Fighting for Dear Life (21 page)

While the faithful were praying, they knew that the United States Senate and, in turn, the House of Representatives were deliberating if and how to protect Terri's life.

As you'll see in this chapter, the courageous decision by our representatives to act on Terri's behalf was ultimately a costly one. That's a shame. I am firmly convinced that the Congress was simply fulfilling what Thomas Jefferson called the chief purpose of government:
to protect
life
.

Briefly, Terri's feeding tube had been removed by a state court order on Friday, March 18. The Schindlers were devastated. Their daughter was now suffering from hunger and thirst and was going to die without a miracle. In an extraordinary move, the U.S. Senate worked on legislation that would empower the Schindlers to take their case to a federal judge for a fresh review.

To be candid, I thought getting an Act of Congress passed was a rather long shot. After all, moving legislation through both houses of Congress usually takes weeks or months—certainly not three days, especially over a holiday weekend. We were in for a surprise.

First, these public servants delayed their Easter recess to finalize the bill. On Palm Sunday afternoon, the Senate assembled on Capitol Hill and, in what was a unanimous bipartisan vote of those present, passed Senate Bill S.686. The measure immediately moved to the House of Representatives for debate and then a vote.

Meanwhile, President Bush, who was at his home in Crawford, Texas, rearranged his schedule and flew back to the White House. Rather than wait for the bill to be flown to Texas—a delay that could impact Terri's viability—President Bush sacrificially put forth the effort to be available to add his signature immediately over the holiday. If President Bush was at the White House, he could sign the bill into law within minutes of its passage.

Sunday evening, with the president en route to Washington, D.C., lawmakers gathered at nine PM in the House of Representatives for what would be three hours of televised debate followed by a vote. The Schindlers were spending time with Terri at the hospice while we were back at the Gibbs Law Firm office drafting documents and monitoring C-SPAN on the Internet. Terri's brother, Bobby, was on Capitol Hill visiting with every Congress member who would see him.

As we watched the House deliberate, we worked the phones to clarify any questions lawmakers on the Hill might have during the overnight session. We were in touch with dozens of senators and representatives and literally hundreds of staffers throughout the process.

Let me give you a flavor of this historic debate.

Speaking in favor of the bill, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) made an opening statement to frame what was at stake. He said:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S.686, for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo. As the House convenes this Palm Sunday, the Florida courts are enforcing a merciless directive to deprive Terri Schiavo of her right to life.

Terri Schiavo, a person whose humanity is as undeniable as her emotional responses to her family's tender care-giving, has committed no crime and has done nothing wrong. Yet the Florida courts have brought Terri and the Nation to an ugly crossroads by commanding medical professionals sworn to protect life to end Terri's life. This Congress must reinforce the laws and compassion for all Americans, particularly the most vulnerable.
1

As you might imagine, the debate became testy at times. For example, believing that the entire effort to pass S.686 was nothing more than an appeal to conservative voters, Representative John Lewis (D-GA), a leader in the civil rights movement, said, ‘‘We are playing with a young woman's life for the sake of politics. This is not about values. This is not about religion. It is pandering for political gain with the next election in mind.''

Echoing that assessment, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) quipped, ‘‘The caption tonight ought to be ‘We are not doctors. We just play them on C-SPAN.''' Representative Phil Gingrey (R-GA), however, took exception to that dim view of their motives. In what was one of the more poignant rebuttals, he said:

Mr. Speaker, in response to the remarks a few minutes ago from the gentleman from Massachusetts, I want to say that I am not sure whether or not I am on C-SPAN, but I am absolutely sure that I am not playing doctor, for indeed I am one.

Florida law prohibits the starvation of dogs, yet will allow the starvation of Terri Schiavo. Florida law does not allow for physician assisted suicide or euthanasia, nor does my compassionate, God-fearing state of Georgia.

Although I am not a neurologist by specialty, my basic courses in medical school taught me that dehydration is a horrific process. It is a process that only the cruelest tyrants in history have used to ‘‘cleanse'' populations. The patient's skin cracks, their nose bleeds, they vomit as the stomach lining dries out, and they have pangs of hunger and thirst. Starvation is a very painful death to which no one should be deliberately exposed.

Evidently unmoved by Representative Gingrey's assessment, Representative Julia Carson (D-IN) appeared exasperated that she had to ‘‘run to Washington'' after having left for home for the Easter recess.

She said, ‘‘For the life of me, I cannot understand why we are here. . . . We have no business being here. . . . It is none of our business. This is called meddling.'' Perhaps she also missed the comments of Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ), who said:

Mr. Speaker, protecting the lives of our innocent citizens and their constitutional rights is why we are all here. The phrase in the 14th amendment encapsulates our entire Constitution. It says: ‘‘No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'' . . .

If we as a Nation subject Terri to death while her brother, her mother and her father are forced to watch, we will scar our own souls. And we will be allowing those judges who have lost their way to drag us all one more ominous step into a darkness where the light of human compassion has gone out and the predatory survival of the fittest prevails over humanity.

Nevertheless, an irritated Representative Michael Capuano (D-MA) stood before the assembly and urged the members to vote down the measure:

I have a living will that I wrote years ago, and I will check it myself as many Americans will. The bottom line is: I do not want you interfering with my wife and me. Leave us alone. . . . Stay out of my family. If you can do it here, you can do it to me. You can do it to every one of my constituents. Leave us alone!

