The weird gets weirder - news on Terri Schiavo
Gov. Bush could save Terri’s life if he wanted to…
Gov. Bush legally mandated to remove Judge Greer?
Courts expected to settle Schiavo’s fate this week… (this blogger quotes an Orlando Sentinel article - notice how the article contains misrepresentations of Terri’s condition calling her “unconscious”)
February 20th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
The people you cite are very confused about the way the law works. Jeb Bush took an oath to *uphold* the state constitution, but the judiciary is charged with *interpreting* the state constitution. So the blogger’s argument is misinformed. The governor can’t overrule the judiciary’s interpretation of the constitution.
Second, a judge is not an “activist” just because he/she interprets the US or state constitution in a way that many people disagree with. Throwing that label around does not constitute an argument. An activist is someone who ignores settled law in order to achieve his/her own agenda and overstepping his/her constitutional bounds as a judge by acting as a mini-legislator. But making a reasonable, even if incorrect, interpretation of a vague constitutional standard does not constitute activism.
Third, I have one question for politically conservative Christians. I understand the concern about Terri Schiavo. Her husband seems to lack credibility and have ill motives. I agree. And every person’s life is important — every person’s.
But I’m wondering why I don’t see the same passion from right-wingers on issues like healthcare. There are 49 millions people in this country who have absolutely no health insurance, and *millions* of these people are children. People die in this country merely because they’re poor: if they were rich, they would have the medical care that would help them prevent and cure many diseases and ailments to which they succumb. These are facts. Where is the passion for the cause of these people? When I read the gospel, I see Jesus speaking out for the poor. You can’t tell me “well, these 49 million people are lazy and should get a job with healthcare.” That’s horse manure. Capitalism implies that not everyone can have the best jobs (competition only works if some people lose). A lot of these people work their tails off, but don’t have health insurance because they have 2 or 3 part-time jobs … or because their employers can’t afford to cover their employees anymore. Where is the Christian right on this issue, fighting for the poor, like Jesus would have, it seems to me. Rather, I see all this anger and resentment and time on one very controversial case when millions of children have no access to a doctor.
February 20th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
“The governor can’t overrule the judiciary’s interpretation of the constitution.”
He can, however, choose not to enforce it.
“Second, a judge is not an “activistâ€? just because he/she interprets the US or state constitution in a way that many people disagree with.”
A judge is an “activist” if he or she comes up with novel, unheard-of interpretations in order to advance the zeitgeist.
Further, having no health insurance is a far cry difference from being summarily executed for committing the crime of being in someone else’s way. If Terri was a criminal, we would require that her guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury sentencing her to death. However, she is not a criminal, so all that matters if the judges “think” she “probably” would choose starvation for herself if she were judged “mentally competent” (apparently, she can communicate, but she isn’t judged smart enough to qualify as a living person capable of compentently choosing life for herself, so it depends entirely on the personal opinion of the judge).
February 20th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
I guess the governor could choose not to enforce it if he thinks it is worth creating a constitutional crisis. Do we want people in the executive or legislative branch to ignore the judiciary just because they disagree with it? Imagine the judiciary said that students have the right to wear religious symbols in schools because of free speech, but the head executive at the time thinks that the First Amendment does not protect students to that degree. Do you want the executive to “choose not to enforce” the judiciary’s interpretation of the constitution? Of course not.
Your second comment is a tad strange: an “unheard-of” interpretation just to advance the zeitgeist. If the “zeitgeist” is the goal, would it be that the interpretation would be unheard of? Anyway, i can’t even say i understand what the “zeitgeist” is. But anyway, if you think the judge is appealing to an “unheard-of” interpretation, you’re wrong.
And the fact that many people die simply because they are poor is a “far cry” from what is happening to schiavo? Please. Let me repeat: many people die in this counry — many people who are capable of living meaningful lives (unlike schiavo, even if you think she can feel some pleasure) DIE MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR. If you think i’m lying, check the stats. People’s health in this country is a total function of their wealth. Like I said, I cannot believe it is Christian in the least to say, “well, they’re all lazy.” Besides being un-Christian, that would be factually preposterous.
I also found your answer bizarre for the following reason: instead of saying “that is an important issue, too,” you said that it is a “far cry” from the schiavo case. You represent one example to bolster my point: people on the Christian right seem not to care about this issue, which, as I repeat, involves millions of kids who are disadvantaged from the get-go.
February 20th, 2005 at 8:19 pm
The Christian Right does fight for the poor, Simon, they just don’t like to do it using the most ineffective means available - that of the federal government.
February 21st, 2005 at 8:18 am
Do you actually think Medicaid is a bad thing for poor people? It’s actually ineffective? That is absolutely not true. Ask someone on Medicaid if they think Medicaid is not saving them from being without healthcare.
About 15% of this country has no health insurance. How much would it cost to cover them? Not much. First, many of them are kids, and kids don’t cost very much (the overwhelming majority of kids are healthy). Second, look at how much we spend on other stuff? Heck, the president just gave 89 billion dollars to people earning salaries in the top 1%. You, as a Christian, want to tell me that those people had some intrinsic God-given moral right to that money? I can’t believe you would. Just a fraction of that money could be used AT LEAST to provide a Medicaid-type program for kids, no?
I don’t see the Christian right fighting like crazy — like you are about Terri Schiavo — for these children without health insurance. I understand you have faith in God … but why on Earth do you have faith that the free market system, supplemented by charities, is going to allow these kids access to doctors and preventative medicine? I’d love to know.
February 21st, 2005 at 10:12 am
Simon, my job does not provide me with health insurance. I am one of the people you are talking about. I don’t know about other states, but Alaska has something called Denali Kid Care which provides health care for children in poor and uninsured families. There are problems with it, but it works fairly well and we didn’t need the federal government to do it. We don’t even have a state income or sales tax and we manage.
