Sunday night, March 20, 2007, the Congress of the United States passed and President Bush signed into law, S. 686, “an act for the relief of Theresa Marie Schiavo”.  This was well in keeping with Senate procedures – the Senate passes many “private relief bills” each session.  It is an old tradition, dating to 1817.  But a political furor erupted over this bill. Why? 

The reason was that this bill involved Terri Schiavo, the disabled woman in Florida whose husband sought removal of her feeding tubes. The husband argued that this was what Terri wanted, and the Florida guardianship court agreed.  Many others, however, disagreed, including Terri’s parents and family.  They waged a determined effort to have the husband replaced as guardian.  (S. 686 gave them the right to sue in federal courts about the denial of Terri’s civil rights.)  They had resisted each court-ordered withdrawal of the feeding tubes.  Litigation had already proceeded on various fronts in Florida courts, but failed.  The Florida legislature passed what was known as “Terri’s Law” to add another layer of review to the case, but that law was invalidated by the Florida courts.  So, finally, the U.S. Congress stepped in and passed S. 686.

Think about it – are there other areas in which we as a nation have recognized that it is appropriate for the Congress (and the federal courts) to “involve themselves” in happenings in the states.  One that should come easily to mind is, civil rights.  In that area, Congress passed laws to remedy substantial injustices that were occurring in the states.  How was this case different?

It really wasn’t.  There are several obvious ways in which the Congress properly had jurisdiction.  First, no one may be deprived of “life” under the 14th Amendment “without due process”.  (There is certainly “state action” in this case since the court, contrary to Florida law, appointed itself as “guardian” as to the life-or-death decision, and “ordered” Terri’s husband to remove the feeding tube.)

 Further, as noted, Terri was not dying; she was, rather, a disabled woman.  The Americans with Disabilities Act was passed to prevent discrimination against handicapped Americans.  Surely the most egregious form of “discrimination” is to subject the handicapped to lethal violence.  Third, habeas corpus is always available for those convicted of capital crimes.  Once state court remedies are exhausted, a prisoner may appeal to the federal courts.  Surely, it is reasonable for Congress to decide that an innocent woman, as much as a convicted felon, has the right to have additional review before action is taken that will end her life.  There are, in fact, reasons to question the actions of the Florida guardianship court, as noted above.  In other words, there are good reasons to believe that Terri had not received justice from the Florida courts.

On one level, the Schiavo case was about whether a disabled woman may be starved to death in circumstances which suggest conflicts of interest and improper conduct without being afforded a disinterested review by a federal court.  Readers likely know the troubling circumstances – a husband as guardian who, since Terri’s injury, fathered 2 children with another woman; who waited until 9 years after her injury to argue that she had stated she wanted to die in these conditions; and who only began to argue for her “right to die” after receiving a monetary award in a law suit and, apparently, failing to use the funds for the purpose for which they were awarded (Terri’s rehabilitation).

On another level the case was, and remains, about us and our society.  All Terri’s husband could claim she had said was that, if she fell into a coma she did not want to be a “burden”.  Was she a burden?  Certainly not to her parents and family (and many others) who are offering to care for her and to bear all the costs.  Thus, if she had been allowed to live, it would not have imposed a burden on her husband.  On a deep level, the issue is whether we as a society see someone like Terri Schiavo as a burden.  Will we offer our help and assistance?  Will we create legal and medical structures that insure that no handicapped person ever feels that their life is a burden to others?  Will we value all lives as equal to all others?  On the anniversary of Terri’s death, these are questions we should consider.