Limited means what I say it means - or something to that effect

Sometimes it's easy to forget that Gov. Rick Perry and his wingnut disciples claim to believe in limited government. As I've pointed out in the past, when Gov. Perry talks about limited government he's referring to government assistance and regulation for anyone who isn't a corporation or wealthy individual.

From the same folks who believe that deciding who can and who cannot get married, and from the same folks who believe that the state should have the power to decide who lives and dies comes the latest misadventure in limited government.

Leonard Pitts, Jr., of the Houston Chronicle, brings us up to date on the tragic circumstances enveloping Marlise Munoz and her family.

Marlise Muñoz was 33 when she died. 

She was at home when she collapsed from an apparent blood clot in her lungs. It was an hour or more before her husband, Erick, found her. He says doctors pronounced her brain dead, though John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, citing privacy concerns, has declined to confirm that diagnosis. 

It is, at any rate, nearly a month and a half since this happened, yet Marlise remains hooked up to life support. Her mother wants her removed. Her father wants her removed. Her husband wants her removed. He says his wife - like him, a paramedic - specifically said she never wanted to be kept alive by artificial means.

The hospital, however, ignored the family's wishes and has continued to keep Ms. Munoz on life support. Why, might you ask? It's because of a Texas law that prevents hospitals from taking a pregnant woman off life support. It turns out that Ms. Munoz was 14 weeks pregnant at the time.

Now I don't pretend to be an expert in medicine, but I know enough to understand that a 14-week old fetus cannot survive outside the womb.

There is no greater purpose served by keeping Ms. Munoz on life support and subjecting her family to torture of watching their loved one lie in a bed unresponsive with no prospect of ever living without being hooked up to a machine. The doctors know this. The hospital administrators know this. But no one is willing to do the right thing.

Let's think about this for a second. We, as a state, have told a family that we are going to keep their dead family member "alive" for the sole purpose of extracting a fetus from her at an undetermined time. Once that fetus is removed from her body the machines will be disconnected and she will finally be allowed to die. And the family will have to relive her death a second time. They must also cope with the fact that their loved one is being used so we can attempt to harvest a child from her body.

What is the fate of this child? How long will we continue to torture the family? Who will foot the bill if the fetus has suffered birth defects as a result of the mother's trauma?

I'm sorry, but we don't have a stake in this situation. The only person whose voice needs to be heard is Ms. Munoz' husband. He's the one who will have to raise the child after this is all over. The state, while requiring his dead wife to be hooked up to life support machines, will wash its hands of the matter once the baby is delivered. Any complications or birth defects will be the sole responsibility of the family -- even though they have already said they don't want this outcome.

Rick Perry wants limited government if we're talking about taxes or regulation or the ability of folks to carry weapons around with them at all times; but, when it comes to matters that affect a family - well, we can't go limiting the power of the state, can we?

A gun in every house, a chicken in every pot

The enlightened city council members of Nelson, Georgia decided the other day to require the heads of all households to own a gun. How's that for limited government?

Nelson, Georgia is not what we would call a liberal hotbed. It's a small rural community of about 1300 an hour or so outside Atlanta. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say that Mitt Romney carried the town fairly handily back in November.

It's truly ironic that the same folks who want to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act because it requires folks to purchase health insurance would promote a city ordinance that requires folks to go out and purchase a firearm.

To be fair, though, the ordinance does exempt convicted felons, citizens with mental or physical disabilities and those who have a moral objection to guns. Under the new law, there is no sanction for not possessing a firearm.

According to one council member the ordinance will not be enforced - no one will receive a citation for not having a gun in the house - so it's no big deal. He said the existence of the ordinance will act as a deterrent to crime in the community.

Now let's see, those on the right don't like the government telling them they have to do something and they don't like unnecessary laws on the books. And here we have both in one nice little package.



H/T Democracy Now!

Presumption of innocence goes up in smoke

Last week a fire swept through an overcrowded Honduran prison and killed more than 350 inmates. At the time of the fire there were 856 inmates in a facility designed to hold but 500. Even more appalling is the fact that more than half the inmates at the prison were either awaiting trial or being held as suspected gang members.

So much for the presumption of innocence in the banana republic.

The only job for prison administrators is to assure the safety of the inmates placed into their custody. Being removed from one's home and one's family and being forced to do what someone tells you to do 24 hours a day is punishment. Being housed in an overcrowded fire trap is cruelty.

Regardless of whether you have any sympathy for the convicted serving their sentences, those men have families and people who care about them, too. It is bad enough to have a loved one taken away and locked up for years. To have that person's life taken from you is an unspeakable tragedy.

The most terrifying power the state holds is the ability to take away a person's liberty. In this instance we have the state not only taking away the liberty of citizens without ever formally charging them - but taking their lives.

There are people who ask me how I do what I do. They ask me how can I defend a person I know is guilty. The answer is easy. My job is to fight the ability of the state to take away a citizen's liberty. My job is to limit the power of the government. My job is to defend our right to be left alone.

A tyrant is a ruler whose powers aren't checked. It doesn't matter what label you place on the country's political system. A tyrant can be elected in a democracy just as easily as he can come to power by force of arms.

We deal with petty tyrants in the courthouse every day of the week. Whether it be the municipal court judge who issues a warrant if someone is five minutes late for traffic court or the judge who adheres blindly to a bail schedule. And, since only those people end up in criminal court, it has precious little impact on most of the electorate who is more than happy to just close their eyes and vote for the R's or D's.