The federal government is good at waste and inefficiency. It’s hard to argue that. When a system is that big it can’t help but be less efficient than a smaller one. People who abuse the system are living off it and those who need it desperately can’t get any help. I am personally experienced with this.
If the 89 million dollars you are talking about is a tax break, then yes those people are morally entitled to that money because they earned it. It belongs to them, not me. Forced redistribution of wealth is not a Christian value. It’s theft.
February 21st, 2005 at 11:01 am
Elle,
First, if you think it’s the state governments that have a moral duty to make sure that the least advantaged have access to health care, then we’re not far apart. I couldn’t care less whether it’s the federal or state government which makes sure that everyone has access to a decent minimum of healthcare.
Second, and no offense … but you’re claim about tax breaks and theft is remarkably over-simplistic.
Is all taxation theft? That can’t be — you seem to be ok with the Denali Kid Care– that money has to come from somewhere. You’re ok with taxation for roads? police? firemen? the military? utilities? clean water? national museums? NASA? national parks? I mean … is taxation for all those things theft?
Of course not. That money for those things come from tax dollars. People earn salaries on our regulated capitalist market, and then pay a certain amount of that money towards social needs.
Therefore, not all tax breaks return money to their rightful owners, as you suggest. What if our military was falling apart and needed 89 million or 89 billion dollars? Would it be theft not to “return” that money to the top 1% in order to revamp the military? No. Of course not.
The question about healthcare for the least advantaged, then, has nothing to do with whether a tax break is theft. The question is whether it is morally justified … if it is, in fact, a moral duty, for a state, which sanctions our form of capitalism, to make sure that everyone has a decent minimum of healthcare. (I’m not saying everyone gets the same amount — but everyone, especially KIDS, should have a decent minimum. And just think, from a capitalist standpoint, it would be more efficient to have a healthy population).
In my mind, it would be immoral for you not to have any access to healthcare just because your employer cannot afford to provide insurance for you, or if you are a freelance worker of some sort.
February 21st, 2005 at 11:43 am
Simon, you asked, “You, as a Christian, want to tell me that those people had some intrinsic God-given moral right to that money?” Since they paid the taxes, giving them the money instead of someone else who likely didn’t pay taxes at all isn’t in itself immoral. As far as God-given rights go, all my money belongs to God, not me. I am just managing it.
My lack of health insurance hasn’t kept me from receiving health care. In fact I had very good health care when I had an injury that kept me from walking for a couple years. It was the Christian community who helped me financially. It was a Christian doctor who didn’t charge me for his time. It was the federal government who, for the most part, left me out in the cold.
My employer can’t afford to pay my health insurance. I do the books for a small law firm and in a twist of irony, if the taxes weren’t killing us, we probably could afford a corporate health plan.
Just a note: all this talk about “insurance” and stuff gets these messages caught in my spam filter. If you’ve been wondering why they aren’t showing up immediately, that’s it.
February 21st, 2005 at 12:20 pm
that’s funny about the spam.
you’re right that giving the money back to the rich isn’t, in itself, immoral — it’s immoral only insofar as there are people (especially kids) who, through no fault of their own, are suffering. All I ask is an application of the golden rule, where people don’t know about their accidents of birth: what rules would you vote for if you didn’t know whether you’d be a child born to a wealthy, middle-class, low-middle class, or outright poor family. If the rules sanction a capitalist distribution of wealth, would you vote for having society make sure that every child has a fair chance at living a meaningful life, which requires health?
And if you think that we’re not the true owners of our money, but God is, then I think this view should be even less objectionable to you.
I would agree with your view (what i think is your view) that everyone deserves the money they earn on the free capitalist market IF everyone started off with an equal chance. But we all know that is far from true, sadly. Some have abusive parents. Some people, through no fault of their own have IQ’s far lower than average. Some people are raised by supportive parents, some are not. I’m not saying people aren’t responsible for what they choose. They are. But I am saying that people’s chances in life are not even close to being equal — and I think that is consistent with your Christian beliefs, even if it is not implied by them.
Just think: not everyone is as lucky as you were. Not everyone has a Christian community and kind doctors around them, and it is through no fault of their own. You mention that the government would’ve left you in the cold … and that would’ve been wrong.
I completely understand why we have different views about homosexuality, abortion, etc., but it has always struck me as strange that many Christians are politically to the right on economic and healthcare issues. I just don’t see a basis in scripture for it. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the wealthy on the right — ie, wealthy republican politicians — have used social issues (gay marriage, abortion) to get white low- to middle-class people (mostly Christian) to vote with their side even though there is no Christian basis for the laissez-faire, right-wing capitalist views. But that is neither here nor there — that’s just hypothesizing.
February 21st, 2005 at 10:12 pm
Simon, I don’t do enough to help people. I usually fail miserably. Christians aren’t compassionate enough for you - that’s ok, they aren’t compassionate enough for God either. That’s why they need Christ.
Right now the courts have sanctioned the murder of a disabled woman in Florida and I don’t really care to dig into the economics and politics of the new topic you’re bringing up. If you are as suspect of Michael Schiavo’s motives as I am, please consider, if you haven’t already done so, doing any of the things on the list in my 2/21/05 post about Terri.
February 22nd, 2005 at 11:22 am
The only thing i’ll say is this: i never said Christians are not compassionate enough for me. I meant to convey that I think many of the moral priorities, and even many moral views, of right-wing Christians does seem to me to be consistent with Christianity, and that I wish they spent their moral energies on topics that would bring about more justice for more people, because they have the power to do so in this country. But that’s all i’ll say.
February 22nd, 2005 at 11:24 am
crud — i meant to say that many of the priorities and views do NOT seem consistent with Christianity — i really have to learn to type better.