While Terri Schiavo lay dying in a Florida hospice and the US was gripped and torn ABC ran a story on March 18th about a talking point memo given to Senators, citing Repubicans as source.
Raw debate broke out on blogs whether or not the memo was from the Republican or Democrat side.
At the time Schaiva was dying, the talking points seemed what they are. Political. Detached. Opportunistic. Point scoring.
Conservative bloggers seemed to have a hard time believing ABC News had their act together.
To some, it was another ‘Rathergate.’ Bloggers pressed for disclosure, as did the senate.
As with anything political there was blog fingers pointing at Democrats.
In the Agora called it Memogate.
* Teri (sic) Schiavo is subject to an order that her feeding tubes will be disconnected on March 18, 2005 at 1p.m.
*The Senate needs to act this week, before the Budget Act is pending business, or Terri’s family will not have a remedy in federal court.
*This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.
* This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.
* The bill is very limited and defines custody as “those parties authorized or directed by a court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment.”
* There is an exemption for a proceeding “which no party disputes, and the court finds, that the incapacitated person while having capacity, had executed a written advance directive valid under applicably law that clearly authorized the withholding or or (sic) withdrawl (sic) of food and fluids or medical treatment in the applicable circumstances.”
* Incapacitated persons are defined as those “presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding or withdrawl (sic) of food fluids or medical treatment under applicable state law.”
* This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy.
Terri Schiavo died March 31st.
It turns out ABC News was correct all along. The talking points page was given to Florida senator Sen. Mel Martinez (R) on the house floor by Brian Darling - his legal counsel. Darling apologized and resigned today.
The pro-life side will be all excited…
A great political issue indeed.
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
BD, this is kinda like the time I took issue with LT about inaction over Darfur, not because I disagreed with him but because it genuinely surprised me that he expressed amazement that people could so much like … who they are. Why are we so surprised when politcians act like … politicians?
On the whole, the MSM in the United States, regardless of their bias left OR right, does a terrible job at delivering the news and deciding just what news we are worthy to consume. I can’t for the life of me comprehend at which point someone in the J-schools of the U.S. decided that we, the public, were simply too stupid to understand the news and its significance ourselves without pointy-hatted hermeneutical wizards to tell us what it all means.
I don’t even watch the TV news anymore, I don’t even subscribe to a newspaper, and I only listen to NPR if I’m feeling lethargic and need my blood pressure raised. I get my news by reading the local paper online, Fox News online and MSNBC online. Between them, I get a reasonable idea of what’s going on in my world. Then I currently follow 114 blogs via RSS to pick up anything else I might have missed.
On the whole, I find the blogs to be spot on 9 times out of 10, regardless of whom their de-pantsing. If they happened to have messed up this one, what on earth would have led one to think that ABC News was going to exercise all due caution before going forth with this story with this cynical, “absence of malice” mindset?
Absence of malice.
Hmmm.
Malice makes headlines.
I don’t know how to balance cynicism, skepicism and pragmaticness.
The memo may be how business is done, but I’m still human enough to feel a bit nauseated by how.
At the moment, there are people arguing ferociously over whether or not a pharmacist can, because of his or her religious beliefs, refuse to fill a prescription for birth control or for the “morning after” pill. Many are arguing that placing one’s personal religious beliefs in the middle of a medical decision is strictly a matter of conscience.
It seems to me that the religious right is completely myopic. They seem to believe that should a law be passed that reflects their religious beliefs, it will ONLY reflect THEIR religious beliefs.
But religious beliefs are religious beliefs. Let’s say your three-year-old has an eye infection, and your pediatrician gives you a prescription for antibiotics. However, your pharmacist has recently joined a church that doesn’t believe in medication of any kind, and rather than change professions, he means to use his position to preach his views to other people.
Let’s take another example. Your elderly aunt has contracted the flu, and her doctor tells you to get her a prescription anti-viral that will made the disease less dangerous for her, but you run into someone whose sect believes that any heroic measures to save a person from death includes this kind of medication. What do you do?
And finally, let’s say that your spouse is bleeding out from a gash in the thigh sustained in an auto accident, but the paramedic who comes to the scene doesn’t believe in blood transfusions. What will you do if you are widowed before the ambulance reaches the ER? Sue? Not if this kind of law passes.
The truth is that most medications are prescriptive. The present law says that the consumer cannot just waltz into a drug store and help themselves to whatever a physician has prescribed. The pharmacist, who is trained and licensed, is the only person who can dispense these drugs. They are gatekeepers, not lawmakers, and nothing in their training prepares them to make such life-and-death decisions for the rest of us. Fortunately, few of them want to.
No, what a few pharmacists want to do is control reproductive rights as they see fit, claiming religious principals. Wonderful. Not only are there religions that believe that medication, doctor’s visits, blood transfusions, and surgery are unholy, there are societies in this world who say that a burka is religiously mandated, that female genital mutilation is religiously mandated, that burning a widow on her dead husband’s funeral pyre is religiously mandated, that killing a man or woman who has been raped is religiously mandated to uphold the family honor. Where does it stop?
Fortunately, in this nation, it stops with the Constitution that says that one person’s rights stop where another person’s rights begin. The day that one person’s religious beliefs trump another person’s freedom of lawful action is the day when we should all be very afraid. For the day will come when it is not just conservative Christian laws that are enforced. Every religion will be entitled to its day, based on the idea that a groundswell of emotional support for a particular view makes passage of such laws almost mandatory. Imagine yourself in the minority, any minority, because sooner or later, every tribe, sect, religion, political affiliation, or gender ends up in the minority. And if that minority is you, what do you want the Constitution to say to protect your rights?
The liberal/Rockefeller Republicans have once again given the MSM a mace to bludgeon all Republicans with. Last month’s star-crossed attempt by liberal Republicans to expand the role of government will hurt all Republicans. Mel is an imbecile. It is starting to look like ’06 will be a rerun of ’92 when Reagan Democrats left the Republican Party in a vain attempt to find a truly conservative party. Again liberal Republicans give the MSM the weapons to drive all Republicans out of office.