BCT Editorial – 4/3/05

This page was last updated on April 3, 2005.

Opened door; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 3, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The intervention of Congress and the White House in the Terri Schiavo case might have an unintended consequence - universal health-care coverage in the United States.

“Here’s how the scenario might play out, according to Business Week magazine:

“In the law approved on March 20 giving federal courts jurisdiction over the Schiavo case, Congress opened a door for those courts to grant her a constitutional right to ‘food, fluids or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.’”

[RWC] Under the Constitution, Congress and the states grant/deny rights, not the courts.

“The law was written to apply only to Schiavo, so it asserts that she alone has a right to unlimited health care.”

[RWC] English is my first language and I read the bill, S.686. Nowhere does it say anyone – including Terri Schiavo – “has a right to unlimited health care.”

“Although most scholars think the new law is unconstitutional, the magazine reports the law, if upheld on appeal, could open the door to allow liberals to argue in court that the right to health care should be extended to millions of low-income families.”

[RWC] Uh, who would appeal the law and who would defend it? Ms. Schiavo died on March 31^st, rendering the law moot. Further, the law expires on April 20^th.

“While this isn’t the way in which to address the health-care issue, it is a real possibility, one that few, if any, politicians thought about when they voted on March 20.”

[RWC] I believe the Times and Business Week are guilty of wishful thinking. They ignore sections four, five, and seven of the bill.

Section four states any claim under the act must be presented within 30 days of the bill’s passage. In effect, the bill expires on April 20^th.

Section five states, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.”

Section seven states, “Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.”

The above notwithstanding, it’s entirely possible a liberal court could find a “right to healthcare” in the Constitution just as courts found a right to abortion. That’s the danger of judges who interpret the Constitution based on what they want it to say, not what it says. In any case, it won’t be because of what S.686 says or doesn’t say.