Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

In Case You Haven't Had Enough of Terri Schiavo...

Reported by Ellen - March 22, 2005

I wasn't going to post again tonight because I'm exhausted but I feel I'd be remiss if I didn't note that on Alan Colmes' FOX radio show last night, during a discussion about - what else - Terri Schiavo, he confronted a Republican congressman about the Sun Hudson case in Texas. I previously posted about the GOP and FOX News hypocrisy in ignoring that case of an infant being removed from life support in Texas, over the objections of his mother, thanks to a law passed in 1999 by then-governor George W. Bush.

Colmes was at his best last night over the Schiavo issue, which obviously meant a lot to him. He hit all the points about the GOP grandstanding that we have gone over plus one I hadn't thought of - that the GOP are intent on restricting the right to recover for medical malpractice. Schiavo's family would be ruined were it not for the medical malpractice award paying for her treatment. The same GOP also pushed through recent bankruptcy "reform" making it harder for a family to get out from under ruinous medical bills.

There was also a spirited debate on the new law between Democratic Congressman Barney Frank (one of my favorites) and Congressman Jack Kingston in which Frank argued circles around Kingston at almost every turn.

In the middle of the debate, Colmes asked Kingston, "Here's what I don't understand... You've got Sun Hudson, whose mother, Wanda, fought to keep him alive. The hospital pulled the plug on him because of a 1999 law that governor Bush... signed... This young boy had his life ended. This act basically states that if you can't pay or if there's a dispute it goes to the medical ethics board of the facility you're in, you then have 30 days to go to another facility if they'll accept you. If not, the medical ethicist decides. In this case, they pulled the plug in spite of the mother's wishes. So this is selective enforcement, isn't it?"

Kingston wriggled his way out of the question by saying, "Well, you know, I'm not sure about it. This is what I do know - that federal courts have come in over state courts many times over... I just don't see the huge deal - the doomsday gloom bit the liberal folks are all very excited about."

Comment: I hate to say this, and I wince even as I write, but this is one time I wished Colmes were a little more like Hannity. He would never have allowed Kingston to duck that question. However, this was only one out of several times that Colmes discussed that issue and it was covered in full.

Post a comment

Remember Me?

We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.