PeterDavid.net

I'm of a very liberaterian bend myself. I used to vote for mostly Republicans, but as the years have gone by I vote for few and fewer each election cycle. Sometimes I wonder how I came to be voting for Democrats. Then something like the Shiavo case comes along and I remember why.

I agree. The government should not have been put into this. This is now something that the Republican party is going to wrap the flag around. "This is a quality of life issue." They'll say. Yet, what about the OTHER lives that are like this, where this struggle of families against the victim's spouses goes on? Does this case outweigh those stories because this is one that comes from Dubya's brother's state?

Last year around this week (Holy Week for us Christians)my mom had to make a difficult decision in her life: To decide my grandmother's fate should she slip into uncosicousness. She did and my mom decided that if there was no hope, then it was time to let her go. My mom has been punishing herself this past year wondering if the decision was the right one.

The decision is one that is an emotional roller coaster for a family. So why does the government want to add to that by making it a political point?

I can understand both sides opinions on this issue. And really believe they both want the best for Terri. However, what Terri's parents need to accept is their daughter has been dead for 15 years. She's only a empty vessel now. I can't believe anyone would want this. And even if the husband isn't doing this completely for her, but rather so he can get on with his life. How long would they want this to go on? Should we keep Terri alive after her parents are gone? 10 years? 20? 30? There has to come a point where this ends. The government should not get involved and twist the knife even further. Further more if Congress and the President do this and supersede the ruling of the state courts it will be a dangerous prescient that we may never be able to undo. Course it's not like we haven't seen plently of those already in the last 4 years. Side note this is my first post here and I have to say what a big fan I am of your work Mr. David

Oh yeah, that evil Bush. He's the entire problem here, not the "husband" that's been living with another woman, had 2 children with her, and stands to inherit close to a million dollars from a malpractice settlement when Terri dies. Yes, close to a million dollars. None of this money has been used to care for Terri, that's being handled by medicare or medicade.

Terri didn't make a choice! Her angel of a husband says she did, but there's nothing in writing. But, again he has no ulterior motive in wishing Terri dead, does he.

Bush is right (I cannot believe I said that) that we should err on the side of life but all of the politicians getting involved in this screams of sharks smelling blood. The families involved are surely in a personal Hell and there are way too many people getting involved.

Terri didn't make a choice! Her angel of a husband says she did, but there's nothing in writing

Yet, regardless, the courts have ruled in favor of the husband.

Unfortunately, Congress can't handle that.

If YOU want to live for 15 years in a "persistant vegetative state", with ho chance of recovery, by all means, write it into your will.

For some of us? We see when it's time to move on with life and let somebody go.

Too bad Terri's parents haven't figured out when that is yet.

Jeff, if it's about the money for Schiavo, perhaps you can explain why he's turned down offers for 10 times as much to relinquish custody of Terri to her parents and divorce her.

As to the living with another woman, his wife has been dead for 15 years. The fact that he hasn't divorced her and still is trying to honor her final wishes says a lot.

for those who do not have a living will or advance health care directive you can consult a lawyer or go to legacywriter.com

after reading the hoopla about Schiavo's case i got myself an advanced health care directive. i think the politicians should stay out of it. i for one, don't want to become a living dead.

Posted by Jeff In NC at March 21, 2005 12:26 AM

Oh yeah, that evil Bush.

Nope. Just oppertunistic politicians.. I'd say that Delay and his bunch ARE much worse. The profess states rights and have for YEARS tried to make the Federal Government smaller.. that is until they gained control of all three branches of said Government. Now it's a friggin free for all... and on OUR DIME! Total hypocrisy.

He's the entire problem here, not the "husband" that's been living with another woman, had 2 children with her

The woman has been brain dead for 15 years. At least he's taken care of her for that amount of time.

and stands to inherit close to a million dollars from a malpractice settlement when Terri dies. Yes, close to a million dollars.

WRONG! It's been said over and over and over again on EVERY major network that she has been cared for with the settlement money and that there isn't a whole lot left of said settlment.

None of this money has been used to care for Terri, that's being handled by medicare or medicade.

See above answer!

Hell, he was offered 1 million dollars and an uncontested divorce just to leave. He turned it down. Why would he turn down the 1 million when he could send his two kids to any school and give them a nice nest egg for the future? It's already been said by just about every media outlet that the settlement money is almost gone and he's not going to get anything else out of the case. Why wouldn't he just take the cash and the divorce and blow.. maybe because he knew the woman he married and cares deeply about this.

Terri didn't make a choice! Her angel of a husband says she did, but there's nothing in writing. But, again he has no ulterior motive in wishing Terri dead, does he.

And you were there when they talked about it in the wee hours of the morning? You know this guy personally and have spent time with both he and Terri? No.. you say? Well, then you must be a friggin psychic.. you should open your own hotline .. you could make the cash to pay him off and take care of poor Terri.

You really shouldn't demonize the guy without first hand knowledge. You don't know what happened between this couple. And neither do I. I just don't want the Federal Government superseding the 40+ judges and Florida lawmakers that have already heard this case over and over again since it began 7 years ago. It's dangerous precedent.

Jeff in NC, you don't seem to understand how Medicaid or Medicare works. As somone who helped put twho grandparents in Nursing homes and on Medicare to do it. All monies the person had is accounted for to the government government, period. This money is then used to pay their bills until it is gone and then the government takes over. There would be no way for the hushband to hide 1 mil in money from the government and both sides have admitted: THE MONEY IS GONE!

If he was the leach you try to portray him as he would have been smarter to file for divorce the day after recieving the payment and get the half of all assets that he is entitled to as the spouse and leave. I'd be surprised if at this point he isn't in debt to his lawyers for the rest of his life. You have to give this guy credit, faced with a storm of religous zealots he has stood his ground and honored his wife's wishes.

This is a sad day for this country. The Republicans have once again stepped all over our personal freedoms, declaring their moral superority all the while they continue to slaughter untold, countless Iraqis and pushing 2000 american soldiers in a war for oil. God help us, I'm sure he is smelling the hypocrisy. And ofr those who say it's god's choice that we keep alive this slab of meat that hasn't realized that it's dead yet, I say you are violating God's will. He decided to shut down her brain, he decided it was her time to die and we are interfering in his plan by keeping her alive. Nature has not followed it's course, it has been violated!

Julio, the offer of 10 Million was a recent thing. Husband could have petitioned the court for divorce many times over the past years, but didn't. I believe it was because of the money then, and now it's to try to save face. And his wife isn't dead. So, he's technically an adulturer.

If Terri is brain dead like some believe, then her soul/essence/whatever isn't there anymore. So, what's the harm in keeping her fed. She's not on life support keeping the organs alive. She's on a feeding tube. If she just has brain damage, and there is some chance of recovery, however slim, isn't it worth trying?

While it's easy to call the politicians entering this fight leeches, or use it as yet another excuse to bash Bush or the GOP, the fact is this is a very tough issue.
Because while I apreciate the arguments the other side is making, I do feel we will be going down a slippery-slope if we allow a woman to starve/dehydrate to death because she is brain-damaged, especially snce her parents are willing to take care of her.
Once you establish a precedent like this, especially with no living will, there is no going back.
If you don't believe me, ponder this...I have had peole suggest to me that severely autistic children should be allowed to die since A.) They are a burden to ther parents B.) They can't realy communicate or tel their parents 'I love you' or most of the other things we consider "normal".
What's next? The severely retarded? People with Alzheimer's?
These thoughts kep me awake at night sometimes.
So I will back these brave lawmakers who have decided to enter the fray.
Oh, and I voice these opinions as my support for the death penalty continues to wane.

I'm going to stay out of most of this, largely because it seems like few people know much of the details and instead want to focus on the talk-button points...

...however, I did want to say this: Peter, make sure you have a Power of Attorney with that Living Will - a Living Will can be argued.

-Kelly

Jerome:

I do feel we will be going down a slippery-slope if we allow a woman to starve/dehydrate to death because she is brain-damaged, especially snce her parents are willing to take care of her.

Her parents should have no say in this at all. Terri Schiavo is an adult, married woman, and her parents' authority ended a long time ago. If there were no next of kin, maybe, maybe I'd let the parents make this decision. As it stands...nuh-uh.

Once you establish a precedent like this, especially with no living will, there is no going back.

There is a precedent like this. Has been for years. It's that in these cases, the right to make this type of decision falls on the spouse. This isn't establishing a precedent as much as it is destroying one.

Much as I am loathe to increase anybody's ire:
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/03/schiavo_hudson_and_nikolouzos.php

If anybody's blood starts to reach pasta-cooking temperature, well, don't say I didn't warn you...

Part of the settlement was for the continuing care of Terri. Part was damage award from the malpractice.

Hey BJ, as for not knowing how medicare/medicaid works, after you have to deal with it for years as well as dealing with a parent with altzheimers, you can get back to me on what I know about the situation.

General Information about Terri:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Who's Paying for Terri:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/11155564.htm

Jeff in NC
"If Terri is brain dead like some believe, then her soul/essence/whatever isn't there anymore. So, what's the harm in keeping her fed. She's not on life support keeping the organs alive. She's on a feeding tube. If she just has brain damage, and there is some chance of recovery, however slim, isn't it worth trying?"

Obviously you've never had anyone you loved in such a state. When my Father had cancer, it caused blood clots in his leg, one of which came loose & caused a stroke. Yeah, he was still conscious, & maybe could register that people were around him, although if he did, he had no knowledge of who or how many people were/was there. But that's ALL he could do. His eyes were completly vacant, had to be kept in diapers & changed, had to be fed, and did little, if anything, more than stare off into space & waste away for the remaining weeks of his life.

Until you've had to experience a similar hell, don't you **DARE** to judge anyone else in this position. Especially when the other people are strangers & you have no idea what their conversations consisted of what situation they're in. And that goes for anyone else who wants to stick up for bush & the other republicans.

If bush & the republicans really cared about right to life & quality of life, they would fully fund medicare & medicaid so that everyone alive can have the quality of life that these opportunistic bastards claim that they want for Terry. If they really cared about any of this they would fully fund the Veterans Administration so that all the soldiers that are getting killed in bush's wars could be taken care of, instead of being stockpiled in barricks &/or turned out into the street. If they believed what they said, they wouldn't have taked away bankruptcy for poeple when cannot meet medical bills or people who can no longer pay their bills because they are either in the service with reduced income or killed in service leaving the remaining family is financial peril.

Besides, while they're preparing to overturn the courts, do you hear any of these well-to-do politicians offering to pay for the cost of keeping Terry alive?

correction:
"all the soldiers that are getting killed in "

Obviously killed should be wounded.

There is a vivid discussion still going on in the Trek BBS and it is also a topic in the British news.

The whole case first of all reminds me to be grateful that there is no one among my immediate family who shares the attitude that "life is sacred at all cost" and "that where is life, there is hope".

I keep wondering, how a parent can be so cruel to fight to keep a loved one in such a state: Trapped in a completely useless body for 15 years! When I first heard about this case, my immediate reaction was, I hope the woman is indeed beyond any level of awareness because if not, I most definitely would have been mad by now!

How also politicians can think that removing a feeding tube is inhumane but letting her in her present state for more - months? years? decades? - is civilized is beyond me.

Here in Britain the Catholic church is arguing that the topic abortion should be part of the election campaign. They are pointing to the USA where religion played such a big part in the election process. Oh, yes, I remember: like the topic stemcell research and gay marriages. Well, a president who even wanted (or did he actually do it?) put an amendment in the constitution to forbid gay marriages is capable of more. What happened now saddens me but, no, I am not surprised.

On the other hand, these religious people are in favour of the death penalty and defend the right of US citizens "to bear arms". I don`t want to start writing about the topic Iraq right now because this text would become much longer.

What happened also confirmed my and my husband`s attitude towards religion and the church. It also confirmed our belief that we made the right decision to not baptize our daughter and leave her out of the church. If she wants to join later, it is up to her, but we won`t encourage her.

Concerning living wills, in the USA there is another aspect to consider: medical expenses. I read it all the time that people in the USA not only have to deal with the illness itself but also with the question how to pay for treatment. Fortunately, here in Britain you don`t have to worry about that. Intensive care costs a fortune and the medical bills for the treatment - or more accurately, preserving her - must be enormous.

I am writing this after I finished reading the other comments so far. Someone said, if people haven`t been in such a situation, they shouldn`t dare judging.

I very much disagree but that is a different matter. Yes, I have some experiences here or mor accurately, my husband has. His mother had a stroke when he was a young teenager. It was serious but she was brought back to live. Only, she was a shadow of herself. Her personality changed completely and she was unable to look after herself. She died a few years later after a second stroke.

To my husband, his mother died twice and he also told me, he wouldn`t want to be brought back after a stroke because he doesn`t want to suffer the same fate as his mother.

Michael Brunner,
First, let me say I am sorry about your father. My grandfather died of cancer, so I can empathize.
That part of your post was touching. But that quickly disappears as you state:
"Until you've experienced a similar hell, don't you DARE (to) judge anyone else in this position. Especially when the other people are strangers and you have no idea what their conversations consisted of what situation they're in. And that goes for anyone else who wants to stick up for Bush and the other Republicans."

