‘Grotesque’ or life-saving drama at the Capitol?

< Prev | 1 | 2

White House touts POTUS leadership on Iran, Climate

2010 Update: GOP purity test dangers

Hearings for disabled people
Harkin, a longtime champion of disabled people, had his own plans in mind. He sketched a potentially large expansion of federal court powers to intervene when disabled people can’t say whether they want life-sustaining treatment continued.

“There are a lot of people in the shadows, all over this country, who are incapacitated because of a disabilities and many times there’s no one to speak for them and it’s hard to determine what their wishes are,” Harkin said. He urged Congress, once it passes the Schiavo relief bill, to enact another law requiring federal court hearings where there is a dispute over ending life-sustaining measures.

“In all my work over 25 years with disabilities I just had not thought about this,” Harkin remarked. “But the more I looked at Schiavo case, the more I thought, ‘wait a minute, there are a lot of people in similar situations.’”

Story continues below ↓

advertisement | your ad here

With political arguments flying back and forth, it was not clear how much was hyperbole and whether consistency was too much to hope for.

For example, Davis charged that, “there are a lot of Floridians and people around the country who are terribly worried that their living will is not going to hold up” due to congressional intervention in the wake of the Schiavo case.

Rep. Don Manzullo, R- Ill., a supporter of the bill, disputed that charge in the second of two dueling press conferences. “A written living will is not under attack,” Manzullo said.

The Democrats, themselves not always the champions of limited government, denounced Republicans for violating that principle.

Violation of limited government?
The bill was, said Frank, “the manifestation of a constitutional crisis.”

Congress was doing what only courts should do, Frank said. DeLay and other Republicans had rejected “a fundamental precept of American government, that is, a limited government.”

He pointed to a provision of the bill which said nothing in it would be a precedent for future legislation or private relief bills.

“Well, if it’s the right thing to do, why not?” asked Frank, arguing if the GOP majority was going to intervene in the Schiavo case, it was inconsistent not to do so in comparable cases.

“Of course, no one believes we’re only going to do this once,” he said.

< Prev | 1 | 2