Roy Blunt’s Unforgivable Role In The Life and Death of Terri Schiavo

More than five years have passed since the death of Terri Schiavo, the reportedly quiet and shy Pennsylvania girl, who those five years ago was the center of worldwide attention, as her husband Michael—the first man Terri ever kissed—finally succeeded in allowing her to pass away with not much dignity to spare.

Terri Schiavo was 26 years old when she suffered extensive brain damage, after collapsing at her home in St. Petersburg, Florida, the victim of cardiac arrest.  That was in 1990. After a couple of months in a coma, doctors diagnosed her as being in a persistent vegetative state, a diagnosis that would be challenged again and again over the next 15 years.

After a long trial of experimental therapy, and with hope gone, in 1998 Michael finally asked the Pinellas County Florida Sixth Circuit Court for permission to remove the feeding tube that had kept Terri alive for eight years.  Terri’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, understandably not wanting to let go of their daughter, fought Michael’s attempt to let his wife pass in peace.

Thus, a lengthy fight in the courts began, and it would not end until just before Terri’s death in 2005, closing with one of the most unseemly and disgusting political episodes in our nation’s history, certainly in the history of the Republican Party.

And near the center of that unseemly and disgusting political fiasco was our own Roy Blunt.

Blunt, who as Republican Majority Whip in 2005, was the right hand man of Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who while the Republicans controlled the House—and before he was forced to resign amid accusations of money laundering and violating campaign finance laws—was nicknamed “The Hammer” because of his fierce enforcement of ideological and party discipline and his tendency to punish his political enemies.

But before I get to Blunt’s role in the Terri Schiavo case, it’s important to understand the dynamics of what was happening back in 2005 regarding the case.

Tom DeLay, along with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, led the Republican charge to use the federal government to essentially ignore the years of state court litigation in Florida over whether the feeding tube keeping Terri Schiavo alive should be removed and whether Terri would have wanted it removed. 

DeLay favored congressional action that would essentially usurp state jurisdiction in such matters in order to satisfy his Christian, “pro-life” sensibilities.  “Terri Schiavo doesn’t want to die,” DeLay confidently said at a press conference on March 18, 2005—with Roy Blunt at his side.

But others quickly concluded at the time that the Schiavo case was more about politics than compassion, Christian or otherwise. A memo written by a lawyer working for Florida Republican Senator Mel Martinez surfaced, which declared the Schiavo case would be “a great political issue” that would “excite” the party’s pro-life base.

And of course it did.

But The Hammer, not content to merely play politics or argue the niceties of moral philosophy, actually attacked the Florida judge who heard the original Schiavo case and who had consistently ruled that Michael Schiavo’s request to administer mercy to his wife should be granted.  

That judge, George W. Greer, was a Southern Baptist Republican.  Here’s what Tom DeLay—again with Roy Blunt at his side—said about Judge Greer during the March 18, 2005, press conference, on the very day and at the very hour that Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was to be removed:

What this is about, is we have a state court with a judge that has been trying to kill Terri Schiavo for four and a half years…

Such was the venom pouring from the lips of The Exterminator, Mr. DeLay, in those days.  He also called removal of the feeding tube “an act of barbarism,” and accused three Democratic Senators, who failed to see things his way, of, well, I’ll just let him say it:

Those Senators responsible for blocking our bill yesterday afternoon—Senator Boxer, Senator Wyden, and Senator Levin—have put Mrs. Schiavo’s life at risk to prove a point, an unprecedented profile of cowardice.

Cowardice, he said. Unprecedented cowardice.

