Florida Senate blocks bill to save Terri Schiavo

TALLAHASSEE (FBW)—With Southern Baptist laymen leading the way in the Florida House and Senate, legislation offered to prevent the starvation of Terri Schiavo stalled in the Senate March 17 hours after it was overwhelmingly approved in the House.

Less than 24 hours before the scheduled removal of a disabled woman’s feeding tube, the Florida Senate Mar. 17 voted down 21-16 an amendment aimed at preserving an effort to save Schiavo and others who also might be in her condition.

“It’s the beginning of euthanasia,” Florida Sen. Daniel Webster (R-Winter Garden) told Florida Baptist Witness hours after the vote. Webster is an active member of First Baptist Church of Central Florida.

Terri Schiavo is the 41-year-old disabled woman from Clearwater at the center of an international euthanasia debate. Her feeding and hydration tube was removed the afternoon of Mar. 18.

Even before the vote, Sen. Webster, told colleagues on the Senate floor he did not know whether his amendment to a bill the Florida House of Representatives had just heartily approved 78-37 could be applied to Terri’s case, after considering a recent decision by a Florida appeals court.

The Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland Mar. 16 issued an opinion which Webster said has changed the variables in the Terri Schiavo case. He said the court has made it clear that based on order of Sixth Circuit Court Judge George W. Greer, issued in Feb. 2000 and reaffirmed last month, the order actually directly orders the removal of her nutrition and hydration, rather than granting that authority to her husband and legal guardian.

Reading from the 2nd DCA’s opinion withholding Greer’s order, Webster said: “The trial court’s decision does not give Mrs. Schiavo’s legal guardian the option of leaving life-prolonging procedures in place. No matter who her guardian is, the guardian is required to obey the court order, because the court, not the guardian, has determined that the decision that Mrs. Schiavo herself would make.”

Webster said the 2nd DCA’s opinion has moved the decision making process from the family to the court—in a backward sort of way that did not look at apparent conflicts of interest Terri’s husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo may have in the case—and the knowledge her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler may have about her wishes.

The opinion sets a dangerous precedent, Webster said.

“I think it moves the line between life and death and I think that’s a decision the legislature should be making, not the courts,” Webster told Florida Baptist Witness in an one-on-one interview after the vote. “And to allow for someone, by court order, by the state, to be starved to death is cruel and unusual punishment.”

If it had been a capital case, Webster said more stringent rules would apply.

“If [serial killer] Ted Bundy would have been starved to death there would have been a huge outcry and that would have been ruled unconstitutional,” Webster said. “So it’s serious to think the members wanted to make [nutrition and hydration] just like any other life prolonging procedure.”

Webster said it takes just one case to move forward an agenda that promotes euthanasia, and that line was crossed by the 2nd DCA’s decision and the refusal of the Senate to support an amendment that could have led to the passage of a bill that might have helped Terri.

“It’s not necessarily Schiavo; it’s that now they have set a standard and it’s much lower for life than existed before,” Webster said. The second part of the 2nd DCA’s opinion also made credible casual talk as it relates to end of life choices—dismissing the requirement for a written directive in order to ascertain a person’s true wishes, according to Webster.

As to why a situation like the one with Schiavo exists, and whether citizens should be concerned about the American legal system, Webster said the problem is in the interpretation of the law, not the law itself.

“I don’t think the laws are that flawed. I think what’s flawed is that somehow we have an activist court that goes beyond what I believe to be the self-restraint that a court should have,” Webster said. “I think it happens because there’s not as much accountability and because [when you are a judge] you live in a vacuum in a lot of cases, in a courtroom, and there’s not a willingness to take on that system. I don’t know why.”

And in the Legislature as well as elsewhere, every vote is about morality, Webster said.

“You are voting between somebody’s decision on whether something’s right or wrong,” said Webster. “So by voting whichever way was voted, you chose a morality—that life is cheap or that life is valuable.”

The Senate vote on his amendment was contrary to typical partisanship on life issues, said Webster carefully.

“It was Republicans who led the charge” to kill his measure, he said. “I don’t know what motive there is other than the sponsor of the original ‘Death with Dignity’ legislation.” Sen. Jim King (R-Jacksonville) sponsored that legislation in the late nineties.

Senate President Tom Lee, R-Brandon, in a press conference with Webster following the vote, told media he had expected Webster’s amendment to be adopted, a procedure sometimes used to expedite passage of a bill when both the House and the Senate are working on language acceptable to both chambers.

“I don’t think there’s anyone on the Senate floor who would argue that the amendment does not significantly improve and narrow the application of this bill,” Lee said.

During the news conference, Webster said the House version of the bill (HB 701) “is flawed in many ways” and his amendment attempted to clarify, in advance, any concerns lawmakers had about the bill.

After the vote during the Senate session, Webster stopped just short of withdrawing the bill when he temporarily postponed action on it.

Calling it a “sad day,” Webster told the Witness he will not withdraw the bill but keep it up on top of the agenda every day as a “reminder to people that we made a choice.” Though he is somewhat optimistic the U.S. Congress might be able to help, he also said he has to be realistic.

“I’ll withdraw it the day she dies. I’ll get my statement then, my closing then,” Webster sighed, eyes tearing up. He agreed it was an emotional time, but also said he believes in providence.

“I believe God is in control of everything. No doubt about it. He’s sovereign, He’s Lord,” Webster said. “And yet, there is the depravity of man and it plays a part in this.

“We’ve become a part of that too because society to some degree has lost their value of life,” he continued. “It didn’t start today, it was just taking another step today. ... I think the disabled community should take note.”

Earlier in the day, the Florida House of Representatives voted 78-37 to approve its version (HB 701) of a measure aimed at clarifying Florida ‘s laws about when nutrition and hydration can be withdrawn from a person in a persistent vegetative state in certain circumstances.

Sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley (R-Ocala), an active member of First Baptist Church, Belleview, the bill drew more than four hours of deliberate debate in an extended session which began after 9:30 a.m. and went through the lunch hour.

In lengthy and sometimes emotional floor debate, opponents of the measure cited “family values” and said they believed the bill would take away their right to make end of life decisions for loved ones.

Baxley said the bill should not be named after him, but instead it “belongs to the House.”

In an emotional closing, Baxley said he was “humbled and honored to the courier and bearer” of the bill which he said is only for the extreme circumstance when a person is said to be in a persistent vegetative state, they have left no written directive stating their end of life wishes, and there is a disagreement as to whether that individual would have chosen to receive nutrition and hydration in order for their life to be sustained.

Telling colleagues about his severely disabled son, Baxley said he adopted his now 18-year-old son, Jeff, when the boy was 8-months-old.

Describing the boy as a “shaken baby with brain damage” and blind, Baxley said he has been touched by watching him get on the bus to go to school, learn Braille contractions, use a cane and ride a bicycle and lawn tractor.

“In most cultures Jeff is damaged goods,” Baxley said. “His life is not worth living. Jeff taught me about life and death, that every person matters in this culture.”

“That’s why I’m not afraid to bring to you this bill because we do need to explore these issues of life and death,” Baxley said. “If public policy reflected in our laws allows the government to order the death of a mentally disabled person to be starved to death, than that law is defective and we are here to cure that defect with that bill.”

Baxley suggested the bill be called the RESPECT bill, one that calls for respect for individuals, the courts and the Constitution.

“I believe in giving these people a chance,” said Baxley, admitting the bill may not be perfect. “If I’m going to make an error in this House, let it be that I let someone live and not that I caused them to die.”

Baxley received a standing ovation from many members of the House following his comments which closed the debate.

For more information about rallies, prayer vigils and events, go online to www.Terrisfight.org.