The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. A copy of the ruling is here (.pdf file).

Associated Press reports:

In its 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said the woman’s parents “failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims.”

“There is no denying the absolute tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo,” the ruling read. “We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children. However, we are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law.”

The ruling was not unanimous. The lone dissenter, Judge Charles R. Wilson (a Clinton appointee), wrote:

I strongly dissent from the majority’s decision to deny the request for an injunction pursuant to the All Writs Act and the request for a preliminary injunction. First, Plaintiffs have demonstrated their entitlement to a preliminary injunction. Second, the denial of Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction frustrates Congress’s intent, which is to maintain the status quo by keeping Theresa Schiavo alive until the federal courts have a new and adequate opportunity to consider the constitutional issues raised by Plaintiffs. The entire purpose for the statute was to give the federal courts an opportunity to consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims with a fresh set of eyes. Denial of Plaintiffs’ petition cuts sharply against that intent, which is evident to me from the language of the statute, as well as the swift and unprecedented manner of its enactment. Theresa Schiavo’s death, which is imminent, effectively ends the litigation without a fair opportunity to fully consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.

Schiavo’s parents vowed another appeal Wednesday, but time is running out for their daughter. From AP:

[Schiavo's] eyes were sunken and dark, and her lips and face were dry.

“While she still made eye contact with me when I spoke to her, she was becoming increasingly lethargic,” Bob Schindler said in the papers. “Terri no longer attempted to verbalize back to me when I spoke to her.”

Louise Cleary, a spokeswoman at Woodside Hospice, said she could not discuss Terri Schiavo’s condition for reasons of privacy.

Isn’t it reassuring to know that Terri Schiavo, a woman being deliberately starved to death, retains her privacy rights?

In this week’s column, I argue that the MSM’s coverage of the case has been abysmal. I focus in particular on ABC’s coverage, including the biased poll that Ed Morrissey deconstructed on Monday. More questions about ABC’s coverage here.

Not surprisingly, other columnists weighed in on Schiavo as well:

Charles Krauthammer: “There is no good outcome to this case. Except perhaps if Florida and the other states were to amend their laws and resolve conflicts among loved ones differently — by granting authority not necessarily to the spouse but to whatever first-degree relative (even if in the minority) chooses life and is committed to support it. Call it Terri’s law. It will help prevent us having to choose in the future between travesty and tragedy.”

Kathleen Parker, “When is a husband not a husband? That’s the question that keeps scratching at the back door of the hospice where Terri Schiavo lay slowly dying of starvation through the weekend.”

Linda Chavez: “If a court can order Terri Schiavo to be slowly starved to death on the wishes of an estranged husband, who will be next?”

Update: 336pm. Denied again.

comments (0)   trackbacks (22)