Michael Steele: Right on Rationing, Wrong on Reasoning

Recently in a Washington Times radio interview, RNC Chairman Michael Steele was expressing his concerns regarding health care reform. He commented that the GOP’s handling of my sister Terri Schiavo is an example of what he fears, stating, “It is inserting itself into the very fabric of the decisions that you make, have to make every single day. It’ll make the Terri Schiavo case look like a walk in the park.”

I understand the point that Michael Steele was trying to make. He was using Terri as an example of what it would mean if the government was to get involved in the decisions of healthcare. However, not only was it a badly chosen comparison, but as a proclaimed pro-lifer, Mr. Steele should be ardently supportive of the actions taken by Congress—Democrats and Republicans—in their attempt to save Terri’s Life.

Perhaps Mr. Steele has fallen victim, along with so many others, to the same media spin that implies Congress was intruding on a “private” matter, rather than applauding them for stepping in to protect a disabled woman who was in the very process of being dehydrated to death.

The act by Congress granted Terri a federal and civil rights claim to be heard in federal court. In fact, these are the same rights we give to those on death row—who die far less brutal and painful deaths. If Ted Bundy or Scott Peterson had a guaranteed federal court review after their cases have been gone through the state courts, then why shouldn’t an innocent disabled woman like Terri be given that same chance?

That is what I find so ironic about Mr. Steele’s remarks and his concern regarding a government-controlled health care system. What happened to Terri is a perfect example of what he and Republicans are now trying to prevent from happening and what so many health care experts are warning us will happen if President Obama gets his way and establishes a system of health care rationing that would inevitable lead to countless premature deaths.

Much has been written warning us about the dangers of Obamacare, but mostly in terms of what it would mean for the elderly and perhaps the chronically ill. Unfortunately, I have not seen any reports of what will happen to those like Terri—the cognitively disabled. However, from what I am reading and what is being proposed for health care reform, I think it is safe to say that those like Terri don’t stand a chance. Especially, if the proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC) is formed that will put bioethicists in charge of who can and cannot receive treatment.

We are in grave danger any time health care decisions are taken out of the hands of individual patients and their families and placed into the hands of government bureaucrats whose decisions are based on cutting costs rather than valuing the dignity and equal worth of every human life.

In fact, many people are entirely unaware of what we have learned through Terri’s Foundation (the foundation my family formed in Terri’s honor to help protect the cognitively injured). We are regularly contacted by families who are in situations pleading with those in authority for treatment for their family members. And much too often they are forced to sit by and watch helplessly as their loved ones dies.

So yes, I do agree with Mr. Steele’s assessment that, “It’ll make the Terri Schiavo case look like a walk in the park.” My fear is that it will make the killing of the cognitively disabled as ordinary and commonplace as purchasing a loaf of bread.

When a state government is unwilling to provide a person the protections provided under the state constitution, there is a constitutional remedy -- habeus corpus.

This was done, the Florida governor, courts and legislature FAILED to provide Terri her rights under the Florida Constitution.

You, and thousands like you, however, were totally willing to throw the constitution and the proper relation between the federal government and the states to the wind just to satisfy your urge for justice.

How, be specific, what part of the Constitution was ignored?

The vitriol in your post is similar to that shown by leftist sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome. You hate the fact that Michael Schiavo murdered Terri so much that you were willing to use every tool in your arsenal even if it meant undermining our cultural notions of limited government and the rule of law.

That's where you are wrong. This WAS NOT a case of a person being murdered by a spouse, this was a case of a person being put to death by court order WITHOUT an indictment or trial by jury. NO OTHER PERSON in American history has been put to death by a government body without even being accused of a crime.

It also conclusively demonstrated to independents that the so-called conservative / republican commitment to limited government was a complete farce and that the dems might be right when they shill that the republicans want to turn this into a theocracy to control every aspect of our lives.

The PURPOSE of government is to secure and protect a person's God-given rights, a government that will not do this isn't worth having.

Moreover, as your post shows, you are quite happy to transfer irrationally that hate onto anyone who dares to suggest that using the federal government to craft special legislation to benefit only a single person was detrimental to the republic.

Got it, you think this is just about Terri. I'm sure a century and a half ago you would have been saying the same thing about Dred Scott, after all he was a single person.

Federalism and limited government are great concepts until you want the federal government to impose your personal ideals on the states.

The right to life is not a "personal ideal" it is what our Republic was founded on.

This mindset is indistinguishable from that employed by the leftists. Law (and by extension the constitution) is just a tool for you to achieve your personal ends.

Now, the left wants to empower government to restrict freedom, I want to employ government to protect freedom.

When the history of the Decline and Fall of the American Republic is written, that positivist attitude will be worth an entire chapter or even an entire volume in itself as one of the chief causes of the slide into fascism.