About a week later, The San Francisco Chronicle revealed that the DeLay family had faced a similar Schiavo-like situation back in 1988, when the family decided to allow the congressman’s father to die because, after a freak accident at home, he would “basically be a vegetable“:

“There was no point to even really talking about it,” Maxine DeLay, the congressman’s 81-year-old mother, recalled last week. “There was no way he (Charles) wanted to live like that. Tom knew, we all knew, his father wouldn’t have wanted to live that way.”*

Now, it turns out that Roy Blunt, who currently is laboring to become our U.S. Senator and thus a colleague of Senators Boxer, Wyden, and Levin, was in agreement with Delay’s “cowardice” assessment.  He said, moments after DeLay’s comment about the Senators:

I share the leader’s disappointment with less than a handful of individuals who stood in the way of that bill being sent to the president yesterday and this being resolved at that time.

So, Blunt essentially concurred with the “cowardice” characterization and continued with this:

It’s really hard to imagine a death a lot more hideous than simply deciding that you’re no longer going to allow someone to have food and water, and as you watch them dehydrate, and starve to death. It’s clear from watching the tapes of Terri Schiavo that she interacts with people, she’s aware of her surroundings, she attempts to communicate.

Fortunately, there were real journalists at this 2005 press conference.  One of them had this exchange with Dr. Blunt over his video diagnosis of Schiavo’s brain state:

Questioner: Mr. Blunt, you expressed a, kind of a medical opinion about Ms. Schiavo’s condition based on what you’ve seen on TV, and many, many doctors have pronounced her to be in a vegetative state. How is it that you think you’ve got a better handle on what condition she’s in than they do?

Blunt: You know her mother who sees her, I think every day, has a different opinion than they do, too.  And she appears to recognize her mother, to make attempts to communicate. And beyond that, if you want to get into the medical position here, I think the medical view is that she’s not being kept alive by any artificial means. She’s only being given food and water.  The medical care here is at a minimum to sustain life. It’s not like she’s on some huge life support system.  She’s very much alive, and the only way that she won’t be alive is if the people responsible for her care stop feeding her and stop giving her liquids.  I think that’s the medical line that needs to be drawn here.  But when you look at the films of her, her change—the way she appears to change when her mother comes into the room, there is a recognition there. 

Now, perhaps it never occurred to Roy Blunt, or any of the Republicans involved in the Schiavo legislative travesty, that Judge Greer—who had presided over the case from the beginning—had considered all the evidence, including the video and extensive medical testimony provided by real experts, not just the observations of a Republican legislator from Springfield, Mo., watching from afar.

At the first Schiavo trial in March of 2000, 18 witnesses testified about her medical condition and whether she preferred heroic care at the end of her life.  Judge Greer found that Terri was indeed in a persistent vegetative state and that her husband Michael’s claim that she would not want to be kept alive artificially was credible.  An appeals court affirmed that decision.

In April of 2001, Terri’s feeding tube was removed for the first but not the last time.  Further court action by the Schindlers resulted in the reinsertion of the tube within two days.  In 2002, an evidentiary hearing was held, involving CAT scan results, EEG data, and the testimony of five doctors—two of which were chosen by Terri’s parents.

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia, which relates to Roy Blunt’s video diagnosis:

The five doctors examined Terri’s medical records, brain scans, the videos, and Terri herself. Drs. Cranford, Greer, and Bambakidis testified that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state. Drs. Maxfield and Hammesfahr testified that she was in a minimally conscious state. As part of the court-ordered medical exam, six hours of video of Terri were taped and filed at the Pinellas County courthouse. The tape included Terri with her mother and neurologist William Hammesfahr. The entire tape was viewed by Judge Greer, who wrote, Terri “clearly does not consistently respond to her mother.”  From that six hours of video, the Schindlers and their supporters produced six clips totaling almost six minutes and released those clips to public websites.

It’s hard to believe that Roy Blunt sat down and watched the entire six hours of video of Terri Schiavo.  Perhaps if he had done so, he would not have sat beside Tom DeLay at that press conference in March of 2005 and made an utter fool of himself.

In any case, he was at that press conference, which can be viewed here.  He was also on the Today show debating the issue, which can be found here. And there are other places one can find even more information, for those still unconvinced of Roy Blunt’s shameful role as co-pilot, while the Republican Party flew itself into legislative lunacy.