Mr. Capuano's impassioned comments completely missed the larger issue. While he and his wife had a living will, Terri did not. Her wishes were not so precisely known. Which is why Representative Jeff Miller (R-FL) urged caution. He said:

Before an irreversible decision is made, [Terri's] country must afford her process to which she is entitled under the 14th Amendment of our Constitution. Whether you're using morality, or religion, or the Golden Rule, or legal analysis to guide your decision, at the root of all this is a living, breathing American citizen who has been deprived of her rights.

In the opinion of Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), however, this was not the government's business. She argued:

Do we really want to set the precedent of this great body, the United States Congress, to insert ourselves in the middle of a family's private matters all across America? . . .

When I ran for Congress, I didn't ask my constituents for the right to insert myself in their private, personal family decisions and they don't want me to make those for them. They don't want you to make those for them either. That's the bottom line.

Representative Wasserman-Schultz was joined by Representative David Wu (D-OR), who added, ‘‘The Republican leadership has transformed a profound tragedy for the Schiavo family into a tragedy for the entire Nation.'' Not so fast. How was this a private family matter when Michael used a newly enacted Florida law to take Terri's life out of her family's hands and put it into the hands of judges? Also, the bill under consideration by the House of Representatives had been crafted and was unanimously passed by the Senate with full bipartisan support.

In fact, Democrat Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid worked closely with Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist, who is also a medical doctor, to draft the wording of the measure. Likewise, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), always an advocate for the disabled, said in a press release, ‘‘Over the last week, I have been working hard . . . to come up with legislation that would allow federal review of the Terri Schiavo case. Yesterday afternoon, we came up with a bipartisan measure that did just that and many of my Senate Republican and Democratic colleagues deserve praise for their hard and swift work.''
2
Clearly, the preservation of life should not be a Republican-versus-Democrat issue.

A FAMILY AFFAIR?

What about the notion that the government had inserted itself into a private family affair? Believe it or not, that is simply false. Attorney Ken Conner, chairman of the Center for a Just Society, who served as Governor Jeb Bush's attorney in defending Florida's Terri's Law, put it this way:

Critics of government intrusion into the acrimonious battle between Terri Schiavo's husband and her family seem to have overlooked the fact that it was Michael Schiavo who first petitioned the Circuit Court of Pinellas County to authorize the starvation and dehydration death of his disabled wife. In doing so, Mr. Schiavo is the one who injected government into the controversy.
3

You see, Michael Schiavo could have just allowed Terri to starve to death in the privacy of his own home. Of course, had he done that, Michael could have been charged with a crime under Florida statutes. Rather than take that chance, Michael sought the protection of the courts by enlisting them to sanction the action. By taking the matter to court, Michael invited the government into his ‘‘private family affair.''

There were some who objected to Congress's involvement because they felt that Terri had had her day in court and the matter had been settled numerous times before in front of a long parade of judges. While not attending the hearing, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement decrying the effort to protect Terri's due process rights. She wrote, ‘‘Congressional leaders have no business substituting their judgment for that of multiple state courts that have extensively considered the issues.''
4
I had to wonder if she would have held the same position when state courts were permitting the lynching of blacks in the South during the civil rights era.

Let's be very careful here.

While a number of judges did review Terri's case, all of them relied on the prior factual findings made by Judge Greer. Appellate courts do not call additional witnesses or determine facts. They determine legal questions. No appeals court judge would have requested Terri's presence in court to see her for themselves.

This new bill, if passed, wouldn't substitute the judgment of Congress over the courts as Ms. Pelosi claimed. All it was intended to do was to provide an opportunity for a federal court to start with a clean slate, new witnesses, proper depositions, and new up-to-date medical tests before carrying out the state court's order. And for the first time Terri might have her own lawyer.

Regarding the question of what were Terri's wishes, Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) raised this question:

Tonight in this gallery my daughter sits. I think of my daughter, I think of my other three children, and I think of the day they were born. I think of the milestones in their lives and the love that I have for them. I think of the lengths that I would go to protect my children as adults even if they had an injury. . . . I would die for my children. I would do anything for them.

My heart is raw when I hear the things about Terri Schiavo and her mother and her father and her siblings. . . . We talk about a family decision. What about Terri's mom and dad? What about her siblings? What about the people who cared for her and nurtured her as she was growing up? Do you not think they know what Terri wants?

The passionate appeals from both sides of the issue continued for the better part of three hours. The debate raged while we watched, prayed, and prepared for what we hoped would be a favorable outcome.

LIFE IN THE BALANCE

At one point Representative Tom Cole (R-OK) reminded the members that while debating states' rights, worrying about setting precedents, and wrestling over separation of powers are all important and legitimate issues, ‘‘a life is in the balance, and that is really the only immediate and compelling issue.'' He added, ‘‘If we do not act, Terri Schiavo will die. Great questions often are raised by individual cases, inconvenient cases, cases that break precedent, cases that confront us when we prefer not to be confronted.''

I, too, respected the heartfelt issues raised by those who dissented. Yet in my mind I kept going back to the core question: What was the urgency to end Terri's life? Why shouldn't she be given the same review in federal court afforded to convicted felons on death row? Indeed, what harm would have been done to wait while the case received a final review by a federal judge?

I also continued to be troubled by the seeming lack of human kindness that accompanied Judge Greer's order to remove Terri's provision of sustenance. Speaking as if he had read my thoughts, Representative Todd Akin (R-MO) said:

As we stand here in Washington, Terri is being starved to death. We refer to the ‘‘removal of feeding tubes,'' but let's talk about what is really happening. Not only has a tube delivering food and water been removed, but her parents have been barred from even putting ice chips on her tongue. . . . To bar parents and relatives from offering the most basic of comforts to a dying loved one is not only an egregious overreach of judicial powers, it is cruel and morally wrong.