Sorry, I reject this knd of thinking completely. Because once we accept it, then it would follow that only those who served in the military should DARE have an opinion about it; that only those directly affected by domestic violence should DARE have an opinion about that; that only those afected by non-smoking laws - mainly businesses should DARE have an opinion about it; and on and on and on.
No Thanks.
Your second paragraph is a demagogic rant that demonizes the "opportunistic bastards". Are you sure they're being "opportunistic"? Is it even possible they are doing what they think to be right? And, sorry to break it to you, they are not all Republicans.
"Besides, while they're preparing to overturn the courts, do you hear any of these well-to-do politicians offering to pay for the cost of keeping Terr(i) alive?"
Since her parents are already offering to do so, that would seem to have little to do with the issue at hand. But if Rick Santorum, Jeb Bush, Tom DeLay or anyone else WERE to make such an offer, would it change your mind? if not, then your question is moot.

To Michael Brunner:
How **DARE** I??? Like I stated, I have a mother with altzheimers. My mother "died" about 12 years ago, and now there is a shell of a person remaining. She needs assistance on a 24 hour a day basis. Do I have the right to tell the nursing home to stop taking her to the dining room and feeding her? Because that's exactly what's happening to Terri now. She's slowly starving and dehydrating.

My brother and I have both agreed and signed papers to the fact that if anything major should happen (heart attack, stroke, etc) then no extrordinary measures should be taken to prolong her life, but for now, there's nothing short of murder we can do to stop her life.

THAT'S how **DARE** I.

Okay, here's my two cents. Living Wills are a great idea, as long as they can be backed up. Like any other legal document, they can be fought over in the courts.

What amuses sickens me about this case is that it's another attempt to invade the bedroom by the Republican Party. They'll let business run rampant, but God forbid that you should be able to have individual choice.

What also kills me is that any southern member of congress is going along with the bill to "protect" this woman. Why? Because the bill is trumping the state court system, and inserting federal authority over the states. As my Georgia-born wife likes to remind me (I was born in NJ), the other reason for the Civil War was State's Rights (not letting the federal government interfere with what the states were doing).

I feel sorry for both sides in this case. From what I've seen on CNN, it seems to me that the woman's parents are doing this out of spite for the husband. According to him (and court documents), the split over what to do about Terri came about when the parents asked for part of the malpractice settlement money, and the husband refused.

Having said that, even though I have nothing against polyamory, it does smell like dead fish that the husband has a "common law" wife and kids. It certainly loosens his credibility to those who think that he should be faithful to his wife.

Out of morbid curiosity...if an 11th-hour, near-impossible miracle occurred and Terri woke up from her coma, and a few weeks or months later regained the ability to communicate and found out how long she'd been on life-support and basically said "WHAT THE F**K DID YOU DO THAT FOR!?"

...how do you suppose the politicians would react to that one?

Amusing typo by Jason R. Anderson:
"a dangerous prescient"

I doubt Bush can be seen as a prescient. So he's either setting a dangerous precedent or being a dangerous president (a case can be made there ;)).

Anyway, my personal view is that the government (any government) should either keep out of situations like this, or provide guidelines after some serious debate. Rushing things through to get some PR and be seen as a crusader is NOT the way. Especially not as it's pretty much a case of Bush ramming his views down everybody's throat. Again. Kinda puts a cramp on this democracy thing he's so eager to ram down the world's throat...

And I can see both sides of the argument of pulling the plug. Preserving life at all costs (the parents) or knowing when it's time to quit (the husband). While I'm personally inclined towards the latter, especially since it has apparently been 15 years that the woman has been in a coma, I can understand why the parents may cling to any hope that their child may recover. I can't see Bush's point of view, though. He's shown that he does not believe in preserving life at all costs, nor does he know when to quit. So if someone could explain his reasoning for interfering - which I'm sure he has, somewhere - I'd be thankful.

"If, like me, you don't want to burden your family and force them to watch you lie there like a slab of meat, consigning you all to a sort of twilight zone holding pattern for year after year after year, then make that clear as well."

Good advice, although in this case it is the family that wants to keep her alive.

I'm uncertain of how I feel about this case, so I don't have the luxury of demonizing the other side. Many of the arguments are patently bogus. "the courts have decided!" the husband's supporters say--the same folks who fell over themselves passing a law to help a woman in an ugly child custody battle years back. "He's in it for the money!" the husband bashers claim, though that should be easy to prove and so far they haven't.

I do have a major problem with starving a woman to death. I keep hearing that it's painless. Ok, animal lovers, how about we pass a law mandating that impounded animals be allowed to die in this painless manner? Would save a bundle on dog and cat food. For that matter, prisoners on death row could be allowed this painless method of execution--it would certainly add a touch of irony to that whole "last meal" thing.

If we are going to kill her, put a bullet in the back of her head. If that strikes one as distasteful, maybe we should let her parents take care of her.

I'm all for pulling the plug on people, including myself if it comes to that, but there ain't no plug here. I don't like the slippery slope argument but one does have to wonder where this will be taken next. She's in only slightly worse shape than some advanced alzheimers cases I've seen and they have even less chance of improving than she does.

So...if push came to shove, I'd probably have voted for the law that congress passed. They can always kill her later. There is so much political posturing on both sides that it's hard to see what the truth is.

"Well, a president who even wanted (or did he actually do it?) put an amendment in the constitution..."

Fortunately, Baerbel, in the US, a President can't amend the COnstitution by fiat. Instead, the issue must get the approval of 2/3 of Congress, then of 2/3 of the state legislatures. That's one reason why it's only been amended 16 times over the past two centuries. (The first 10 don't count for our purposes - they were passed almost immediately after this Constitution was adopted, in 1787.)

No matter what you're feeling on the decision for this case, is it something that should be tying up both a large state's legislature (why is it always Florida and why do I live here?) and now the federal government? What the **** ever happened to the Republican idea of government staying out of our lives?!? Can you imagine a more personal issue, or one which is a better example of when the government should keep away?
If the government wants to keep people from starving, there are millions of people they can provide food for. If they care about people dying unnecessarily, there's more examples of that then any reasonable human wants to think of. Instead our attention is focused on this case. I guess Michael Jackson isn't sufficiently distracting right now.
Here's the circus, where's my bread?

My grandmother had a stroke a few years go. She survived, but had some mobility and balance issues, and developed dementia after that. Most days she was pretty good, some days she'd forget what year it was, how old she was. Which wasn't that big a change.

Last year, she suffered another stroke, only this one left her comatose. She had discussed ahead of time with my mother not to put her on life support. There was no will, although she had had the foresight to make my mother her executor and guardian, including power of attorney. The doctors made her as comfortable as they could, but made no efforts to sustain her body beyond it's own means. She passed peacefully a few days later.

Her husband had died 20 years before that. He developed inoperable lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking. His last year of life was spent confined to a bed with gradually increasing twice-daily morphine doses to allow him to sleep through the constant pain he was in.

So I have some experience with this sort of thing. And I am outraged on so many levels...

First, the very idea that our Federal Government has mobilized for one person disgusts me. I don't care that congress was on a break, and they are essentially doing this on their own time. Where were they over the years as other families dealt with this issue? This cannot be the first time a family has disagreed or come to legal challenges over who has a say in whether to continue artificial life support for a striken loved one. So what makes this case so special that our government takes direct action? Media coverage and political coin.

Secondly, this is a blatant attempt by the Federal government to usurp state power. This issue has been in the Florida court system for nearly 15 years. Yet for some reason, the Federal government feels that they need to have a final review of this case? Are they saying that Washington doesn't trust the states? Or maybe it's just Florida, and George is playing literal Big Brother to Jeb?

I find it criminally hypocritical that so many republicans can applaud this effort, while at the same time speak about defending the institution of marraige. One of the key benefits of marraige is control of medical care. Yet when a husband tries to exercise that right of marraige, they feel the need to step in and look things over. He says he's respecting the wishes of his wife. I find it hard to believe that, aside from a house and other property, there's not exactly a lot of marital property that he stands to inherit upon her death, and given that he's turned down a no-contest divorce/buy-out, it seems that the only possible explanations are that he either really, really hated his wife, or he is telling the truth. Yet now the government wants to take that right away from marraige. How is that defending marraige?

My only hope is in the judiciary. What the Republicans call "activist judges," I my Obi-Wan Kenobi. Given the number of recent judicial decisions overturning recently passed (read Republican) laws, my hope is that the Federal courts reach a quick and correct decision that they have no jurisdiction to review this case, despite what Congress says. The judiciary is in place explicitly to provide a check on the legislative and executive branches, for exactly this situation. When on party controls both branches, the sitting-for-life judges, relatively removed from political life, are entrusted with enforcing those laws compatibable with the Constitution, and not enforcing those that run against the powers set aside for the government. This is clearly a case of the Federal government exceeding it's powers.

Without legal documentation, the husband has the most legal standing to make this decision. Period.

The parents were wrong not to accept his decision and take it to the courts.

The courts got it right anyway.

The Florida Legislature and Congress should not have intervened. George and Jeb should not have signed the laws. The Florida one has already been overturned, and the Federal law likely will as well.

The GOP was wrong to bring this to the federal level. The Democrats were wrong to delay the vote yesterday on a procedural technicality when they knew the votes were there - they becamse just as guilty of playing politics with her life at that point. All of this for the sake of press conferences on both sides.

There's just way too much stupidity going on with this.

I have a living will - I have had it for five years now - and I am more glad of it every day.

Despite the arguments for keeping her alive vs. pulling the feeding tube; despite the arguments of hypocricy/opportunism/manipulation on either side; despite ALL that...

Am I the only one who has a problem with the Congress passing a law that basically says, "It doesn't matter what the local or state courts have decided, or what jurisdictional laws are; the federal courts are going to hear this case carte blanche"? (Yes, I know the bill specifically says it won't "constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation," but, as the saying goes, words are cheap.)

This steps all over all kinds of jurisdictional, state/federal, and separation of powers issues and I just find that more than a little off-putting.

Bill, there's clearly a plug here. The woman was only kept alive by a tube fed directly into her stomach to provide her with nutrients and water. Digestion is an autonomous function, running whether higher brain function is present or not. Without that, she would have died years ago.

And it's painless because she has no higher brain function. Pain, and more importantly, the body's reaction to is, is a conscious function of the brain requiring higher brain capacity (or so I understand...anyone feel free to present medical knowledge to correct me). So starvation while in a coma or brain-dead is painless. Or better put, the body exhibits no signs that there is any pain. Starving a fully conscious person/animal, as I undestand it, is quite painful. Which is why food deprivation is a fairly effective form of torture.

On another note...

Anyone catch that a man was arrested while attempting to sneak into the hospital with food and water? Which, if he had been successful, would likely have resulted in choking her to death, as she has no capacity to swallow.

Idiocy among the lunacy, I say.

Except that a former nurse has come forward and said she IS capable of swallowing. And that therapy for swallowing has never been allowed by the husband.

If this was a case of her receiving a fatal dose of morphine, or somesuch, I could deal with it. This is a case of a woman being starved to death. And the courts are allowing it. Barbaric, says I.

The Terri Shiavo case is heart-wrenching because I do believe that both the husband and the parents are doing what they believe is best for her or what she would have wanted. Let's be realistic. She isn't coming back. The doctors give her no real chance of recovery and after 15(?) years, it's clear to me that any hope of recovery has long since faded away.

I've thought a lot about what what I would want in such a situation were I condemned to spending my life staring at the ceiling, unable to function in capacity whatsoever or to even comprehend my surroundings. That sounds like hell to me. I know what I would want in that situation: Pull the damn tube.

But that's me. I can't speak for what Terri would have wanted or whether her parents or her husband could possibly know her wishes better. I think, though, it is a tell that for all the years that have gone by, the courts have consistantly sided with her husband. If there was any credible evidence that he had some kind of ulterior motive, wouldn't some court in Florida's judicial system have found that out?

What sickens me, is that the same politicians who constantly proclaim that families, not the government, should make decisons about personal finance and health care, are now bringing the full weight of the federal government to bear not that the one family member with legal standing in the case has made a decision that they don't approve of. Those that preach that the federal government should stay out of areas that are traditionally the state's business, are once again interfering in a case that a state government has already decided because they don't like the decision. The same politicians that loudly rail against federal courts that "legislate" from the bench are now calling on those same federal courts to rewrite the law, giving them the power to intervene. That Congress would use its subpoena power, not to investigate, but simply to interfere is reprehensible.

The politicians are just doing their usual grandstanding. I don't believe that anyone of them give a damn about Terri Shiavo. They're just trying to get votes. It's clear that those "principles" that they preach go out the window the second somebody makes a personal decision they don't like.

And that should scare everybody.

Rob, I dated a speech therapist for three years. Her training included swallow rehabilitation. Swallowing is not something you can treat with therapy if there's no conscious person to work with. Many people that are conscious have to learn how to control the swallow reflex all over again after a stroke or some throat surgeries. My guess is that the husband didn't allow it 1) because it went against the wishes of his wife, and 2) it would have endangered her because she has no ability to respond to therapy, nor control her swallow reflex, and she'd be just as likely to aspirate (take food or water into the lungs) just as much as swallow.