There is much more to the Schiavo case, and it makes for sad reading.  But eventually, DeLay, Frist, and Blunt got a version of their federal legislation—termed by DeLay as the Palm Sunday Compromise—passed by questionable means.

But to no avail.  Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, refused to bite. 

After seven years of court battles, Michael Schiavo finally prevailed.  Judge Greer’s last order to remove the feeding tube—the day Blunt and DeLay held their press conference—was upheld.

Terri Schiavo died at Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida, not quite two weeks later.

Needless to say, the comprehensive post-mortem examination revealed that Judge Greer had made the correct decision.  Terri Schiavo’s brain was extensively and irreversibly damaged.  Her vegetative state was very real.

Although there is much to be learned from what Republicans attempted to do during the fight over the fate of Terri Schiavo, for voters in Missouri, one fact stands out.

The man who wants to be our representative in the U. S. Senate, who seeks entrance to “the world’s greatest deliberative body,” is, by virtue of his role in the Schiavo case, unworthy to represent us.  His judgment is flawed.

Scott Schiavo, Michael’s brother, said this to Jennifer Frey of The Washington Post just before Terri’s protracted death:

“It’s so sad that they’ve turned this wonderful person into a sideshow,” Scott says, his voice shaking. “Into a media circus. It’s such a shame. It really is. The one that’s hurt the most here is Terri. Her memory. They’re taking away whatever dignity she had left. They’re taking it away. And it really stinks.”

During the Republican Party’s relatively recent and disgraceful battle to use the power of the federal government to impose conservative pro-life doctrine on first a family, then a state judicial system, Roy Blunt was right there on the front line, fighting beside his conservative comrade, Tom DeLay.

And if only to give some measure of posthumous dignity back to Terri Schiavo, Missourians ought to end Roy Blunt’s legislative career this November.

______________________________________

*Related to DeLay’s own family decision about his father is the following exchange, which occurred at the March 18, 2005, DeLay-Blunt press conference:

Questioner:  The husband in this case—Terri Schiavo’s husband—has said that she expressed a verbal desire that she not continue in this sort of state.  How does the, sort of, the issue of sanctity between spouses in marriage fit into what the Congress is doing now?

DeLay: In my opinion, the sanctity of life overshadows the sanctity of marriage.  I don’t know what transpired between Terri and her husband.  All I know is Terri is alive, and this judge in Florida wants to pull her feeding tube and let her starve for two weeks. That is barbaric, and unless she had specifically written instructions in her own hand and with her signature, I don’t care what her husband says.

DeLay’s father did not leave any written instructions before his accident.

15 Comments

  1. JaneReaction

     /  August 24, 2010

    Excellent reporting. Deserves much further dissemination. Roy Blunt is as bad as they get. Jane intends to run with this one. Thanks for your hard work.

    Like

    • Duane Graham

       /  August 24, 2010

      Jane,

      Thanks for the compliment. It did take considerable time to do the research, but these days folks have short memories, and it’s important to remind them of even recent history. And I confess I had forgotten essential information myself in just five years, an affliction I am afraid is getting worse, both as I get older and as I interact with the Internet.

      Politicians, of course, depend on short memories, especially when they make colossal mistakes like trying to intervene in a personal family matter like the Schiavo case. And isn’t it interesting, that in these days of the Tea Party—which is a confluence of libertarians, conservatives, and other quasi-Republicans—with their emphasis on “small government,” with their fearmongering about “Obamacare” and death panels, and with their false claims about “losing their liberties,” that to a man and a woman, they will undoubtedly cast their votes for Roy Blunt this fall?

      Duane

      Like

  2. Duane,

    I have tried to understand fundamentalist reasoning in cases like Terri Schiavo’s, and all I can come up with is this: that supplying a feeding tube to someone in a persistent vegetative state is not intervention, and that if God wished to call her home He would over-ride the effects of the feeding tube and “take” her anyway. But this assumes that God intervenes in earthly affairs and then we are into that big issue.

