2008 Woodie Awards
ONE WAY OR ANOTHER: Some Decisions Require Extra Help
Tiffany Farmakis
Issue date: 4/6/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Civil rights have always been a federal issue.
For centuries the government has gotten involved in civil rights prosecutions from "Brown vs. the Board of Education," "Roe vs. Wade" to more recent ones such as a person's right to marry their loved one, regardless of sexual orientation.
So what is the big deal with the government getting involved in the Terri Schiavo case? The scenario should seem obvious, legal disputes will eventually get resolved in court.
The court-ordered death of Schiavo has generated a lot of heat in the media particularly over the sanctity and quality of life.
Opponents declare congress' involvement as being "a federal intrusion in a family matter," or as "a violation of the separation of powers between
the judicial and legislative branches." Although both issues have alarmed many legislators and citizens alike, such an act by the federal government should not be surprising.
Our government was established primarily to protect the minority from the majority thus preserving the basic rights of all its citizens. The most basic and important right being life itself.
But what about those who argue that if there is no quality of life, life is not worth living?
True, preserving life may risk prolonged suffering in a way that a patient would not choose. But our judicial system has the right to acknowledge
an even greater danger - that of allowing the termination of the life of an incapacitated person, especially on the say-so of people who may believe they are doing what is best for the patient, even if it isn't.
Virtually everything about the Schiavo tragedy was fought over: The extent of her brain damage, the right of her husband to decide her fate, and the intervention by the federal government.
Yet amid all the slander and anguish, one fact remained clear, Schiavo's fate would be determined lawfully. The courts would decide whether her feeding tube should be reconnected, and their decision, whatever it finally was, would be obeyed.
In an era where Americans hear endless talk of the culture war and how a widening gap is tearing society apart, there's a measure of reassurance in knowing that when it comes to our most passionate public controversies, most will agree to live by the law.
The ruckus over the congressional involvement in the Schiavo case shouldn't be so alarming to people. There is a simple argument behind what the government's intentions were: to give a dying woman a final chance, thus erring on the side of life.
Gubernatorial hopeful Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Colo., flew back to vote for the Schiavo bill and said he has no regrets.
"If civil rights issues are a federal issue, and I agree they are, how about the issue of life?" Beauprez asked. "If I'm going to be the only one standing up at the end of this that said, 'I stood for life,' I'm happy to do that."
For centuries the government has gotten involved in civil rights prosecutions from "Brown vs. the Board of Education," "Roe vs. Wade" to more recent ones such as a person's right to marry their loved one, regardless of sexual orientation.
So what is the big deal with the government getting involved in the Terri Schiavo case? The scenario should seem obvious, legal disputes will eventually get resolved in court.
The court-ordered death of Schiavo has generated a lot of heat in the media particularly over the sanctity and quality of life.
Opponents declare congress' involvement as being "a federal intrusion in a family matter," or as "a violation of the separation of powers between
the judicial and legislative branches." Although both issues have alarmed many legislators and citizens alike, such an act by the federal government should not be surprising.
Our government was established primarily to protect the minority from the majority thus preserving the basic rights of all its citizens. The most basic and important right being life itself.
But what about those who argue that if there is no quality of life, life is not worth living?
True, preserving life may risk prolonged suffering in a way that a patient would not choose. But our judicial system has the right to acknowledge
an even greater danger - that of allowing the termination of the life of an incapacitated person, especially on the say-so of people who may believe they are doing what is best for the patient, even if it isn't.
Virtually everything about the Schiavo tragedy was fought over: The extent of her brain damage, the right of her husband to decide her fate, and the intervention by the federal government.
Yet amid all the slander and anguish, one fact remained clear, Schiavo's fate would be determined lawfully. The courts would decide whether her feeding tube should be reconnected, and their decision, whatever it finally was, would be obeyed.
In an era where Americans hear endless talk of the culture war and how a widening gap is tearing society apart, there's a measure of reassurance in knowing that when it comes to our most passionate public controversies, most will agree to live by the law.
The ruckus over the congressional involvement in the Schiavo case shouldn't be so alarming to people. There is a simple argument behind what the government's intentions were: to give a dying woman a final chance, thus erring on the side of life.
Gubernatorial hopeful Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Colo., flew back to vote for the Schiavo bill and said he has no regrets.
"If civil rights issues are a federal issue, and I agree they are, how about the issue of life?" Beauprez asked. "If I'm going to be the only one standing up at the end of this that said, 'I stood for life,' I'm happy to do that."