How quick we are to demonize politicians. Surely they are incapable of compassion, so their actions must be because they are heartless horrors looking for an easy vote.

Jerome is correct in accessing the danger of "where does it stop?" While I agree I don't want to live under such circumstances - and hence have as much in my will - I am uncomfortable with not being able to look at these on a case by case basis. In this case, as I understand it, there has been no therapy, nothing that might bring some response. Nurses have claimed she has "good moments" which would likely expand with therapy.
There is also some question on how she came to be injured and if the husband had something to do with it. I have no idea if that's true, yet his unwillingness to provide for (and stand in the way of) basic therapy makes me go hmmmmm....

Sanctity of life is a big deal. There is no hypocrasy in being for the death penalty and against euthenasia and abortion. Why it's okay to kill the innocent but not hunky dory to kill the truly guilty is beyond me (I'm not completely for the death penalty, but being for abortion and against the death penalty seems screwy to me).

War can be a necessary thing. King David had the right to send warriors out in war; he did not have the right to have Bathsheba's husband sent on a mission to purposely get killed. There are distinctions. Are you suggesting that the Revolutionary War, WWI, II and the Civil War were wrong to prosecute? Is it war in general, or just THIS war that you find objectionable?

My mom and I discussed this last night and agreed to get living wills and give copies of them to each other. Fifteen years on a feeding tube isn't living. It's being alive, and only by a technicality. Neither of us wants that.

Not all states allow or recognize living wills. You should check your state to see what's required, if they're allowed at all. A quick call or letter/e-mail to your state attorney general should get you the relevant information.

That is, unless the Federal government decides it wants to pre-empt your state's ability to legislate it's own laws.

Alan M: "Despite the arguments for keeping her alive vs. pulling the feeding tube; despite the arguments of hypocricy/opportunism/manipulation on either side; despite ALL that...

Am I the only one who has a problem with the Congress passing a law that basically says, "It doesn't matter what the local or state courts have decided, or what jurisdictional laws are; the federal courts are going to hear this case carte blanche"? (Yes, I know the bill specifically says it won't "constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation," but, as the saying goes, words are cheap.)

This steps all over all kinds of jurisdictional, state/federal, and separation of powers issues and I just find that more than a little off-putting."

No, Alan, you're not the only one. This "law" is, quite possibly, the most disgusting aspect of this entire case. That these opportunists and demagogues would be so willing to trample the Constitution to score political points with the most inanse of their constituents, but can't show that level of dedication to, I don't know, balancing the damn budget, horrifies me beyond word.

Congress, what the hell am I paying you for?

Myths versus Facts

Terri's situation can be confusing. Because of misreporting and inaccuracies, it is easy to lose sight of the real issues surrounding her case.
We've compiled what we believe to be important items that are not always clear to the general public, but that deserve understanding.

Most Common Questions and Answers
If Terri hasn't recovered after all these years of therapy, why not let go?

Terri hasn't had meaningful therapy since 1991, but many credible physicians say she can benefit from it.

Why can't Terri just divorce?

Terri's husband/guardian speaks for her. She cannot divorce without his permission

Does Terri have an advanced directive or any wishes about her healthcare?

Terri never signed any directive or living will and there is no evidence that she foresaw her present situation.

Why do Terri's family fight to keep her alive? Shouldn't they let her husband decide?

Terri's husband has started another family and probably has gone on with his life. Terri's family want to provide her therapy and a safe home.

Is Terri receiving life support?

Not in the traditional sense. Terri only receives food and fluids via a simple tube.

Isn't removing her tube a natural and dignified way to die?

No. Dehydration and starvation cause horrific effects and are anything but peaceful. Read more here.

Most common misconceptions about Terri's situation

MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

MYTH: Terri does not need rehabilitation
FACT: Florida Statute 744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated:

(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.

This is a retained right that a guardian cannot take away. Additionally, it does not make exception for PVS patients. Terri has illegally been denied rehabilitation - as many nurses have sworn in affidavits.

MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri's feeding tube, not regular food and water. Terri's husband illegally ordered this. The law only allows the removal of "life-prolonging procedures," not regular food and water:

Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.

Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.

MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri’s medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a “houseplant” and has used Terri’s case on national television to promote his newly published book.

MYTH: Michael Schiavo volunteered to donate the balance of the inheritance to charity.
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo’s attorney proposed that, if Terri’s parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity. The proposal came after a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavo’s conflict of interest since he stood to inherit the balance of Terri’s medical fund upon her death. This one and only offer stated “if the proposal is not fully accepted within 10 days, it shall automatically be withdrawn”. Naturally, Terri’s parents immediately rejected the offer.

MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.
FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:
Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)
NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50

Atty Gwyneth Stanley - $10,668.05
Atty Deborah Bushnell - $65,607.00
Atty Steve Nilson - $7,404.95
Atty Pacarek - $1,500.00
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL) - $4,511.95
Atty George Felos - $397,249.99

Other

1st Union/South Trust Bank
$55,459.85

Michael Schiavo
$10,929.95

Total $545,852.34
http://www.terrisfight.org/myths.html

How quick we are to demonize politicians.

I wouldn't be so quick if they weren't so damn hypocritical all the time. Now, whenever I see a politician spewing lofty rhetoric about empowering families to make their own decisions, I'll see the following asterix:

* - Unless, of course, you make a decision that we don't like, then we'll be on you like white on rice.

Surely they are incapable of compassion, so their actions must be because they are heartless horrors looking for an easy vote.

It comes from having their soul removed. :P

Jerome is correct in accessing the danger of "where does it stop?"

Where it begins: with families making these decisions, not the courts, and not the elected parasites in Washington.

Sanctity of life is a big deal. There is no hypocrasy in being for the death penalty and against euthenasia and abortion. Why it's okay to kill the innocent but not hunky dory to kill the truly guilty is beyond me (I'm not completely for the death penalty, but being for abortion and against the death penalty seems screwy to me).

I'm against both. Does that make you feel better?

War can be a necessary thing.

It can also be a thing done for the wrong reasons.

King David had the right to send warriors out in war;

I miss the days when we lived in a republic instead of a monarchy. :P

Is it war in general, or just THIS war that you find objectionable?

I find this particular one objectionable, considering we were LIED to about the reason we started it.

There's no basis to say that the absense of therapy is an illegal denial of therapy. Florida law says patients retain the right to therapy. Her husband is her legal guardian. If he denies therapy, that's within his authority as her legal guardian. His actions carry the same weight as though Terri herself had acted. There hasn't been a denial of therapy so much as therapy has been refused.

There's an interesting parallel in this case with death-row appeals. In both cases, some party is willing to fight to the literal last breath, often taking extreme actions, in order to stave off the inevitable.

One additional thing I think this case highlights, is the impact media, both good and bad, has had on public opinion. Someone reading the "facts" (no offense to Bob Jones, but without reading the supporting material Mr. Jones has, his facts are really just educated opinion) presented by Mr. Jones would probably side with Terri's family. Others, reading a different set of "facts," would side with her husband.

Which is all the more reason for the Federal government to stay the heck out of this. Next thing you know, Bush will ask Congress to legislate a peace between the Hatfields and the McCoys....

After reading the previous post, I'm simply going to say that the courts have repeatedly said otherwise about many of the "facts" purported about Shiavo's case.

It comes down to one simple fact, one that has been challenged repeatedly and in every case supported by the courts: Michael Schiavo is Terri's legal guardian. His decision, one way or the other, should be the final say.

And I find it disquieting that the party in power, the people who loudly proclaim the sanctity of "state's rights", who scream loud and proud about "getting government off the backs of the individual", seem to want to add "...unless of course we don't agree with the decision and can make political hay throught it".

JSM

What if Sarah Scantlin had been starved?

Jeff Morris is 100% correct in his statement. Every single court to date has found in Micheal and Terri Schiavo's favor.

Let's see, however, if the federal court sees it the same way as the other courts. I'd be very interested to know how much pressure Judge James Whittemore is under right about now. Especially considering the politicians involved.

"Out of morbid curiosity...if an 11th-hour, near-impossible miracle occurred and Terri woke up from her coma, and a few weeks or months later regained the ability to communicate and found out how long she'd been on life-support and basically said "WHAT THE F**K DID YOU DO THAT FOR!?"

...how do you suppose the politicians would react to that one?"

The politicians would say that clearly they knew best because she recovered.

PAD

After reading the previous post, I'm simply going to say that the courts have repeatedly said otherwise about many of the "facts" purported about Shiavo's case.

I agree. While Terri's mother and few nurses have reported seeing signs that she has responded, no one us in this forum were witness to these observations and it is just as likely that they are the product of wishful thinking, like the "assisted communication" fad from a few years ago.

What I find interesting is all the accusations about her husband's supposed ulterior motives. If all he wanted was the settlement money, then he could have just divorced her and taken half. Instead, he's spent years fighting in courts. Between the legal fees and her medical bills, that money has to be long gone. If all he wanted was to be with this new woman, then again, he could just as easily have divorced Terri and left her in the care of her parents.

The fact that he hasn't walked about from this case for 15 years says one of two things: That he is a truly evil person who is working out of spite, or that he really does still care for her and truly believes in his heart that she is gone and this want she would have wanted.

The most disgusting tactic I've seen here was when they tried to subpoena Terry to appear before Congress, claiming that if she was allowed to die they would be subverting the subpoena. What next -- coma victims called to present evidence? And the lawyer was claiming that if she was put in a wheelchair she'd be just as responsive as anyone else. Um, no -- she has suffered tremendous brain damage and has been vegitative for FIFTEEN YEARS!!!

I suspect the parents believe she's responsive because that's what they want to think. Every facial tic or movement can be interpreted as a response, every sound or grunt a reply. However, they should accept the inevitable: Terry as you knew her is gone, she will not get better, she will not come back. Say a prayer and let her go.

Oh, and a short time ago Republicans who were against gay marriage kept shouting about the sanctity of marriage and the importance of a union between a man and a woman. Now they're perfectly happy to totally ignore the beliefs and wishes of her husband, who is her legal guardian. Go figure.

It's a tough situation all around. In many ways it would seem to be better if he did hand her over to her parents. But that said, regardless of the moral issues, there seems to be three primary legal issues at stake that anything prolonging her life would overturn at least one of and cause harm to:

1. Innocent Until Proven Guilty
This, simply put means the we (the government) has to assume the Michael Shivo is telling the truth and is compitent to serve as his wife’s legal representative until proven otherwise.

2. A person has the right to refuse treatment.
If you do not have the right to decide which treatments you receive, then who does? This is so key to our way of life. The individual has the rught to make choices that are harmful to themselves. If you go to a doctor and they tell you that the only way to save your life is to undertake these series of treatments that you don’t want to for aby reason, should the government step in and say treat him anyway?

3. Your spouse is your legal representative.
Again, this is a basic tenet of law since time immemorial (albeit one-sided in many cultures). If you are unable to make a decision, your spouse is legally you for the ourpose of that decision. And they have to be. Who would you rather making the choices for you if you are incapacitated then your lifemate? Your parents? Your government?

Now, as a disclaimer, I want to say that my political views are usually between right-wing Republican, and Libertarian. With tis case I maintian tha t most of us cannot know all the details, so we cannot judge which side is acting out of her interests or their own, but the above legal concepts are true regardless. His ma be a case where doing the right thing (hypotetically saving her life) would cause disasterous consequenses down the road to others. (Through legal precident)

What if Sarah Scantlin had been starved?

Well, then she would be dead. But, the fact that she came out of a 20 year coma isn't proof that Terria Shiavo would do the same. Each case is unique and if there is a doctor out there who has examined Terri and does not believe that she is in a "persistant vegetative state," then why haven't a single court found him or her credible?

On balance, I still feel far more comfortable with decisions like these being made by the closest relative, which in most states is the spouse for married adults, than by grandstanding politicians.

I spent some time visiting my grandmother after she had suffered her second stroke. Her eyes opened at times, but she made no sign that she recognized anyone or anything in the room. She could move, a little, but it was pretty much random shifting, like one might make while asleep. Once in a while, some sound would pass her lips, but mostly whistles or a moan.

Point being, she demonstrated what some might consider signs of "life." Motion, independant of outside stimuli, expression of sound, etc. And my mother swears that once grandma squeezed her hand when my mother spoke her name.

Point being, people see what they want to see. I see images of Terri on TV and I see a body that's got no brain motivating it beyond autonomous functions. Others see a very injured woman struggling to cope with the limitations of her injury.

In the case of my grandmother, she didn't live long enough to really starve to death. Her body gave out long before that. But, in deciding to deny further care and attempts to ressusicitate, we effectively gave her to God, and if He wanted her to recover, she would. But it was our decision to make. And we would have been emotionally devastated if some Federal agent had shown up and forced us to use artificial means to keep her body alive longer.

So at what point/age is it ok to allow someone to die a natural death, rather than live an unnatural live? Post retirement, so the social security checks stop? When medicare ends? After 20 years of support? There's no hard and fast answer that will satisfy everyone, which is exactly why the Federal government should just stay an observer.

