
“It behooves
every man who values liberty of conscience for himself
to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or
their case may, by change of circumstance, become his
own."
- Thomas Jefferson
I don’t want to be crass.
I know this is a very touchy issue, and a lot of people
feel very strongly about it. But looking back at 2005,
the Schiavo debacle was certainly one of the biggest
stories, as well as one of its biggest jokes. Before
you start writing angry emails, let me explain - I mean
that only in the sense of what the government has become. |
| Please
Note:
Paul Wenzel's Year In Review Series appears in
Cityzen.tv as editorial content. The ideas expressed
in these articles belong to the writer. Our intent
is not to offend you, but to offer a viewpoint.
We welcome your comments. Please write to YearInReview@Cityzen.tv
to voice your opinion.
|
|
For those of you who were out of the country, in a cave,
or, luckily, avoided the media throughout March and April,
check out Wikipedia
for all the information you would need. I don’t have
enough room to sum it up myself. All in all, it was a long
battle that would have made for exceptional TV if it had been
a scripted episode of Law and Order. Unfortunately, it was
real.
Lesson #1- Congress feels it
is above the law and can do anything it wants, including subverting
the Constitution and the doctrines of separation of powers
and separation of church and state, in order to preserve its
religious-based moral beliefs. The Constitution - which every
politician must swear to uphold - states that even if the
courts are absolutely crazy, Congress does not have the authority
to force courts to act or review any decision. Personal interest
or not, Congress egregiously overstepped its bounds when it
forced the courts to “ignore previous reviews,”
and make a fresh review of the case. Second, and more legalistically,
this Congressional act bestowed special rights upon two specific
people while denying the specific rights of another, without
granting the same rights to everyone. This is a major no-no
according to the Constitution and goes against the idea of
equal protection under the law.
Lesson #2- Politicians can and
will take away freedom of choice if they don’t agree
with you. We missed a couple facts in all of this. First of
all, Terri Schiavo’s husband was given legal guardianship
shortly after her accident, and Terri’s parents never
argued, complained, or fought him for it. Congressional action
on behalf of Terri’s parents blatantly disregarded Michael
Schiavo’s personal rights as the legal guardian of Terri.
Second, regardless of anything- the husband’s intentions,
the parents’ intentions, why it happened, who wanted
what, who believes what, and what horrifyingly ridiculous
steps were taken by politicians, the courts made the decision
based on one thing only- what they determined Terri Schiavo
wanted based on eighteen witness testimonies. Any actions
taken by the religious leadership, therefore, for the behalf
of Terri’s soul were done against the behalf of Terri’s
wishes. Let us not forget this could happen to any of us.
Lesson #3- Video trickery and
appealing to heartstrings works. MRI results of Terri’s
tragically and completely destroyed brain, as well as the
autopsy report, concluded that the portion of Terri’s
brain responsible for sight were gone. Also destroyed were
the centers of cognizance, recognition, speech, and the ability
to respond to one’s external environment. That means
that the ubiquitous video of Terri following a balloon or
looking at a camera or responding to her parents were bunk;
a blind woman that can’t respond or think simply can
not do any of these things. It turns out they were just camera
edits taken from over six hours of tape. But we were duped
anyway and because of that, we almost handed our rights over.
We must learn that, in battles between our hearts and our
minds, our minds must win if the issue is rights.
So, in conclusion, Terri Schiavo’s situation was a
very unfortunate one, made unbearable by the undue weight
the religious right, as well as others, placed on it. It was
a terrible exercise in semantics, where people blurred the
clear distinction between killing someone and letting them
die. It was a travesty in many ways, both in terms of the
government’s involvement, and the public exposure of
a woman who, if anyone had truly cared about personal dignity,
wouldn’t have been forced to die in the public eye and
on camera in her state. Lastly, “Super Best Friends,”
A South Park episode from 2005 that won the Emmy for “Best
Animated Program,” is a must-view for anyone who was
tugged by this issue.
Check back next week for #4 as well as a return to comedy/satire. |