Type to search

Did Jeb Bush Go Far Enough To Try To Save Terri Schiavo To Save His Iowa Chances?

Politics Tribune News Service

Did Jeb Bush Go Far Enough To Try To Save Terri Schiavo To Save His Iowa Chances?

Share

By Michael Bender, Bloomberg News (TNS)

Standing at the pulpit of his Sioux City, Iowa, mega-church a decade ago, the Rev. Cary Gordon wept over the death of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman who had her feeding tubes removed more than 1,500 miles away in Florida. Now, the politician mostly closely associated with trying to keep her alive is coming to the state searching for support for his prospective presidential bid.

To much of the world, it appeared as if Jeb Bush, then the governor of Florida, stood his ground against those who wanted to take Schiavo off life support. But that’s not the picture that emerged for some in a crucial constituency in the state with the first presidential nominating contest.

“I’m displeased with Governor Bush,” Gordon said in an interview this week. “He could have informed law enforcement, called up the National Guard, or told the county sheriff’s office not to let it happen.”

Bush is campaigning in Iowa on Friday and Saturday, his first trip to the state in three years. Polls show tough sledding ahead for Bush as conservatives look askew at the former governor’s support for legalizing undocumented workers and his backing for the academic standards known as Common Core. Bush’s two-day swing includes a fundraiser for U.S. Rep. David Young, private meetings with conservative activists, and campaign-style events at an agricultural summit in Des Moines, a barbecue restaurant in Waukee, and a pizza place in Cedar Rapids.

Theoretically, Bush’s actions in the Schiavo case were supposed to be an antidote to his troubles with the conservative base. The strategy, as Bush and his allies have said, is to remind voters of his record in Florida, where he enjoyed strong approval ratings while implementing one of the most conservative agendas of any big-state governor.Much of that record should play well among born-again or evangelical Christians, who accounted for almost three of every five Iowa Republican caucus-goers in 2012.

As governor, Bush approved a partial-birth abortion ban, and a requirement for parental notification before terminating some pregnancies. He signed into law the National Rifle Association’s first stand-your-ground law allowing deadly force in self-defense.

But the issue that would seem to resonate most with Iowa social conservatives is his showdown with the state court system over a law to reinsert Schiavo’s feeding tubes. The debate over Schiavo’s life, during which Bush’s advisers included one of Mother Teresa’s attorneys, received the attention of newspapers and television stations across the country. The Vatican weighed in, as did and then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a physician who watched a videotape of Schiavo and gave his diagnosis from the chamber floor. Schiavo’s fate has been a topic in Republican presidential primary debates in the 2008 and 2012 cycles.

“Every caucus-going Republican over 30 is going to know the Schiavo story, and certainly our Christian evangelicals are going to be incredibly interested,” Iowa Republican Chairman Jeff Kaufmann said in an interview. “And they’re going to want more detail about that.”

Getting that message out is crucial for Bush. His allies were privately thrilled with tough stories recently in the Tampa Bay Times and Politico that revisited the family tragedy, showing how the hard-charging Bush combined policy with his religious and moral beliefs to nearly lead the state into a constitutional crisis. At the Conservative Political Action Conference last week outside of Washington, Bush told the crowd he had no regrets over the fight.

“Here was a woman who was vulnerable,” Bush said. “And the court, because of our laws, they were going to allow her to be starved to death. So we passed a law, Terri’s Law, that was a year later ruled unconstitutional. I stayed within the law, but I acted on my core belief that the most vulnerable in our society should be in the front of the line. They should receive our love and protection, and that’s exactly what I did.”

But that may not be enough for some social conservatives in Iowa.

“Just because a judge wants to kill somebody, that doesn’t give them the authority to do it,” said Brian Rosenor, a former chairman of the Woodbury County, Iowa Republicans. “Two state troopers in front of her door would have saved her life. Jeb Bush could have done more.”

Bush faced similar calls in 2005, after exhausting legal options. “I would have gone to the clinic myself, with the state troopers, and I would have talked to the folks there, saying, ‘We’re going to put the tube back in,'” Pat Buchanan said on MSNBC in 2005. “She’s going to be fed, and she’s going to be given water.”

Schiavo was diagnosed as being in a “persistent vegetative state” after her heart stopped beating in 1990. With no legal will in place and a million-dollar medical malpractice settlement, the family was divided over treatment. The case gained national attention as court rulings favored Michael Schiavo, Terri’s husband, who maintained that his wife would not have wanted to be kept alive with feeding tubes. Bush sided with Schiavo’s parents, who argued their son-in-law was an unfit guardian.

In 2005, the state sought court approval to take custody of Schiavo. Rumors circulated that Bush would use state lawmen to remove her from the hospital, so doctors could reinsert her feeding tubes. As lawyers for Schiavo’s husband equated such a move to kidnapping, Florida Circuit Judge George Greer, a Republican, issued an injunction, saying that it appeared state action was “imminent.” “I don’t want this thing turning into a donnybrook,” Greer said at the time. Bush abided by that decision.

Marlys Popma, a prominent right-to-life activist in Iowa, said she wanted to hear directly from Bush before coming to any conclusions.

“I prayed for her when she was going through that and her parents,” Pompa said in an interview. “We’re talking about life and death, and how far some is willing to go to protect that is really important.”

Photo: Former Governor Jeb Bush speaks at the 42nd annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Feb. 27, 2015 in National Harbor, Md. Conservative activists attended the annual political conference to discuss their agenda. (Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/TNS)

Tags:

17 Comments

  1. Paul Bass March 9, 2015

    Michael, the husband, had legal rights to this decision. The husband has this right in every single state in the union.