From what I know of Sarah Scantlin, there were very significant different facts. First, Sarah exhibited some response/communication to outsiders, blinking once or twice to respond to yes/no questions. Terri, from what I have read, has been diagnosed as being "brain dead," meaning the higher functions such as speech, deliberate movement, and communication centers no longer functioned. Sarah appears to just have been in a coma. Very different medical issues.

On the other hand, if Sarah's parents had decided to deny treatment, I'd have supported their right to make that decision. And the blessing in that? If they had done so, they'd have never know that Sarah would have regained the ability to speak. And if they were of a christian faith, they'd be able to take solace in the fact that their daughter was back with God.

Screaming hypocrites who consider all life sacred--unless, of course, we're bombing it into oblivion or consigning it to death row for execution.

As opposed to the hypocrites who considered all life meaningless unless they are serial killers or known terrorists.

"As opposed to the hypocrites who considered all life meaningless unless they are serial killers or known terrorists."

Bullshit.

Next?

PAD

Yeah, that basically sums up my response to the quote I posted of yours.

"Yeah, that basically sums up my response to the quote I posted of yours."

My comment was based upon the indisputable track record of this Congress and its hypocritical leadership. Your comment was based upon your usual bullshit.

Next?

PAD

Well, ok Ken, show us those people that consider all life, other than serial killers or known terrorists, meaningless? 'cause I'd figure that the only folks that would fit that bill pretty much ARE serial killers or terrorists.

I'm pretty sure you're trying to implicate the so-called pro choice group. Which, if it were true that they considered all life meaningless, they'd be composed of homicidal maniacs killing whenever they felt the whim take them.

So, I'd say PAD's call for a BS dismissal is pretty appropriate.

Saying it's better to "err on the side of life," from the same man that launced a war against Iraq on faulty evidence is almost a perfect example of hypocrisy. Where was Bush's "err(ing) on the side of life" two years ago when he decided to take action that would and has taken thousands of innocent lives? It was in the pile of "things that would get in the way of my agenda," and so conviently ignored. Now, it serves a purpose, mainly glomming onto a public issue that can score him points with the groups that he seeks support from.

Which is exactly why you'd not hear squeek one from this government if this were a case involving a gay couple.

People make it sound like the husband is the only voice being listened to and that the parents haven't had a say... but they have. There was a court case. They got to present their arguements. They got to present their doctors. The simple truth is that the court listened to their evidence and found it lacking. They found the evidence presented by Michael Schiavo to be more credible. They found the evidence of her friends and the people that knew her to be more credible.

I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that the government can legislate me to have or not have a medical procedure without my expressed consent.

Next step: eugenics? forced sterilization? radical gene therapy to help those queers?

This is just another court vs government opportunity for this administration to make a grab for more power and control while marginalizing and limiting the power of the Courts and those "few radical judges" that they're always complaining about.

This woman's husband won't even let the nurses open a window so that she can see the sun. It's important to her that she be kept away from stimuli, despite the fact that so many medical professionals say she could benefit from therapy.

What really happened that night she "fell down"?

There's only one possible upside, if this turns out to be a successful Federal coup of state authority:

When the Republicans finally lose control of the government, whoever replaces them will inherit all this power they've amassed. Hopefully, that group will take steps to undue this horrible precedent. But if they don't, some part of me will take some satisfaction in watching the republican reaction to seeing someone else run willy nilly over their ideals and beliefs.

This thing is a huge mess, and barring the simple solution of a written and signed advanced directive, I don't see an easy solution. While -- initially -- I sympathized with both sides, I think both the parents and the husband have been hijacked by exremists on both sides of the issues, and now can't back down for fear of proving the other side "right."

I DO sympathize with the parents, if this was my daughter, I'd likely be insane with grief, too, and unable to accept the generally acknowledged consensus that Terri was gone.

This is a little more complex than other right-to-die cases, in that Terri's not dying. Yes, the lights are on, but no one's home. The heart beats, the lungs breath, the stomach will digest food if it's put there and the intestines do their job. But TERRI's not there anymore. Whatever's provoking the laughing and the crying and the reaction to stimuli ISN'T Terri. Someone dismissively referred to the person who called her a "houseplant," but it's a pretty apt metaphor. Houseplants react to stimuli (they grow towards the sun, for example), and I don't doubt that if laughing and crying were in their repertoire, they'd do that, too, in responce to whatever stimulus triggered the reaction (cold water on the roots, maybe?). At worst, she's a meat puppet. Even if it was possible that somehow her brain completely rebooted itself, and she's at the level of an infant or severely brain-damaged adult, all the therapy in the world won't recreate the Terri that existed before her heart attack.

On the other hand, I can totally understand how painful this has to be for Michael, as insane as I would be if this was my child, I would be equally devastated if this was my wife, and even the thought of her having some rudimentary awareness of her situation would be heartbreaking to me.

All that being said, 15 years of hindsight brings the whole thing into sharp focus: Michael should have bitten the bullet, divorced Terri, and let her parents have custody of her body. The Terri HE wants to put to rest is just as gone as their daughter. She doesn't know what's going on anymore, and if letting her parents play vegetable dress-up makes them happy, then so be it.

But that will never happen. Both sides have dug in deeper than the Maginot line. I bet a dollar the tube goes back in, and we have this discussion again in 15 years.

despite the fact that so many medical professionals say she could benefit from therapy.

I'll ask this question again since you haven't seen fit to answer it: Who are these medical professionals, and if they are so sure about her benefitting for some kind of "therapy," why hasn't any court from the lowest trial court to the Florida Supreme Court found them credible?

More to the point: Where is the compelling federal interest for Congress to intervene? The federal courts have already declined to intervene because they found there is none. The same politicians who routinally attack "activist judges" for sticking their noses where they don't belong are now calling on those same judges intervene when they can score political points.

I admit, I probably overstated the "how **DARE** they" part, but I was kinda tired & the last line of Jeff in NC's statement seemed like a shrugging of the shoulders with a 'so what' approach. It can be hard to tell from plain typed text.

Jeff in NC, not to belittle your mother's condition, because I do sympathize, but it sounds as though your mother can still get around some, which is different from Terry's case, where she is no more than an empty shell being kept alive by a feeding tube.

As for the opportunistic politicians, if they're doing this because they think it's right, then why don't they show similar concern for ALL Americans? How many hundreds or even thousands of people are turned away from hospitals every day because they don't have health coverage? How many more don't even go to a doctor/clinic/hospital because they can't afford the medical bills? How many thousands of people, mostly seniors, have to choose between food or medicine?

If these politicians truly cared about people, these problems would be eliminated, or at least greatly reduced. Instead, the programs that could help, Medicare, Medicaid & the V.A. are having their budgets cut.

Starvation is barbaric. Yes, it is. How many homeless people starve? where's the Congressional action to stop this starvation?

"Nurses have claimed she has "good moments" which would likely expand with therapy" (& other related quotes). I know that nurses are trained professionals, but when it's a matter of what doctors say & what nurses say, I'm going to have to side with the doctors, because their training is far more extensive.

Also, much has been said of the husbands common law wife. Anyone know how long they've been together? If it 12 to fifteen years, then yeah, it sounds like he wasted no time replacing his wife. But if it's only like 5 or 7 years, then it sounds more like he was getting on with his life after the wife's death.

I agree this is a horrific situation to be in. But I don't think the husband should have just capitulated. Imagine how horrible it would be to know that your wife's wishes were being denied by her parents, and that she was being kept alive for their benefit, not hers, and contrary to her expressed desire. It's just as easy to say that the parents should have just accepted reality and allowed their daughter to go to God in her own way.

The really sick thing is that after Terri was released from the hospital following immediate treatment for her mysterious fall, it was assumed that her husband would follow the advice of the doctors and take her to Gainesville Rehabilitation Center. Everyone thought she had a good chance. But instead he locked her into a little closet at Sable Palms Nursing Home, ordering the nurses not to address Terri directly or open the blinds.

The really sick thing is that after Terri was released from the hospital following immediate treatment for her mysterious fall, it was assumed that her husband would follow the advice of the doctors and take her to Gainesville Rehabilitation Center. Everyone thought she had a good chance. But instead he locked her into a little closet at Sable Palms Nursing Home, ordering the nurses not to address Terri directly or open the blinds.

Mr. Race, in the words of the Straight Dope Message Board:

"Cites, please."

JSM

Everyone seems to obsess over the million that was given her and what happened to it. I want to know where the parents are getting the funding to keep challenging the courts in front of 19 judges! Schiavo has stated a number of times the parents started acting like this when they were informed that they wouldn't get one cent of her settlement. So considering Schiavo has supposedly spent over $400,000 being on the defensive, the parents have had to spend more than that being on the offensive. So who's paying their bills?

The more that I've heard about the parents int he last few weeks the more I'm of the opion that this isn't about their daughter's life, it's about publicity and money. And whoever posted that Terri's Rights Crap, the trials are a matter of public record and browsing thru them your faq is wrong about most things.

The real fact of this matter is this woman would be long dead at any other point in history except the last several decades. It's time to let nature follow it's course. God pulled the plug 15 years ago and we stuck our finger in the dike to try and block his decision.

PAD keep up the good work.

I definitely need to have a living will put together -- of course, I don't really have the kind of money that would allow me the honor of a lawyer sneezing on me but I need to find a way to deal with this soon.

I'm not going to argue the particulars of this because it's possible that both sides want what's best (the husband who doesn't his wife to live in that condition and the parents who can't give up hope because their love is so great).

However, I wonder how the parents in this forum would react in such a situation? No matter what side you take, I imagine it must be tough for a parent to suddenly lose the ability to make these sorts of decisions for their children after years of having done so -- from the first minor accident to something like this.

My comment was based upon the indisputable track record of this Congress and its hypocritical leadership.

It is very disputable that the track record of Congress and its leadership show any form of hypocriticism.

It is your usual BS to state something as fact that is not. Conservatives don't state all life is sacred, but rather all innocent life is sacred. Death row inmates, in most cases, are not innocent. Those we fight against in Iraq are not innocent. Unfortunately to put an end to the tyranny and terrorism, some innocents have died. No one feels good about that.

It is your usual BS to state your opinion as right and state others opinions as BS.

No matter what side you take, I imagine it must be tough for a parent to suddenly lose the ability to make these sorts of decisions for their children after years of having done so

All parents lose the right to speak for their children on their child's 18th birthday. Most get over it.

For the record, source http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

In seeing the allusions to the husband's involvement, somehow, in Terri's injury, I tried to so some independant research into it. Other news stories I've read said that her collapse was connected to a chemical imbalance related to an eating disorder. Short of poisoning, that's not your typical injury that smells of foul play.

According to the above source, Terri suffered a heart attack, and had to be ressusitated. Her cerebral cotrex was so badly damaged that over the years, it deteriorated and has been replaced by spinal fluid. Which, if I understand that correctly, means not only is she "brain-dead," she's in fact missing the physical aspects of the brain associated with higher brain functions. The words doctors have used in support of adminstering therapy have said that there are treatments that could "improve" her condition. Not cure her, not revive her, not heal the injury.

So, if I'm understanding that correctly, Terri now has less brain functions than my cats. And unless we suddenly develop the ability to perform brain transplants, or cause the body to regrow lost brain matter, she's not going to advance much beyond the basic level she's at. It's like a car with the engine running, it's in drive, but no one's in the car. It could idle, maybe creep forward, will turn if someone leans in and turns the wheel, etc. But Terri's not coming back.

Next step: eugenics? forced sterilization? radical gene therapy to help those queers?

Didn't we do that already, I mean that's sooo twentieth century.

It is very disputable that the track record of Congress and its leadership show any form of hypocriticism.

**cough**TomDeLay**cough**

On living wills, or just wills in general, you don't need a lawyer to get one. It's a good idea to consult with a lawyer, especially one that practices in estate/probate law, in order to make sure your will complies with the requirements of your state.

Wills are like contracts, in that they reflect private law-making. Most require some form of witnassing, and there are individual state requirements as to who can witness, who can prepare, and who can benefit from a will (such as, often, the preparer of a will cannot be a beneficiary, usually). Most states don't have strict form or language requirements for a will to be legal. There are computer programs available that contain forms and examples that run about $15, or free if you buy income tax software with it.

If all else fails, write yourself on Word or Wordperfect a Will or living trust document, and check with your state attorney general's office on the witnessing requirements.

Then, and this is the most important aspect, TELL YOUR FAMILY. Tell them about the will, what's in it, and make your wishes known if you want a living will/do not treat condition honored. And it's never too early to do this. The more family members that know, the less likely it will be that someone can challenge your wishes. You can tell friends, too, but they don't have any legal standing to support or enforce your wishes, unless you marry or adopt them or something.

Hey, does anyone else wonder why Congress couldn't be bothered to focus this kind of attention on the Jessica Lunsford case? Where was all of their concern about the "sanctity" of that life?

The only concern Congress has for Terri is how she can be used for political hash and talking points. If you ask me, life ain't so sacred if it's only sacred by political mandate.