Actually, if followed to its logical end, the principles of people like you would inevitably lead to anarchy.

Here is what people like you always seem to miss (added emphasis is mine):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

I’m sorry you cannot see the inconsistency inherent in your postings.

You appear to misunderstand the difference between perfect rights and imperfect rights. Legally, Terri’s rights were protected. That does not mean the proper or just result was reached. The law cannot enforce every moral right. In fact, I guarantee that there will be many cases even in the best human systems where the state will achieve a patently unjust or wrong result. I agree that this happened in Terri’s case. The best we can do is create a legal system and a culture that is set up so that it will produce justice more often than in other situations. Such a system, however, requires general laws that are consistently applied. Statutes aimed to benefit or apply to only a specific individual are anathema to maintaining a system that generates just outcomes as often as possible under a human government.

If you bothered to read my postings, you’ll see I never said that the Terri Schiavo act was unconstitutional. Tort claims against the federal government used to be settled in exactly this manner through individual relief acts which in themselves were constitutionally valid. Despite that constitutional validity, it was corrosive and detrimental policy back then and it remains corrosive and detrimental even when done for the best of reasons as with the Terri Schiavo Act. Many things that are constitutional are nonetheless detrimental to the continuation of the republic and to the continued vitality of the constitution itself. This is one of them.

Your all caps shouting in the next paragraph isn’t even worth considering. Court appointed guardians make these decisions all the time.

You’re absolutely right that the purpose of a government is to secure the natural rights given to us by God. A government that has lost all legitimacy with its members and a government that recognizes no limits on its authority to make positive law is incapable of protecting those natural rights. The Terri Schiavo Act was a gigantic step down that positivist road. That road, like another one, is paved with good intentions.

Dredd Scott was an individual seeking redress under a variety of general statutes. Individuals are allowed to do this and usually it excites no comment. Terri Schiavo was a woman in the process of being murdered by her “husband.” She was fortunate enough personally that she had a family who were willing to go to any lengths to save her life. One of those lengths was to get the United States congress to pass a law that provided “any parent of Terri Schiavo” standing to sue in federal court to overturn the state of florida’s legal conclusions. For your analogy to be apt, Dredd Scott (or even his putative owner, Sanford) would have had to get the United States congress to pass a law stating that “Dredd Scott [and by implication no other person] shall have standing to sue in federal court to overturn legally [but not morally] valid state laws relating to slavery.”

Your personal ideals relate to the means by which you are willing to achieve the benefits of government. Apparently you do not value the rule of law as a mechanism for creating justice and would instead prefer to have the federal government legislate a new solution for every instance of injustice that comes down the pike. Actually, that last was reductio ad absurdem, and I acknowledge and apologize for the absurdity. But I will say that you, like all of us, have blind spots in which you are willing to sacrifice long term benefits (i.e., the continuation and maintenance of a system of justice) in favor of your short term preferences (i.e., preserving Terri Schiavo’s life).

Everyone pretends that they want to protect freedom. The leftist literature is full of claims that they need to protect the freedom of workers to work, of patients to get medical care, of blah, blah, blah. In reality, the only means of protecting freedom is to limit the power of collectivists to use the state to impose their will on individuals. The Terri Schiavo Act was an example of collectivist thinking by concerned individuals on the right that justified them imposing their will on the people and state of Florida. If that’s where you want to go, fine, but you have lost the legitimacy of your complaints when the left does it back.

Anarchy. Hadn’t expected that non sequitur, but more power to you.

Although this hasn’t been fun or enjoyable, I’ll ask that you continue your pattern of taking my responses made directly to you and instead send them to many other people. But if you’re going to do that, in fairness you probably should just keep my original paragraphs in full and interlineate your responses. Feel free to have the last word, though.

Gosh, you’re right. We need to start having the U.S. Congress examine every situation in which a state court might have gotten the law wrong so that the federal government can overturn that state’s legal determination.

Not.

The very real and definite outcome of the Terri Schiavo Act was to show that the Republicans are hypocrites when it comes to principles of limited government. After that act, no republican who voted for it can claim that there is any moral limit on the federal government’s authority to act. You can claim that you were doing the right thing, but you can’t dodge the fact that the act was entirely incompatible with the idea of limited government.

As for your challenge of legalism, you’re just illustrating my point on the breakdown of the rule of law. From your post, you seem entirely willing to ignore the law to achieve your version of justice. So long as you accept the consequences — in this case a corrosion of federalist principles, a well deserved reputation by republicans for hypocrisy in arguing for limited government, and a slide into collectivist fascism — then it’s your right to do so. But when leftists in charge of the federal government start imposing gay marriage on the states or requiring states to maintain appropriate taxpayer-funded abortion clinics or requiring state-licensed physicians and pharmacists to perform abortions you will have to accept that you legitimated the use of federal power to impose those mandates on the states.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.