Video: Barack Obama on Terri Schiavo

Video of Barack Obama's comments on Terri Schivo:

My full commentary on this story is available here.

related: "Obama pledged to Planned Parenthood: “I will not yield” to pro-life concerns" (CNA):

The senator said he had a long tradition of support for legalized abortion, citing his efforts in the Illinois State Senate and his classes as a law professor. “I have worked on these issues for decades now,” he said. “I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality.”

...

Senator Obama said he was “absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties,” saying it was “time to turn the page.”

“We’re tired about arguing about the same ole’ stuff,” he continued.

update 2: "Obama Under Fire for Terri Schiavo Remark"- Christian Post

Obama's biggest regret? Not more energetically letting Terri Schiavo die.

In last night's democratic debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - their last one before the Texas/Ohio showdown on March 4th - Barack Obama made a surprising (to me, shocking) statement:

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, any statements or vote you'd like to takeback?

OBAMA: Well, you know, when I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decision making process of the families. It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better. And so that's an example I think of where inaction...

RUSSERT: This is the young woman with the feeding tube...

OBAMA: That's exactly right.

RUSSERT: ... and the family disagreed as to whether it should be removed or not.

OBAMA: And I think that's an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action.

Obama's choice of example and statement about the Terri Schiavo case confound me quite a bit. For one thing, this represents a clear case of him reaching out to an extreme position, and therefore distancing himself from the more conservative position on end-of-life issues that many Americans hold, thus reminding us how liberal Obama actually is on these types of issues. He went looking for it.

Furthermore, the proposition that "the American people understood that [getting involved in the Terri Schiavo case] was a mistake" I don't personally agree with, and at any rate, I'd like to see the poll numbers on it. Since when did this become a consensus position, that it is wrong for there to be laws to protect the disabled from having their ordinary care and nutrition removed?!

Regardless, Obama's lack of action was ultimately fruitless, as Schiavo did indeed have her feeding tube removed and was indeed starved to death, several legal battles later.

In the end, all Obama managed to do with his response to the moderator's question was to inform the American people, "Yes, I was in favor of letting Terri Schiavo be starved to death."

If anything, that was the inaction he chose: not helping Terri live.

LifeNews points out that Obama, in fact, said basically the same thing back in 2007:

This isn't the first time Obama has said the biggest mistake he made as senator was voting to help try to stop Terri from being euthanized.

During an April 2007 debate, Obama said, "I think professionally the biggest mistake that I made was when I first arrived in the Senate. There was a debate about Terri Schiavo, and a lot of us, including me, left the Senate with a bill that allowed Congress to intrude where it shouldn't have.”

"And I think I should have stayed in the Senate and fought more for making sure [Terri's parents couldn't take their case to federal court to save her life]," he explained.

Again, it's scary to think that Obama has to say this sort of thing to win over democratic voters.

Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO's The Corner has this to say:

"I thought Terri Schiavo was a jarring presence at the debate last night. When Senator Obama was asked what legislative regrets, he didn’t try to walk away from his radical ways any by citing his votes against born-alive infant protection or against banning the transport of children across state lines to circumvent parental notification/consent laws. Instead he said he would have voted to stop Congress from intervening to save the life of Terri Schiavo.

On Meet the Press, John McCain left open the possibility that Congress wasn't wrong to get involved. He should embrace life (and autonomy!) and get comfortable with running against Barack Obama, a radical on these issues."

To which Andrew Sullivan responds "is she nuts?"

Oh wait, that's right, McCain shouldn't point out Obama's anti-life positions, that would be foolish.

If anyone has YouTube or other embedded video of Obama's response, I'd appreciate the link.

update: coincidentally, look at what the Vatican was just wrapping-up yesterday:

"The Pontifical Academy for Life has concluded a 2-day conference on ethical and pastoral questions involving care for those who are terminally ill.

... At the conclusion of the conference one participant, Dr. John Haas of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, told Vatican Radio that a key concern had been the desire to counteract mounting pressure for euthanasia in the case of patients who are terminally ill. The spreading acceptance of euthanasia, he said, is the result of a utilitarian approach to human life that is "increasingly dominant" in medical circles." - CWNews

Claim: "Assisted Suicide Won't Up Deaths for Vulnerable Groups"

HealthDay reports:

Legalizing doctor-assisted suicide does not lead to a "slippery slope" of excess deaths among the vulnerable poor, uninsured, elderly or other patients, according to a U.S. study in the October issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics.

A long treatment of the question of euthanasia by the American Psychological Association concludes: "Given the current state of the discourse on assisted suicide, it seems premature for the discipline of psychology to take a stand supporting or opposing assisted suicide."

Yes, some questions are much more difficult to answer without universal moral principles.

I think it would be beneficial to devote next week's bioethics essay to the topic of euthanasia. Stay tuned.

"Repeated Defiance of Rome: Cardinal Martini Defies Pope; Sabotages Church’s Teaching on Life"

LifeSiteNews:

ROME, January 30, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The retired Archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, has struck another subversive blow to the clearly defined teachings of the Catholic Church on life, reports Vatican expert Sandro Magister in the Italian journal Chiesa, who says "the real clash is between Martini and the Pope."

Just nine months previously, Martini, a high profile leader in the Catholic Church, exposed his public dissent from the Church’s life teachings on artificial insemination, embryos, abortion, and euthanasia published in the Italian weekly L'espresso in what Magister wrote was a "bombshell manifesto of opposition to the reigning pope."

Back then, Martini contradicted Church teaching on euthanasia saying, "The pursuit of physical human life is not, in itself, the first and absolute principle. Above this stands the principle of human dignity."

In the January 21 Sunday edition front page of Il Sole 24 Ore, the leading economics and finance newspaper in Italy, and one of the most influential in Europe, appears Martini’s elaborated dissent entitled "Welby, Death, and Me." The piece comes in the wake of the death of Piergiorgio Welby last Christmas; a man who became a cause célèbre of the "right-to-die" movement after an Italian doctor removed his ventilator on his request.

...

Although nine months ago leading Church officials had avoided replying in public to Martini’s previous shocking dissent, this time Church officials have been quicker to respond to Martini’s departures, although remain hesitant to enter into an open confrontation by naming him directly.

A decisive response came from Elio Sgreccia, titular bishop of Zama, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life and for years the most authoritative representative of the Church’s official positions in the area of bioethics in "Corriere della Sera," the major newspaper of Milan, Martini’s former archdiocese. Citing John Paul II’s encyclical "Evangelium Vitae", Sgreccia wrote that euthanasia is still the same offense against life even when it is "exclusionary," or when it omits "an effective and rightful therapy, the withholding of which intentionally causes death."

Sgreccia also reiterated that the doctor, not the patient, must evaluate the "proportionality" of the medical treatment and must not be "a simple executor of [a patient’s] wishes" and is bound to object conscientiously if a patient groundlessly refuses medical treatment. [full article.]

A more extended explication of the story is given by Sandro Magister here.