Then I start to wonder if stem cell research could be a help to Terri...

What really happened that night she "fell down"?

She must've voted Republican.

Now, to be serious about this:

It's bad enough that far too many people are assuming that the husband has an ulterior motive, but now you're going out on a limb to say he's done something criminal?

Great, what a wonderful thing to suggest.

Now that that's out of the way, I think Bush obviously called Osama to approve of 9/11. I mean, if we're going to make pathetically asanine suggestions about shit we know nothing about...

Death row inmates, in most cases, are not innocent.

Except when we execute an innocent.

But we can just sweep that aspect under the rug, yes?

Yes, friends, the US government--the one that the GOP claims they want to keep out of people's lives--just loves mixing into people's deaths, setting the calendar on life termination and making sure that no one, absolutely no one, dies before the government is ready to send them to their deaths personally.

I absolutely agree that everyone should get a living will. That would obviously have resolved this a long time ago.

PAD's comments, however, are absurd. It SHOULD be the governments job to protect innocent life. If there is ANYTHING the government has a responsibility to do, it is this. Obviously, there will be moments when we disagree on the best way to do this. For example, I believe the death penalty, when fairly applied, is a legitimate method of protecting other innocent life from being killed. Many of you disagree because of the fear of taking the innocent life of a person wrongly convicted. I can respect that. Both sides are wanting to protect innocent life.

Which takes us to this case. There are so many lies and distortions, it is hard to get to the heart of the matter. But here is how I see it:

1.) FACT: There is no living will. There is no way to know what Terri actually wants. The fact that the majority may all agree that they would not want to continue in such a state is irrelevant. We don't know what she wants. And if there is any doubt, then you MUST err on the side of life. (And yes, that would apply to the death penalty. I am fine with the death penalty being used in a more limited fashion rather than accidentally taking the life of an innocent person.)

2.) FACT: Terri is neither brain dead nor in a coma. Medical experts agree that she has some level of awareness. It is not much. And it is unlikely she will recover. But we are not talking about someone who has no brain function. We are talking about someone who is limited. Someone who has some awareness of what is going on. There is a huge difference. (It should also be noted that, while unlikely, others HAVE recovered when medical experts have sworn it was impossible. While I realize the parents may be setting themselves up for only years of further grief, medical experts cannot say with absolute certainty that recovery is impossible.)

3.) FACT: Terri is only on a feeding tube, not on extraordinary means to prolong her life. That has two important ramifications:

a.) What if Terri COULD eat on her own, but otherwise was exactly the same. Would it be allowable to starve her to death? Because that is what is truly happening. And that is why this is such an issue to conservatives. This is what I find so ironic. PAD accuses conservatives of being hypocrites, but I think it is the other way around. Liberals like to say they are the voice for those who have no voice (such as for civil rights). Yet when there is truly someone who has no voice and whose life is about to be ended, the liberals are saying it is better. Obviously, this is a complex issue. I can understand that the thought of her staying this way for another 30 years is a horrible concept. Yet she has NOT stated her wishes in a way that can be verified. If she was not on a feeding tube, would you be ok with them simply starving her to death? I think that should be unthinkable, but clearly it is not.

b.) If I did to my cat what is being done to Terri, I would be put in prison. Yet we are doing this to a person who IS concious and has some level of awareness. Starving someone to death is an excruciating way to die. And make no mistake, she WILL feel this distress. She may not have full mental ability, but she will go through distress. This is not like taking her off life support where she quickly slips away. This is allowing her to linger for a week or more, experiencing a distress that you cannot dream of. You want to talk about "hell on earth," starving her to death is exactly that. While I in no way advocate it, there are far more humane ways to end her life than just removing a feeding tube.

Yes, the GOP is interfering. And rightly so. They are acting to protect an innocent life.

Iowa Jim

Her parents should have no say in this at all. Terri Schiavo is an adult, married woman, and her parents' authority ended a long time ago. If there were no next of kin, maybe, maybe I'd let the parents make this decision. As it stands...nuh-uh.

At least for me, the parents and/or the husbands wishes are irrelevant. Without knowing the wishes of the person, the government must act to protect the person's life. Period.

Iowa Jim

Somebody mentioned earlier about what would happen if Terri "woke up" and wondered why the hell her husband was trying to let her die.

What would happen if she "woke up" and wondered why the hell her wishes weren't carried out?

Neocons would be forced to stick their head between their legs and crawl back into whatever latrines they came out of.

Jim,

In the instance of a healthy cat, yes. However, if your cat had no mobility and you had to force-feed it each day, then you would likely put it to sleep and no one would second-guess you for it - let alone make a federal case.

Out of morbid curiosity...if an 11th-hour, near-impossible miracle occurred and Terri woke up from her coma, and a few weeks or months later regained the ability to communicate and found out how long she'd been on life-support and basically said "WHAT THE F**K DID YOU DO THAT FOR!?"

...how do you suppose the politicians would react to that one?

Actually, it has happened. More than once. And the person was usually grateful to be alive and to be again with their family.

Obviously, the circumstances vary. But I believe you have no choice but to err on the side of keeping someone alive.

Jim, I haven't seen any indication that she's conscious. And based on the "her cerebral cortex is gone" evidence I've found, I find it hard to believe that she is in any state that anyone would describe as conscious.

Second, the law has years and years of prior legal precedent for exactly this case. Living wills are a relatively new creation, since only in recent memory (40 years, say) has medical science developed to the point where we can artificially sustain life far beyond the body's natural ability to do so. Before there were living wills, legally, a spouse had total and absolute say over the treatment their injured partner received. If it's ok in the case of an 80 year old stroke victim that has no chance of recovery, it has to be ok in the case of a brain dead woman with no brain to recover from. And I'm not being flip about that. From what I've read, her cerebral cortex is gone...not just lost function, but physically gone. Correct, we don't "know" what she wanted. But there is evidence. There's her her legal guardian, her husband, saying he knows. And there's not one single, tiny, miniscule piece of evidence contracting him. So, there isn't any doubt, because there isn't any legally important opinion to the contrary of what we DO know. There's no "erring on the side of life," because there's no contradictory evidence in existence, other than the opinions of her parents, who were 7 years removed from being her legal guardians at the time of the attack that left her like this. That's their opinion. It's not based on conversations they had with her. It's based on their understanding of how they raised her.

If you did this to your cat...well, that'd be called humane. If your cat couldn't exhibit independant movement, and had to be fed through a tube in it's stomach, you'd take it to the vet and have it euthanized. Or at least I would. And from what I've seen of other pet owners, many of them would, too. Those that I've met that say they won't do so out of an inability to let their loved ones (pets included) go to a dignified and peaceful hereafter.

It seems like you're discussing a totally different patient. Terri can eat on her own? I haven't seen any credible statement posted that supports that.

As to the suffering starving her will cause, I'll say this. We don't allow those sentenced to death to suffer when we execute them. Starvation is a painful, horrible way to die, although truth be told, Terri would expire from dehydration long before she starved. You can survive for weeks on water alone, but you can only last days without liquid. If we allowed our terminally ill to be administered the same lethal, quick, and painless death we grant the worst criminals in society, would the outcry against this action be any less?

Interesting reading:

http://www.lifenews.com/bio748.html

Iowa Jim, all the what-if arguments in the world still do not stand against the fact that Michael Shiavo is her legal guardian. By law. Tested in court time and again and upheld every single time.

At least for me, the parents and/or the husbands wishes are irrelevant. Without knowing the wishes of the person, the government must act to protect the person's life. Period.

I think you really, really need to think about what you just said. It sure gave me chills to think that you're in favor of the government determining what's best for an individual over the wishes of her guardian.

There's a word for that, you know...

JSM

In the instance of a healthy cat, yes. However, if your cat had no mobility and you had to force-feed it each day, then you would likely put it to sleep and no one would second-guess you for it - let alone make a federal case.

Yes, I would put it to sleep. I would not starve it to death. Never. Ever. Under any circumstances.

For the sake of argument, let's say that I am wrong. Let's say that Terri is brain dead. She is truly an empty shell. Why DON'T they just give her a shot that will end it all? You can end her existence (I won't say "life" since I am supposing she is "not really there") far more humanely and quickly than by starving her to death.

If this was such an open and shut case, that is all it would take. The fact that she must be starved to death says something. Perhaps it is a lingering belief in the sanctity of life. If so, it might now last long if we continue in this direction.

Whatever else you believe about this case, starving her to death is so inhumane it is criminal. The fact that it is even considered is horrible.

Iowa Jim

Since this case has been brought before quite a few judges (19 is the last I heard) and they all decided in favor of the husband, I have no clue why Congress or anyone else is getting involved other than to try and shape this case into a blunt instrument to beat Roe v Wade with.

And someone should ask the president why he is flipflopping his stance on this issue since when he was governor of Texas he signed into law the "Texas Futile Care Law" which gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes.

And does the idea of a GOP "talking points memo" on this case disgust anyone as much as it does me?
http://dcinsidescoop.blogspot.com/2005/03/exclusive-gops-schiavo-talking-points.html

That is interesting, Johhny Fuller. But incomplete. That's his opinion, and I'm sure he has his reasons for it. But there's very little explanation as to WHY he thinks that way. Opinions without facts are dangerous. They lead to soundbytes, and then to blogs, and then...omigod, it's already too late.....we're stuck in an Escher circle of never-ending dispute....

"For the sake of argument, let's say that I am wrong. Let's say that Terri is brain dead. She is truly an empty shell. Why DON'T they just give her a shot that will end it all? You can end her existence (I won't say "life" since I am supposing she is "not really there") far more humanely and quickly than by starving her to death."

I think its illegal to actively do something that would bring about her death (like injecting her with a needle, smothering her, shooti8ng her in the head) while removing her feeding tubes is basically considered letting nature takes its course.

"For the sake of argument, let's say that I am wrong. Let's say that Terri is brain dead. She is truly an empty shell. Why DON'T they just give her a shot that will end it all? You can end her existence (I won't say "life" since I am supposing she is "not really there") far more humanely and quickly than by starving her to death."

Because then they'd be arrested and tossed in jail, just like Jack Kervorkian?

I think you really, really need to think about what you just said. It sure gave me chills to think that you're in favor of the government determining what's best for an individual over the wishes of her guardian.

We NEVER allow a legal guardian to kill someone. There is a limit on both sides.

There is also precedent in a similar area. What if a parent, for religious reasons, believes it is wrong to have a blood transfusion and therefore refuses one for his baby. Should the courts do nothing and just allow the baby die because of the parents religious beliefs? There is no easy answer. I do believe the parent or spouse should be allowed to make the decision in 99.9% of the cases. But when it comes to life and death decisions, then there IS a place for the government to get involved.

Bottom line: This issue is a mess. While I want to believe the best about both the husband and the parents, there are things both sides have done that makes me wonder. So I simply look at this divorced from considering their motives. I believe the husband has the final say, UNLESS he is doing something that would kill his spouse. In this case, I believe that is what he is doing. He is not "allowing" her to die, he is directly causing her death by denying her food. That would not be allowed in any other circumstance.

I do not take this issue lightly. My grandmother had to face this issue of a feeding tube with my grandfather. I do have an idea of what is at stake on both sides of the issue. In this case, removing the feeding tube is wrong. Period.

Iowa Jim

"Interesting reading:

http://www.lifenews.com/bio748.html"

Not really that interesting, Dr. William Hammesfahr is a "Right to Life" advocate who has even gone so far as to infer that Terri Schiavo's husband may have strangled her.

And does the idea of a GOP "talking points memo" on this case disgust anyone as much as it does me?

Oh, give me a break. You can be sure there is a democrat talking memo as well. That is the nature of politics. The Clinton administration was the king of talking points in its day. The issue should be whether the talking points are true, not that they exist.

Iowa Jim

the parents have stated that therapy has been withheld for about 10 years and that she does respond to stimuli.

there are doctors that have said she is brain damaged not brain dead. there is a difference.

if she is aware, then depriving her of food and water is a horrible death. also there is no living will stating her wishes in this case.

i do have a living will and have stated that no heroic measures are to be taken but not to deprive food and water.

i also do not blame either side for their beliefs and to say this is political probably is not true for most. this is a statement of right or wrong.

the parents are willing and desire to care for their daughter. let them.

I think its illegal to actively do something that would bring about her death (like injecting her with a needle, smothering her, shooti8ng her in the head) while removing her feeding tubes is basically considered letting nature takes its course.

No more than refusing to give her food if she could eat normally is letting nature take its course.

Either way, the effect is the same. Death by starvation, even for a so called "brain dead" person is not a pleasant way to die. And at least some medical experts believe Terri is not truly brain dead and that she will experience distress. And not all of these experts have a "right wing" agenda. (Clearly, some experts on both sides have an agenda, but there are enough on both sides who disagree to show that this is not an easy case to determine.)

Iowa Jim

"Conservatives don't state all life is sacred, but rather all innocent life is sacred. Death row inmates, in most cases, are not innocent. Those we fight against in Iraq are not innocent. Unfortunately to put an end to the tyranny and terrorism, some innocents have died. No one feels good about that."

