Schiavo spectacle

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

There’s not much to say about the political firestorm over Terry Schiavo; it’s sickening, and thoroughly depressing, but at this point it’s about what you’d expect from the modern day GOP. What’s that? Tom DeLay is under investigation for corruption? Never mind! He can always just use his bully pulpit to attack Michael Schiavo personally—a rather gross abuse of power, if you think about it. What’s that? Gov. George W. Bush signed a Texas law in 1999 to “allow hospitals … [to] discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree”? Never mind! The Schiavo case is, um, different, and demands that president leave his ranch in Crawford and jet back to Washington. (Lindsay Beyerstein has much, much more.)

At any rate, for an extremely patient discussion of both the medical and ethical issues surrounding this case, see this post by hilzoy over at Obsidian Wings. By now, of course, there’s really no sense in reasoning with the Schiavo fanatics—the whole goal here, after all, is to put on a gruesome little spectacle, and Republicans just want the chance to rally up the “base” with a bit of symbolism, since they have no intention of ever giving the Christian Right anything substantial (a ban on abortion, say, or an amendment against gay marriage). But read hilzoy’s post anyway; it’s important to note that this isn’t about the “right to live” or other such nonsense, but about the right to refuse medical care. The latter right, if I’m not mistaken, is practically part of the Republican platform, so I’m not sure what the big deal is here.

UPDATE: Judd Legum has some poll numbers on this. Taking a family member off life support is a difficult issue, and one I’ve thankfully never had to go through, but it’s safe to say that no choice will ever be free of pain or tragedy. Still, the whole point here is that the federal government should stay out of that decision. The overwhelming majority of Americans can see that—most people, it seems, would prefer not to have their comatose wife or son or mother trotted out before Congress for a big TV-focused political extravaganza. Though the cable news channels apparently think otherwise.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend