were right on Schiavo
Submitted by red eye repub on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 10:43pm.
I hate to say it...because i'm sure it was accidental...but it's true. The Libs were right.
The Law is all that matters. If Florida law gave the husband sole rights in determining his wife's medical decisions, then the argument should end there. That is the law, and the law is all that matters.
Unless you don't believe in the rule of law...in which case you don't believe in anything other than anarchy or mob rule, where there are no rules people can learn to live by.
If you think the law is wrong, then demonstrate and protest and start a movement to change the law for the future. That's sort of the point of making laws. Not to alter history or save the day in the heat of the moment, but to fix problems in the future.
In any case, I doubt this will matter if Santorum is our nominee. This is just more liberal hyperventilating like every other day.
The Law?
Submitted by bmacdmac on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 10:54pm.
Is that law of man or God? Man has wrote a ton of bad laws so that makes it right? Would I want to be kept alive in that condition, no way but I have it on paper.
The Law of Florida, of course
Submitted by red eye repub on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 11:39pm.
I agree, just because Man writes laws, that in and of itself doesn't make them right. More often than not I think it's the opposite. I think many laws are just plain wrong. I wish our Congress would spend more time striking ridiculous laws from the books, instead of finding new ones to force down upon us.
But that doesn't change the purpose of having laws, which are the rules of our civilization. Every game needs rules. Laws are ours. Whether or not we as individuals decide to abide by the law, or to break the law, that is our choice. I try to break at least one law a day. Actually I don't try; it just seems to happen. But if I get caught breaking the law, I don't cry that the law isn't fair. I knew exactly what I was doing, and I made my choice.
The point is that we all have to recognize the authority of the laws that our society places on us. Otherwise it would be anarchy and chaos. If you disagree with a law, fight to change it. But no one should be allowed to change it retroactively based on some extenuating circumstance. If that were the case no law would be sacred, and our society would degrade because there would be no point in obeying any laws that could be changed after the fact.
Conservatives don't change the rules based on preferred outcomes. That's a liberal, totalitarian stance. They "know better". We conservatives want fair rules, and let the chips fall where they may. Maria Schiavo may have married a bad dude; we don't know. But that was her choice. Not yours.
I agree
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 11:45pm.
As a Floridian, the Schiavo case was one more awful bit of "FloriDuh".
But the law, as it was at the time, was the law.
If one is not willing to take one's future into one's own hands (living will, etc.).....then by default, one decides to abide by the law as written.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Two thumbs up...one for r e r and one for Blonde...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 03/19/2012 - 11:50pm.
Jer
Life? Meh.....
Submitted by Joe W. on Tue, 03/20/2012 - 9:51am.
The moon bat liberals on the left just prove, yet again, that they have absolutely zero regard for the sanctity of life at ANY stage of it. (Unless it is their own, of course").....They defend and promote abortion, assisted suicide, and the withholding of medical treatment of those whose lives THEY consider meaningless. All in the name of "inconvenience" to themselves and their perverted life style choices. Stating, "well, it's the law"...is a cop-out of the highest order. It may be man's law, but it certainly is not God's law. I feel sorry for the lot of you.