Oh, okay. So you understand that you're full of bullshit, but you believe that saying you don't feel good about it...that evens things out.

DNA evidence has cleared hundreds of people on death row, and that's just the ones we know about. Our bombs have killed innocent men, women and children in Iraq at a clip that Saddam could only dream about, in a war that was NOT dedicated to putting an end to tyranny and terror, but to finding weapons that never existed. Tens upon tens upon tens of thousands died over that, but, hey...gotta break a few eggs.

And meanwhile Congress absolutely defends to its last hypocritical breath the sanctity of marriage...unless, of course, they feel like interfering. And the President quickly signs on as Hypocrite in Chief.

People don't get to die unless the government wants to kill them.

But, hey, at least "no one feels good about it." I'm sure that means a lot to all the dead people.

PAD

No more than refusing to give her food if she could eat normally is letting nature take its course.

Thats the thing though...she can't eat on her own. She can't chew or swallow, the only way she hasn't starved before now is because of artificial means and as such removing those artificial means is not considered murder.

Oh, give me a break. You can be sure there is a democrat talking memo as well. That is the nature of politics. The Clinton administration was the king of talking points in its day. The issue should be whether the talking points are true, not that they exist.

When a ethically challenged scoundrel like Tom Delay is acting like he's doing "God's work" instead of just another piece of political ammo then a talking points memo is very relevent.
And when said memo contains bullet points like:

- "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue."
- "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida - has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."

Well lets just say that hypocrisy makes me ill and leave it at that.

And when said memo contains bullet points like:

Like I said, the issue then is not the fact that talking points exist, but that you think the content is hypocritical. (The points you posted are so obvious, I could have predicted them. They may perhaps cause you to say the GOP is taking advantage of the issue and grandstanding, but they are hardly issuing points that disagree with positions they have held and voted on in the past. I suspect that the hypocrisy for you is in their position, not that their points contradict their position.)

Of course, I believe the democrat position is hypocritical, and am sure their talking points would only give more evidence for this fact. So I will leave it at that.

Iowa Jim

This is easy:
Place a gun in her hand, let it go off, convict her of murder and the ACLU and liberals will fight to keep her off death row and alive.

Bottom line: This issue is a mess. While I want to believe the best about both the husband and the parents, there are things both sides have done that makes me wonder. So I simply look at this divorced from considering their motives.

I agree that this issue is a mess and there are a number of things on both sides that are questionable. However, I still think that both sides truly believe that they are doing what they think Terri would want. I don't believe unfounded accusations about either side being after money that has long been spent serves any purpose.

I believe the husband has the final say, UNLESS he is doing something that would kill his spouse. In this case, I believe that is what he is doing. He is not "allowing" her to die, he is directly causing her death by denying her food. That would not be allowed in any other circumstance.

In this, we have a woman who has virtually no higher brain function. I keep seeing people assert about "doctors" and "nurses" who claim she can be helped by some form of "therapy", but no one is willing to step up and offer any specifics, so I can only conclude that these claims are not credible.

If this had happened in any other time in history, she would have died naturally years ago. Modern medical technology has raised this kinds of issues, though, and as a society, we have to address them one way or another.

None of us here have any way of knowing what Terri would have wanted. I can only speak for myself and say that I honestly would rather starve to death than spend 15 years in a persistant vegetative state.

A decision like this isn't easy and can't be made lightly. In my opinion, quality of life has to count into the equation. Terri has none and there is no credible evidence to suggest that she ever will. A feeding tube is an artificial means of keeping somebody in her state alive just as much as a respirator is. Removing a respirator deprives a person of oxygen just as much as removing the feeding tube would deprive her of food and water. Neither is actively causing her death, they're just allowing what would have happened naturally to a person with no hope of recovery yet, if Terri had been on a respirator, her husband could signed a release to have it removed years ago, no questions asked.

The default thinking in the law is that, absent her wishes, her husband speaks for her. The fact that 19 separate courts have sided with him tells me that all the accusations that he did this or that to her or there are so-called "medical experts" who have some secret "therapy" that will bring her back have no credibility.

If you want a fact: The person who was Terri Shiavo left this world 15 years ago. She isn't coming back and pumping food and water into an empty shell will not change that fact.

What sickens me, is the cynical way that politicians (there are both Democrats and Republicans who voted for this measure), are trying to score cheap political points on this family tragedy on an issue that the federal government has no jurisdiction. What happened to all that railing about states rights, the 10th amendment, separation of powers, and "empowering families" to make their own decisions?

All that goes away when there are votes at stake in the red states.

Place a gun in her hand, let it go off, convict her of murder and the ACLU and liberals will fight to keep her off death row and alive.

Yeah, that's a much better plan than subpoening her and charging her with contempt for failing to show up at a hearing with no compelling federal interest.

Stupid, sick jokes like that shows that you have nothing to offer to this debate.

Like I said, the issue then is not the fact that talking points exist, but that you think the content is hypocritical. (The points you posted are so obvious, I could have predicted them. They may perhaps cause you to say the GOP is taking advantage of the issue and grandstanding, but they are hardly issuing points that disagree with positions they have held and voted on in the past. I suspect that the hypocrisy for you is in their position, not that their points contradict their position.)

Of course, I believe the democrat position is hypocritical, and am sure their talking points would only give more evidence for this fact. So I will leave it at that.

Iowa Jim

Well when I see the Dem's talking point memo and its completely contradictary to the sanctimonius, fake compassionate mewlings that the Congressional right have been spouting all weekend I'll call the Dem Congress members a bunch of hypocritical douchebags too. Until then I'll continue to be sickened by this slimey political posturing.

If this had happened in any other time in history, she would have died naturally years ago. Modern medical technology has raised this kinds of issues, though, and as a society, we have to address them one way or another.

That is the double edge of technology and medical advances. There are also thousands if not hundreds of thousands who would have died of heart attacks, strokes, cancer, etc., if they had lived even 50 years ago.

Obviously, inserting a feeding tube is something that was not available years ago. But it is not an extraordinary measure such as being on a heart and lung machine.

I know this was quickly dismissed before, but it bears being reposted. Here is a noted doctor who says he has examined the case and that treatment is possible:

http://www.lifenews.com/bio748.html

To me, there is a solution to this issue. Give this (or a similar doctor) the opportunity to do this work. If we are talking about rehab, not extraordinary means, what would it hurt?

Iowa Jim

Ultimately, Jim, who's decision should it be to allow anyone to attempt therapy? Legally, it's the husband's. It seems you want that to change, which is fine. Maybe that's a better way to go about this. But it's a huge diversion from legal precedent, and takes away a large private right and places it in the hands of doctors and politicians. What would be the harm? The (possible) continued abrogation of Terri's right to refuse treatment. Forcing therapy on someone that has stated that they would want to refuse treatment. I'd say that's a fairly significant harm, and not one that I've seen a demonstrable state interest important enough to override.

Iowa Jim said: "And if there is any doubt, then you MUST err on the side of life."

I think this statement well sums up why I and so many others are disgusted by this case. That is exactly my feeling about the death penalty: it's irreversable and given that the government is fallible (itself a strongly held conservative point) it shouldn't take such permanent steps when the payoff is so tiny. Anybody who has ever been stircrazy from being stuck in bed for a week with the flu can testify that life in prison rather than death is no great gift.

But we DO execute people and many regions fight the admission of new DNA evidence tooth and nail. No no, they say, the trial is over, we're done. We can't go and reopen these things!

But apparently we can squander Grod knows how many hours and dollars on this case, one where, despite DeLay's idiotic comment about Terri not getting the amount of scrutiny and protection a death row inmate gets, it has been going on for years and examined in detail from every angle.

It's all Elian redux. Family family family... oh, wait, dad's a communist? Nooooo, then some uncle gets to choose! Death death death! Oh wait, WE'RE not the ones choosing death? Nooooo.

Not to mention the horrible irony of years of "activist judges" being thrown around as an insult and then they want to meddle in the court's business. The complete contempt for the judicial process is sickening.

Ultimately, Jim, who's decision should it be to allow anyone to attempt therapy? Legally, it's the husband's. It seems you want that to change, which is fine.

I agree it is the husbands in most cases.

But let's stop for a moment and put aside the current case. What if it did seem clear that the husband didn't want the wife to recover? What if there was a consistent pattern that the husband was denying the wife the necessary care? Forget whether it is true or not in this case and consider the obvious fact that not everyone has the best motives. Is there a point where the courts should intervene?

I think there is. We are not talking about extraordinary means, but help for someone to recover.

Back to this case. I am no lawyer, so I am sure it is not this simple. But here is my thought. I would not order the husband to allow the therapy. But I would feel perfectly right to say that since all reasonable avennues had not yet been explored, that I could not authorize the removing of the tube. The husband then has a choice. Allow her to stay in her current state, or explore the reasonable means available.

If he had done so, a lot of these issues would not even be on the table. It the lack of care according to various witnesses that makes this action suspect.

That being said, knowing what I do now about feeding tubes, I think it is a horrendous way to die.

Iowa Jim

But let's stop for a moment and put aside the current case. What if it did seem clear that the husband didn't want the wife to recover? What if there was a consistent pattern that the husband was denying the wife the necessary care? Forget whether it is true or not in this case and consider the obvious fact that not everyone has the best motives. Is there a point where the courts should intervene?
But the courts have intervened, her husband and parents ahve been fighting it out for years in court and every time the husband wins. How much more intervention should there be?

But let's stop for a moment and put aside the current case.

No, Jim. Let's not. You can throw in all the hypotheticals you want. None of them apply in the Schiavo case.

Michael Schiavo is legally her guardian. Upheld by the courts repeatedly. It is his responsibility to do what he believes is best for Terri. Motivations, emotionally charged arguments and hypothetical situations have nothing to do with it. And Congress certainly shouldn't have anything to do with it. Again, the ruling party is very big on the concept of getting goverment off people's backs and allowing states to make decisions. In theory.

Stick to the facts, sir.

JSM

Jeff in NC quoted these urls:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/11155564.htm

Both of which clearly indicate that the money received was (a) not all that great a shakes in the circumstances (b) is mostly gone (c) what may not be gone (the 300k allotted to the husband) he doesn't need her to get to, assuming tertiary expenses related to her situation haven't eaten it all up.

So, given that they are his own URLs I presume he has backed off his contention that her husband is merely looking to punch a meal ticket and move on to his new family.

On the subject of the new family, the oft expressed opinion that this means he should just walk away and leave Terri to her parents just boggles my mind. I can only assume none of these people have had a spouse die and can't imagine that this man could have found new love but still hold affection (and in this case, concern for the wishes of) for their former spouse.

If you are bothered by the matter of adultery and such definitions we'll just have to agree to disagee. For me the years he spend devotedly caring for her (see the timeline in the above links) and continued concern for her desires is enough for me to think he's earned the right to move on. I can understand if you have a problem with the legal and/or moral issues but I find it hard to believe anyone who's examined the case can think it's what's informing his decisions.

Iowa Jim, I encourage you to look at the above links and read some non-FUD sources on what the husband HAS done. I think you'll have a hard time continuing to find him suspect unless you're just trying to find some support for a belief that doesn't have anything to do with the facts of the case.

Which is also fine, but people demonizing this guy to salve their positions is not right.

Now that I have read some more comments: One aspect keeps amazing me - there is a huge outcry about the cruelty of letting this woman die by removing her feeding tube but to the people who protest it is preferrable to leave her how she is. It is preferrable to preserve her in this state for an unknown amount of years to the very small possibility that the woman might suffer to some minor degree until she dies without the tube. Putting aside that it is much more merciful to finally allow this woman to go, it is possible to sedate her so that she most definitely won`t feel a thing at the end.

This tragic case has been a topic in the British news again today. I found it sickening to watch the protesters who were nearly in tears because Terri will be "saved" and even the sister held a speech, thanking for "saving her sister`s life". I noticed that she paused for a second before she actually said "life", but she did.

What happened here reminds me a bit of the tragic cases in Britain of the human form of BSE. The brain deteroriates in stages until the person is dead. I heard of two cases of young victims who are severely brain damaged but the parents insisted on using an experimental drug on them that is inserted directly into the brain. The consequence is, the deterioration is slowed and during interviews these parents actually voiced hope and a certain happiness about the "improvement". Well, I think what they did is incredibly cruel. Maybe some very minor "improvement" is possible - even if it is true that part of her brain liquefied - but how could that be something to celebrate? I don`t see any possiblity for a miracle that she might wake up one day and be able to communicate.

I keep hoping that the court will allow Terri to die but I must admit, it is hope against hope. The pro-life Christian lobby is simply too influential in the USA.

Back to this case. I am no lawyer, so I am sure it is not this simple. But here is my thought. I would not order the husband to allow the therapy. But I would feel perfectly right to say that since all reasonable avennues had not yet been explored, that I could not authorize the removing of the tube. The husband then has a choice. Allow her to stay in her current state, or explore the reasonable means available.

But the judge couldn't do that, because that's not what the suits have been about. The suits are, for the most part, who can make the decision on Terri's behalf. So the court can either say the parents have the right, the consequence of which is that the tube stays in, or that the husband has the right, the consequence of which is that the tube stays out. (This wasn't the case while "Terri's Law" was in effect, obviously, but once that was declared unconstitutional, the game went back to square one, pretty much.)

So for a judge to do that would be as ridiculous as the court declaring that a couple should attend counceling and take more family time in a divorce hearing.

So for a judge to do that would be as ridiculous as the court declaring that a couple should attend counceling and take more family time in a divorce hearing.

Actually, that might save some marriages! Why would it be ridiculous in at least some cases?

I am not a lawyer, nor a son of a lawyer, so I don't dispute that a judge could not rule as I suggested. But that is what I would do if it was up to me.

Iowa Jim

Just to clairify, Terry's expenses (approx. $80,000/year) are now primarily being paid by the non-profit hospice where she is. In Florida, Medicaid does not cover the costs of hospice care unless the patient is expected to die within a few weeks. She does receive Medicaid benefits to cover the cost of any medication she needs, but she needs very little medication in her present state.

Her care had been paid out of the COURT ADMINISTERED settlement trust fund, which is nearly depleated. Some of Michael Schiavo's court costs have been paid from the fund, BUT his lawyers have been working pro-bono for two years.

So for a judge to do that would be as ridiculous as the court declaring that a couple should attend counceling and take more family time in a divorce hearing.

Actually, that might save some marriages! Why would it be ridiculous in at least some cases?

Because that's not what the judge is there to rule on. If he's being asked to rule whether husband or wife has the right to the beach house in Nantucket, that's not a legitimate ruling.

And, FYI, I think it's been mentioned here elsewhere, but euthanasia is illegal in Florida, which is why they can't just give her an injection, and would have to let her die by starvation/dehydration (which is not euthanasia, any more than a doctor letting a cancer patient deny treatment is euthanasia).

But let's stop for a moment and put aside the current case.

Which is exactly what Congress has done.

You've already got your damn wish, Jim: the husband is the legal guardian... until Congress decides otherwise.

Wow, is this great news for our pathetic country or what?

And, FYI, I think it's been mentioned here elsewhere, but euthanasia is illegal in Florida, which is why they can't just give her an injection, and would have to let her die by starvation/dehydration (which is not euthanasia, any more than a doctor letting a cancer patient deny treatment is euthanasia).

Would removing an oxygen mask be considered permissable?

Iowa Jim

You've already got your damn wish, Jim: the husband is the legal guardian... until Congress decides otherwise.

Once again, you avoid the root issue: A legal guardian does have responsibility to make some life and death decisions. But not all. The question is not whether the husband or the parents should decide, but whether morally it is right to starve someone to death. Someone who I am not yet convinced is even truly brain dead.

A legal guardian is supposed to protect the person, not harm the person. In this case, there is a strong argument that can be made that the guardian is causing harm--especially if the report is true that he is denying both food and water, which would hasten her demise considerably and be even harsher than just starving her to death.

Iowa Jim

A number of people have alluded to the possibility that Ms Schiavo's husband may have beebn responsible for her condition. Others have expressed shock over anyone bringing this up. If anyone wants to look at this premise here's Nat Hentoff at the village Voice-- http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0347,hentoff,48738,6.html

May take--while Hentoff raises some interesting points it seems to me that, logically, the husband would not want to see her edie if there were any chance that it would result in his being charged with murder. In fact there have been cases where an abusive spouse has tried to keep one of their vitims "alive" with heart machines just so they can beat the rap.

The question is not whether the husband or the parents should decide,
Actually thats exactly what the hubub is about...whether the husband speaks for Terri Schiavo or her parents speak for her.

but whether morally it is right to starve someone to death.
That may be your question but thats not the question that is on the table. The fight is over whether she should be allowed to die or be kept alive with the feeding tubes; the byproduct of starvation, while unsettling, is considered by medical professionals to be the most humane way for her to expire.

Someone who I am not yet convinced is even truly brain dead.
But the judges who ruled that she be allowed to die were convinced which should be enough for everyone.

At least for me, the parents and/or the husbands wishes are irrelevant. Without knowing the wishes of the person, the government must act to protect the person's life. Period.

That may be your opinion, and you're certainly welcome to hold it, but it's not the law of the land.

And you really have no problem with the government taking this most ultimate of all 'Nanny State' positions? None at all?

Wow, conservatism is dead....

I just read the following and had to share it:

Bob Schindler visited his daughter late Sunday and said he noticed the effects of dehydration on her. He said she appeared to be getting tired, but eventually responded to his teasing by making a face at him.

"It tells us she's still with us," he said.

Brian Schiavo, Michael's brother, said he spent Sunday afternoon with his brother and Terri at the hospice, but Terri did not move or make any noises. "Anybody that thinks that she talks and responds, they need to have a mental health examination," he said.

*********************

The Schindler family sees what it wants to see in order to maintain hope. What made their daughter their daughter is no longer in existance. Let her go. Allow her to find peace. It's time.

It is no acident that most of the spokespeople getting airtime and many of the lawyers on the parents' side are anti-abortion advocates.

This sort of congressional law is a wonderful precident and exactly the sort of thing needed in order to stop a woman from having an abortion.

I think that is the 'ulterior motive' and the reason that congress has acted so quickly to craft a 'one time single shot' law. Not out of any real care for Terri Schiavo but as a means to advance a political agenda.

If they cared so much where is the moral outrage when it comes to small babies like Sun Hudson? the six month old that was taken off of a ventilator DESPITE the parent's wishes to the contrary (see: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof%5Fblog/2005/03/lifesupport%5Fsto.html as reference)

My 2 cents for its worth.
The woman has been in a vegetative state for 15 years.The essential essence of what made her ,"her" is not there anymore.Its time to let her go.
Its easy to judge the husband but at what point is he allowed to move on with his life?
The parents have my sympathy but do you want to remember you daughter like this and hope for a "miracle" that is not going to happen???

For those keeping score at home,I am also pro abortion,pro assisted suicide,and pro death penalty with special qualifiers.

Also isnt it tragic irony that Terri schiavo's current state was brought on by an eating disorder and now there is battle to keep her being fed?????

I really hope there is a special part of HELL reserved for the politicians and media members that have turned turned this tragic situation into a F***ing three ring circus!!!!

I know this was quickly dismissed before, but it bears being reposted. Here is a noted doctor who says he has examined the case and that treatment is possible:

">http://www.lifenews.com/bio748.html

He's also been under investigation for deceptive practices by the Florida Department of Health:

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/22/TampaBay/Schiavo_case_doctor_t.shtml

Kind of puts a red flag up on his credibility. The man is clearly biased in this case and has made serious unfounded allegations against Michael Shiavo.

But let's stop for a moment and put aside the current case. What if it did seem clear that the husband didn't want the wife to recover? What if there was a consistent pattern that the husband was denying the wife the necessary care? Forget whether it is true or not in this case and consider the obvious fact that not everyone has the best motives. Is there a point where the courts should intervene?

But, the courts have had their say and have repeatedly sided with the husband. What should we do when the federal courts again rule in his favor? Pass another law saying that all court rulings pertaining to her case are null and void?

That being said, knowing what I do now about feeding tubes, I think it is a horrendous way to die.

It would be if she had any awareness at all. Every doctor who examined her except one says she has none.

All I can say is, right now I'm making sure that everyone I care about knows that should I wind up sans higher functions, with only the autonomic systems functioning, and neurological consensus is that this won't change - I won't "get better" - then harvest the parts that can be used, and toss the rest, because I obviously don't need it any more.

It seems that some here are asking about the "mysterious fall" Terri Schiavo had that caused this. Well, short answer she had a heart attack caused by dramatically reduced potassium level in her body. She was bulimic, her doctors did not diagnose this and Michael Schiavo filed a lawsuit against them and won. One would think that if abuse was the cause, it would have come up in the malpractice suit or the examination of her medical records when the state of Florida passed "Terri's Law" in 2003. Furthermore, there is no indication of abuse to her in the time after her collaspe.

A legal guardian is supposed to protect the person, not harm the person.

Right...

So if she were on a ventilator, would we be having the same discussion?

No, we wouldn't.

Because a legal guardian is supposed to do what is in the best interest of the person, up to and including saying to pull the plug.

Otherwise, you better be prepared to put everybody that comes into ICU on a ventilator whether they want it or not.

Tough case, Both sides have a point. I made out a living will myself I WANT TO LIVE death can wait for me. Plug me up and make sure there are backups as well. Trust me God can wait I'm in no hurry to meet him as for being a burden on my family. Well there were a burden on me for years I figure payback time. Yes I might be in minority here and i'm not scared of dying. Just death is forever 10-20years living like a carrot is drop in the bucket as pretaing to death.

Geez, I go away for a day or two and everything blows up.

I'm going to try and make this a few short posts rather than one gigantic one -- and I'm not going to respond much to individual points, because this would probably become a 5000-word post easily.

First, the non-political stuff.

Thanks to Peter for raising the topic -- not so much the political parts of it (though we all knew that was coming), but primarily the urge for us all to get something decided and in writing. Neither Lisa nor I have anything in writing yet, but we've certainly talked about it in a lot of detail over the years, and once we move east this summer we're certainly going to get something codified. (Anybody know what the relevant laws are in NJ?)

Personally, there is absolutely no way I'd want to live under the conditions facing Terri Schiavo. Everything I value about myself (and probably everything other people would value about me, for that matter) is related to my brain -- as I occasionally tell students, I realized a long time ago that I wasn't likely to get very far depending on my incredible athletic ability or my stunning good looks. If the mind goes, then I'm really not much more than a shell -- and not only do I want to burden others with the task of caring for that empty shell, but I wouldn't want to be such.

Obviously, not everyone's going to feel the same way, and that's everyone's own personal business -- but I'll completely agree that whatever your view, you should make it clear in writing for the sake of yourself and for those closest to you.

TWL

Okay, now for the specifics of the case.

Of course this is a tragic situation, and of course it's horrific that it's come to this. And I'm perfectly willing to believe that both Terri's husband and her parents feel that they're doing what is right.

The bottom line, though, is this: the fact that the federal government's full bureaucratic force is being put into play for legislation concerning ONE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL is something that should frighten every single person out of every bodily fluid they possess. It is about as huge an intrusion as government can make into the life of an individual or the lives of a married couple -- and it's amazing to me how many so-called small-government conservatives appear to be just fine with this action. If Congress is allowed to make legislation that is affecting one specific person and only that person, that opens a far bigger can of worms than removing a particular feeding tube. It means the way is open for a constitutional amendment that, rather than lifting the "natural-born citizen" ban, could be put in place to let Schwarzenegger and only Schwarzenegger get around the problem. It opens the way for the Bill Mulligan's Neighbor Needs to Turn That Crap Down law. (Not to pick on you, Bill -- for all I know you're fond of That Crap.)

I've said before in the occasional abortion discussion that the same government we give the power over a woman's body to outlaw abortion will then have the power to mandate abortion, or to do anything else with said body that it wants to. We are now seeing that here, in my opinion. What's to stop Congress from passing a law saying that a living will is null and avoid, and that you'll be put on life support regardless of your wishes? For that matter, what's to stop Congress from going the other way, and "saving" Medicare by saying that after you've spent $X on extreme care you're done, regardless of the particular situation?

As numerous others have pointed out, Michael Schiavo has the most legitimate claim to make the decision – he is her husband, and last I heard there were a whole lot of people here who considered that marital bond ... now, what was the word? Oh, yeah -- "sacred."

Anyone who claims that they want to "protect" marriage from those evil gays and simultaneously wants Congress to prevent a woman's husband from carrying out her final wishes is cordially invited to keep their goddamn mouths shut until they take, and pass, a basic logic course.

For that matter, I seem to recall several people in the abortion debate up in arms about the fact that the husband didn't get to have any say in a woman's choice to end her pregnancy. Apparently, though, some of those people are just fine with preventing a husband from enabling a woman's choice in this case. Again, those individuals are cordially invited to take (and pass) a logic course before making any further statements.

To those who are saying, with no evidence, that Michael Schiavo intentionally put his wife into a coma and has then been milking the situation for over a decade just for the sake of what's now nonexistent cash -- you are sick, twisted, hateful people, and I am ashamed to share a planet with you.

To the person who said that they'd be imprisoned if they did this to a cat -- you're simply wrong. If a cat is already hospitalized to the point of needing a permanent feeding tube, there's not a prosecutor in the land who'd bring charges against anyone who had the tube removed. Frankly, I'd be more tempted to bring charges were you NOT to in that case -- having lived with cats all my life, I can say with some assurance that there's no cat I've ever met that would like those sorts of conditions.

To those who say "doctors have examined the case and say she can recover" -- save it. Find me quotes from doctors who have examined the patient and we'll talk. Every single medical ethicist I've seen quoted on this case has said it's absolutely unconscionable for anyone to pretend to have a definitive answer on the case without having examined Ms. Schiavo personally. That includes the doctor Jim references, and that certainly includes Senate Majority Leader William Cat-Killer Frist, whose specialty isn't even remotely close to neurology.