    The concept of free will is of course incompatible with the concept of heavenly intervention, but the Bible is full of examples of it, so the faithful keep praying for intervention. When they don’t win the lottery they just assume the answer was “no”. Same kind of thing regarding reproduction – the assumption is, I suppose, that God has time during every conception to guide the right sperm to the right egg to fulfill his purposes. That would seem to keep him pretty busy, but so is watching the sparrows and nothing is impossible . . .

    Churches fall down on congregations, tsunami’s drown thousands of the faithful, missionaries get murdered, bad things happen regularly to “good” people, and the answers are always unsatisfactory. “No one can know God’s mind.” “He was needed in heaven.” “All will be revealed in the afterlife.” You can argue with them, but when you do, the faithful take it as an attack, not an occasion for reason.

    Here is a link to a Scientific American article, in case you didn’t see it. It applies very well to this situation, I think. 😦

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faith-and-foolishness&sc=MND_20100823

    Jim

    Like

    • Duane Graham

       /  August 24, 2010

      Jim,

      Thanks for the depressing Sciam article. Related to the Schiavo case, I found this part of the article pointedly relevant:

      The survey’s most enlightening aspect was its categorization of responses by levels of religious activity, which suggests that the most devout are on average least willing to accept the evidence of reality.

      The reason I cite that suggestion—that the most devout are “least willing” to accept evidence—has to do with Senator Bill Frist, a big player in the Schiavo case. Not only was Frist a heart surgeon, and presumably a medical “scientist,” but he was also a devout pro-life believer (which I equate to religious belief because of my experience as a former pro-lifer), a fact that made him more than unwilling to accept evidence: he reinterpreted the evidence to fit his own views.

      The short version of Frist’s part in the Schiavo case can be found at Wikipedia:

      In the Terri Schiavo case, a brain-damaged woman whose husband wanted to remove her gastric feeding tube, Frist opposed the removal and in a speech delivered on the Senate Floor, challenged the diagnosis of Schiavo’s physicians of Schiavo being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS): “I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office.” Frist was criticized by a medical ethicist at Northwestern University for making a diagnosis without personally examining the patient and for questioning the diagnosis when he was not a neurologist.[30] After her death, the autopsy showed signs of long-term and irreversible damage to a brain consistent with PVS.[31] Frist defended his actions after the autopsy. Various complaints against Frist, a licensed physician, were filed with medical oversight organizations, but no action was taken.

      Not only did Frist “defend” his actions after the autopsy, he actually lied to Matt Lauer on the June 16, 2005 Today show, saying he didn’t actually say what he said:

      Lauer: You were on the floor of the Senate at that time, not only as a senator, but a doctor, and in talking about Ms. Schiavo, you said, quoting you now, “She does respond.” End quote. Were you wrong in your diagnosis?

      Frist: Well, first of all, I never made a diagnosis. I think it’s very important that we saw the autopsy today. It does give us the definitive information that we did not have at that point in time. And that’s why I think it’s big news that she had totally irreversible brain damage, and we now have that information. All we were arguing for on the floor of the Senate was to get an accurate diagnosis before you withdraw a feeding tube from a live person…

      Lauer: …but when you stand on the floor and you said, “She does respond,” are you at all worried that you led some senators…

      Frist: No, I never said that. I never said she responded. I said—and I reviewed the court videotapes—the same ones the other doctors reviewed—and I questioned, “Is her diagnosis correct?”

      Now, it’s clear that Frist was embarrassed, not to say ashamed, of attempting to make a long-distance diagnosis by watching edited parts of a six-hour video. But more than that, it’s also clear that people like Frist—again, who are supposed to be trained to think scientifically—are not just “least willing” to believe scientific evidence that contradicts their own views, they affirmatively, and sometimes aggressively (to wit, the creationists) reinterpret evidence to fit their faith-based or religious views.