    Bush had NO RIGHT to interfere in a PRIVATE decision of the family. This is disgusting.

    Do we want THIS man to be president, saying the STATE has the right of our most personal intimate decisions? Please, America, say NO to this clown.

    Reply
    1. FT66 March 9, 2015

      Of all the people Jeb Bush becoming president!!! Forget it. Unless and until all democrats are dead and can’t vote anymore.

      Reply
  2. Paul Bass March 9, 2015

    Michael, the husband, had legal rights to this decision. The husband has this right in every single state in the union.

    Bush had NO RIGHT to interfere in a PRIVATE decision of the family. This is disgusting.

    Do we want THIS man to be president, saying the STATE has the right of our most personal intimate decisions? Please, America, say NO to this clown.

    Reply
  3. Paul Bass March 9, 2015

    Michael, the husband, had legal rights to this decision. The husband has this right in every single state in the union.

    Bush had NO RIGHT to interfere in a PRIVATE decision of the family. This is disgusting.

    Do we want THIS man to be president, saying the STATE has the right of our most personal intimate decisions? Please, America, say NO to this clown.

    Reply
  4. Paul Bass March 9, 2015

    Michael, the husband, had legal rights to this decision. The husband has this right in every single state in the union.

    Bush had NO RIGHT to interfere in a PRIVATE decision of the family. This is disgusting.

    Do we want THIS man to be president, saying the STATE has the right of our most personal intimate decisions? Please, America, say NO to this clown.

    Reply
  5. Paul Bass March 9, 2015

    Michael, the husband, had legal rights to this decision. The husband has this right in every single state in the union.

    Bush had NO RIGHT to interfere in a PRIVATE decision of the family. This is disgusting.

    Do we want THIS man to be president, saying the STATE has the right of our most personal intimate decisions? Please, America, say NO to this clown.

    Reply
  6. Paul Bass March 9, 2015

    Michael, the husband, had legal rights to this decision. The husband has this right in every single state in the union.

    Bush had NO RIGHT to interfere in a PRIVATE decision of the family. This is disgusting.

    Do we want THIS man to be president, saying the STATE has the right of our most personal intimate decisions? Please, America, say NO to this clown.

    Reply
  7. Paul Bass March 9, 2015

    Michael, the husband, had legal rights to this decision. The husband has this right in every single state in the union.

    Bush had NO RIGHT to interfere in a PRIVATE decision of the family. This is disgusting.

    Do we want THIS man to be president, saying the STATE has the right of our most personal intimate decisions? Please, America, say NO to this clown.

    Reply
  8. Paul Bass March 9, 2015

    Michael, the husband, had legal rights to this decision. The husband has this right in every single state in the union.

    Bush had NO RIGHT to interfere in a PRIVATE decision of the family. This is disgusting.

    Do we want THIS man to be president, saying the STATE has the right of our most personal intimate decisions? Please, America, say NO to this clown.

    Reply
  9. Paul Bass March 9, 2015

    Michael, the husband, had legal rights to this decision. The husband has this right in every single state in the union.

    Bush had NO RIGHT to interfere in a PRIVATE decision of the family. This is disgusting.

    Do we want THIS man to be president, saying the STATE has the right of our most personal intimate decisions? Please, America, say NO to this clown.

    Reply
  10. Paul Bass March 9, 2015

    Michael, the husband, had legal rights to this decision. The husband has this right in every single state in the union.

    Bush had NO RIGHT to interfere in a PRIVATE decision of the family. This is disgusting.

    Do we want THIS man to be president, saying the STATE has the right of our most personal intimate decisions? Please, America, say NO to this clown.

    Reply
  11. Paul Bass March 9, 2015

    Michael, the husband, had legal rights to this decision. The husband has this right in every single state in the union.

    Bush had NO RIGHT to interfere in a PRIVATE decision of the family. This is disgusting.

    Do we want THIS man to be president, saying the STATE has the right of our most personal intimate decisions? Please, America, say NO to this clown.

    Reply
  12. Paul Bass March 9, 2015

    Michael, the husband, had legal rights to this decision. The husband has this right in every single state in the union.

    Bush had NO RIGHT to interfere in a PRIVATE decision of the family. This is disgusting.

    Do we want THIS man to be president, saying the STATE has the right of our most personal intimate decisions? Please, America, say NO to this clown.

    Reply
  13. Paul Bass March 9, 2015

    Michael, the husband, had legal rights to this decision. The husband has this right in every single state in the union.

    Bush had NO RIGHT to interfere in a PRIVATE decision of the family. This is disgusting.

    Do we want THIS man to be president, saying the STATE has the right of our most personal intimate decisions? Please, America, say NO to this clown.

    Reply
  14. Paul Bass March 9, 2015

    Michael, the husband, had legal rights to this decision. The husband has this right in every single state in the union.

    Bush had NO RIGHT to interfere in a PRIVATE decision of the family. This is disgusting.

    Do we want THIS man to be president, saying the STATE has the right of our most personal intimate decisions? Please, America, say NO to this clown.

    Reply
  15. Paul Bass March 9, 2015

    Michael, the husband, had legal rights to this decision. The husband has this right in every single state in the union.

    Bush had NO RIGHT to interfere in a PRIVATE decision of the family. This is disgusting.

    Do we want THIS man to be president, saying the STATE has the right of our most personal intimate decisions? Please, America, say NO to this clown.

    Reply
  16. Insinnergy May 6, 2015

    So the law is the law, until some politician wants to make a name for himself.
    Then he can target you and make your life, and the non-life of your vegetative, non-breathing spouse painful, prolonged and horrible.
    Charming.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.