      As for trying to understand fundamentalist reasoning (I’m not claiming, by the way, that Frist was or is a fundamentalist, only that his pro-life views amounted to a kind of religious belief), I can help you with that one: Don’t waste your time. It’s full of contradictions and incoherencies.

      When I was an evangelical, I heard many, many times a variation of this statement: “If you don’t understand something or if there appears to be a conflict between the Bible and the facts, just wait on God and he will show you in time.”

      That’s almost an air-tight formula for keeping folks on the reservation of faith. I say “almost,” because it didn’t work on me. When I was nine years old, my mom bought be a set of “young people’s” science encyclopedias—which were replete with simple experiments to “test” many of the claims therein—and because I spent countless hours reading the entries, I learned early on that assertions need to be backed up with evidence. The doubts I had about my evangelical faith just couldn’t withstand such scrutiny.

      I pity the poor child who wasn’t so lucky.

      Duane

      Like

      • Rawhead

         /  August 25, 2010

        I really hope you one day explain how the hell you went from being an evangelical conservative to a Satan-worshiping, gay-loving, wine-cooler drinking liberal. That’s gotta be one hell of a story involving head trauma and voodoo.

        Like

        • Duane Graham

           /  August 25, 2010

          Rawhead,

          I resent being called “a Satan-worshiping, gay-loving, wine-cooler drinking liberal.”

          I absolutely hate wine coolers.

          Just as you suggest, wine coolers are for sissies. In fact, I don’t think they use much wine in wine coolers these days, which makes them even worse.

          So, never again accuse me of drinking wine coolers.

          Duane

          Like

          • Rawhead

             /  August 25, 2010

            Haha, fair enough. Still looking forward to the explanation. Perhaps if you’re not a wine cooler sipper, you’re performing back-alley abortions for a quarter or something? There has to be something else, you can’t just worship Satan and love gays, that doesn’t seem like enough!

            Like

        • Duane,

          Whew! I spent a restless night wondering if you were a closet wine-cooler sipper. The image of you enjoying a chilled bottle of Passion Berry in the privacy of Casa Del Graham’s fern-lined atrium was unsettling. Kenny G blowing airy background Muzak completed the horror. I can now clip the hedge without such haunting thoughts distracting from this clumsy, bi-annual operation.

          juan

          Like

          • Rawhead

             /  August 25, 2010

            Then out came sissy’s panties to bring you back over to the hetero side of life?

            Apologies, Duane, I couldn’t resist. Keep up the good work.

            Like

        • Rawhead, Rawhead, Rawhead (to quote Marsha Brady),

          You always make me think of Steve Martin disarming a heckler: “I remember when I had my first beer.”

          juan

          Like

        • Duane Graham

           /  August 25, 2010

          Juan, Rawhead

          Now I’m afraid to tell you guys that I carry around a picture of John Tesh in my wallet. I feel so guilty.

          Duane

          Like

  3. Thank you for refreshing our memory.

    Sometimes it seems the further away an event is in time, the harder it is to believe it actually happened.

    I linked to this post on my blog.

    Jim Lee

    Like

    • Duane Graham

       /  August 25, 2010

      Thanks, Jim. I enjoy your blog, and I especially appreciate the “Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely…” quote you make use of, no matter who the author was originally.

      Duane

      Like

  4. As a resident of Tampa Florida I remember this attempt at misuse of governmental and judicial power all too well. The Republicans in their efforts to politically benefit from the suffering of a family to further their own interests, carelessly and thoughtlessly cast a shadow of shame over themselves. A shadow that extended out to all those who unknowing supported them in the fight for a blind cause. DeLay and Blunt are as corrupted as two humans can be, and they continue to get away with it because too many stand behind them for failing to clearly read the eyes of their false prophets. Fundamentalism without reason is nothing more than misdirected blind faith. Great Report!!

    Like

  5. very well researched. good job.

    Like