(Let's not even get into the brain-dead action of subpoenaing a brain-dead woman. Were I in a position to do so, I'd follow this up by subpoenaing all the people Bush's war puts at risk. Every single soldier, one by one. Maybe their families, too. A few thousand Iraqi citizens, while I'm at it.)

I'm tempted to ask if anyone's done an MRI here, but so far as I can tell little issues like factual evidence mean zero to those bent on interfering. Most of them don't believe scientific evidence about the age of the Earth, so why would they be any more likely to do so here?

Look, I know this is an emotional case, and different people can have lots of different views on what should or shouldn't be done in Terri's situation. For those who recognize the difficulty and simply fall elsewhere on the spectrum than I do – let's hope we can reach some common ground. For those who insist that there is only one answer and they've got it, however – you, and you, and you over there are precisely the reason I keep predicting this country is headed for civil war.

Oh -- and one more thing before I close out this post. This case has gone through several courts, but at the moment has been decided by one particular Florida judge. Said judge has received multiple death threats, and has been forced to travel everywhere under armed guards. I'm not even sure he and his family feel safe in their home at this point. I would very much like to see those who claim to value Terri for the sake of "a culture of life" distance themselves from the sick bastards who think killing a judge is okay. I frankly don't think some of you have it in you.

TWL

And one last post...

Several people have said that they "see no hypocrisy" in the actions of this Congress.

These people are more blind than Ray Charles.

Virtually every action taken by the current leadership has had as a backdrop "we are in charge, we will do whatever we like, and if the rules prevent us from doing so we will simply change the rules to say otherwise."

They did it with Florida election law. They did it with redistricting in Texas. They're threatening to do it with Senate procedures and the so-called "nuclear option." They did with the DeLay rule in the house until a rare dose of public shame managed to stop them. They've done it with House proceedings where voting was illegitimately kept open for extra hours until they had the votes to pass what they wanted. They just did it with ANWR. They did it with Iraq on a host of levels.

I'm sure others can chime in with other examples here, but I'm frankly too red-hot to come up with any more at the moment. But from where I sit, these guys want the power to make any decision they want about anything -- including, at this point, the literal ability to choose who lives and who dies.

If they want to play god, they can damn well try out for a role in their local community theater. Stay the hell out of my government.

TWL

Tim,
Before anyone tries to futilely point out what is wrong with your position, may I applaud your words and compliment you on the phrasing. I have been thinking these same thoughts for several days, but never so eloquently. This administration does what it pleases and convinces the citizens of this country they are working on our behalf, while actively working against the majority. While Governer of TX Bush signed a bill allowing doctors to terminate life support for patients when the money runs out and who have little hope of recovery with or without the consent of the patients family Now, try and tell me he really cares if this woman lives or dies. Or maybe they are jumping on this to distract us again. From DeLays ethics problems, or something worse this time?

Completely OT, but political:
And for those of you so vehemently stated that there would NEVER be a draft, kindly look at this article from Stars and Stripes the military newspaper for overseas bases.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=26965&archive=true

Specifically:
"While Cody stopped short of warning that the military could have to return to a draft, some experts say that may not be too far over the horizon."

As numerous others have pointed out, Michael Schiavo has the most legitimate claim to make the decision – he is her husband, and last I heard there were a whole lot of people here who considered that marital bond ... now, what was the word? Oh, yeah -- "sacred."

Anyone who claims that they want to "protect" marriage from those evil gays and simultaneously wants Congress to prevent a woman's husband from carrying out her final wishes is cordially invited to keep their goddamn mouths shut until they take, and pass, a basic logic course.

For that matter, I seem to recall several people in the abortion debate up in arms about the fact that the husband didn't get to have any say in a woman's choice to end her pregnancy. Apparently, though, some of those people are just fine with preventing a husband from enabling a woman's choice in this case. Again, those individuals are cordially invited to take (and pass) a logic course before making any further statements.

I guess you wouldn't pass then, the husband in this case gave up the right to claim that he is in a 'sacred' marriage when he had an extra-marital affair.

Only the last line is my remark, all of the rest is TWL quote.

I've only started following this recently, and I realize what I'm saying goes against the grain, but as non-Christian and journalist, I look at both sides.Of course the husband could be a sleazeball, but who's not to say the parents aren't delusional about what they've seen. Other questions: Why must the government get involved, is it to distract from Iraq, the economy and DeLay's own 'moral' issues? The Republican party I knew wanted less involvement in people's lifes, now they want to judge morality much the way the Taliban did. And if Terri's last name had been Rabinowitz or Hassan, would there be this outcry? And to me, there's there's been sloppy reporting on both sides, if 'liberal' media is wrong, so is 'conservative' media. It's not an easy issue which is why I have no opinion on who should have say: her parents or husband. It's not a black-and-white issue

Only the last line is my remark, ll of the rest is TWL quote.

Well, yes...we could tell. Missed the point, didn't you....

At least so far the Federal judge has the right idea this morning...

Following up Bladestar's comment, here's the article (barely an hour old at this typing):

TAMPA, Fla. - A federal judge on Tuesday refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, denying an emergency request from the brain-damaged woman's parents.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge James Whittemore comes after feverish action by President Bush and Congress on legislation allowing her contentious case to be reviewed by federal courts. The judge said the 41-year-old woman's parents had not established a "substantial likelihood of success" at trial on the merits of their arguments.

Rex Sparklin, an attorney with the law firm representing Terri Schiavo's parents, said lawyers were immediately appealing to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to "save Terri's life."

The tube was disconnected Friday on the orders of a state judge, prompting an extraordinary weekend effort by congressional Republicans to push through unprecedented emergency legislation early Monday aimed at keeping her alive.

Schiavo did not have a living will. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, has fought in courts for years to have the tube removed because he said she would not want to be kept alive artificially and she has no hope for recovery. Her parents contend she responds to them and her condition could improve.

CNN is reporting this morning that the judge has ruled like every other judge before him:

The tube does not need to be reinserted.

The family is expected to appeal. I should expect this bullshit case to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and do nothing more than continue to bog down our already overwhelmed court system.

Thank you, Congress, you useless sacks of sh*t.

And for those of you so vehemently stated that there would NEVER be a draft, kindly look at this article from Stars and Stripes the military newspaper for overseas bases.

Oh, obviously that article is a bunch of crap, Karen.

The Repubs would *never* consider something like this, right?

I posted to another site an opinion piece from Ted Rall about the possibility of a return of the national sales tax.
A Bushie immediately slammed me for posting it as well as called Rall a lying piece of crap.

Go fig.

I don't see any other way the judge could have rules, and it does not bode well for the parents. His ruling basically stated "even if I take everything the parents allege as true, they would still not be likely to prevail." Denying a motion for a TRO in this way isn't always fatal to the moving party's case, but it really is a big hint from judge that they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

And it doesn't leave a lot of room at the appellate level, either. If the Atlanta Appeals court does its job the way it's supposed to, it cannot review the facts, only the lower judge's application of law and procedure. And the lower judge pretty much applied a textbook definition of a TRO. Which isn't to say that's the end of the matter. The Appeals court should be able to pound out a standard upholding decision in about 20 minutes on this issue, which of course opens the door to the Supreme Court, which is where the parents want to be anyway.

Which could go 2 ways, I think. Remember, the Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life. Once they get the job, they are beholden to no one. If they want to just put the issue to rest, they'll deny the petition to hear the case. If they want to give congress a little smack for trying to usurp state power, they'll accept the petition and issue a scathing opinion on the limited nature of Federal jurisdiction, and that, absent a Constitutional amendment approved by the states granting the Federal government more power, Congress cannot by legislative act expand its powers beyond those granted to it by the People and the States.

And if they want to be real crazy, they can accept the petition and declare some inherant right in the state to act as guardian in a way that supercedes and overturns decades of legal precedent.

The Repubs would *never* consider something like this, right?

Oh, and before anybody cries foul, since that article does mention the last attempt at bringing up the draft (by a Democrat, who's political career should be over)...

The military appears to be overwhelmingly Republican.

Congress is majority Republican, and if they get their way, filibusters would be a thing of the past (and I can't wait for that to bite them in the ass and rip a chunk out down the road).

So, a simple Republican majority vote, which they already have, could see the return of the draft.

We won't get started on the fact that it won't be their sons & daughters who get to fill the bodybags...

Thanks to Karen for her note last night.

And bravo to Judge Whittemore.

TWL

Here's my psychic prediction:

Sometime in the next five years, Michael Shiavo will be standing in line at a Starbucks where he'll be shot in the back by a fanatical wingnut fundy.

All in the name of the "culture of life," of course.

Here's my psychic prediction:

And I wish I could say I felt it was too cynical.

TWL

"It would be if she had any awareness at all. Every doctor who examined her except one says she has none."

By startling coincidence, that one doctor was the same one who refused to recommend sugarless gum for his patients who chewed gum, even though four of his colleagues did recommend it.

PAD

"I've only started following this recently, and I realize what I'm saying goes against the grain, but as non-Christian and journalist, I look at both sides...It's not an easy issue which is why I have no opinion on who should have say: her parents or husband. It's not a black-and-white issue."

Okay, but I'm also non-Christian, and a journalist (if one counts my BA in Journalism and my opinion column that's been running for fifteen years), and just because I've come down on one side doesn't mean I haven't considered both.

Forming an opinion doesn't automatically mean one has dismissed one side of the equation as worthless. If God forbid I ever found myself in that situation as a parent, I certainly allow for the possibility that I might well be doing the exact same thing the parents are doing here. I hope I never have to find out.

Taking a side, forming an opinion, doesn't mean that I automatically see it as a black and white issue. It just means I've sided with a particular shade of gray.

PAD

Foxnews is carrying a piece from "experts" (I always question when FN quotes experts) about death from starvation. They say there's actually little pain, almost as though the a body near death shuts down hunger and thirst motivations. In addition to the PVS preventing pain impulses, to a large degree. I think.

Anyway, just an interesting note. At least it seems there's very little pain and suffering that comes with this form of death. If we can't euthanize terminal patients, this may not be such a bad option.

Somebody posted this article to another forum I read. I haven't read it all, but maybe it'll give some insight to everybody:

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Tim Lynch said:
Several people have said that they "see no hypocrisy" in the actions of this Congress.

These people are more blind than Ray Charles.

And he's DEAD so that's pretty damned blind!

It's amazing how different people's perspectives on some things can be. So many comments about Terri's husband violating the sancity of marriage etc by entering into an adulturous relationship with another woman and how that devalues his standing and devotion.

Personally I am astonished by his efforts. He's put another part of his life on hold in order to keep the standing necessary to do what he obviously believes Terri would want. It seems likely to me he'd want to marry the woman he loves enough to have been with for almost 10 years now, as well as have two children. Instead he is persisting in this marriage till death do they part, despite so many people villifying him by making flimsy claims of abuse and profiteering.

I suppose there are people who think he should have stayed single and chaste through this all but they have higher standards for behavior that I do, I guess. I wonder how many of them would spend 15 years fighting for their wife's beliefs AND live the life of a monk while doing it.

And goddammit, preview STILL doesn't work.

"Will you still need me... Will you still feed me, when I'm thirty-four."

Once Terri's dead, can we pull the plug on all coma victims? Because by the time the Supremes see this one, Terri will have died of dehydration.

Ok, everyone in the "defend Bush to the last breath" camp line up for this one.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2270&e=4&u=/krwashbureau/20050322/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_braindamagedwoman_bush_wa_1

Erring on the side of life my left buttock

Howard said: "Once Terri's dead, can we pull the plug on all coma victims? "

Becasue every single medical case is identical to every other case 100% of the time that "logic" makes great sense.

Besides, Terri's not in a coma. She's in a persistant vegitative state. Really, really big difference. Coma victims suffer from Coma an "abnormality of brain function characterized by an unconscious sleep-like state with the eyes closed." PVS "may be defined loosely as a condition in which there is no awareness of the self or the surroundings though the patient appears at times to be awake."

(both taken from http://www.bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/PVS.html)

Coma patients have a brain, it's just nor working correctly. PVS patients only have a brain stem...that part of the brain that operates the vegetative or autonomous functions. They may have the remains of a badly damages cerebral coretex, or not, as in Terri's case.

That web site does mention a 1990 Supreme Court case that ruled that, absent clear and convincing evidence of the patient's desire to not be sustained by means such as a feeding tube, not even family members could make the decision to remove the tube. With that as the precedent, I'd say that 10 years in Florida state court ruling for the husband equates to clear and convincing evidence.

What should be even more telling about Congress interfering is that not only did the Florida courts strike down the Florida legislature's attempts to insinuate themselves into the case, the US Supreme Court then declined to look at the case.

That should've been the end of it right there.

I have to wonder what Bush's fascination is with forcing Schiavo to live, when he signed into a law a bill that just "murdered" a child over the wishes of the mother in Texas this past week.

Craig, I think you just hit the head of the nail as to why so many people were calling all of this a moment of political grandstanding. It's not like this is the first time this kind of event has occurred. It's been close to 15 years (strangely enough, close to the time Terri suffered her injury) since this issue first hit the court system. Either most of our elected officials are too dumb/lazy to have a clerk do a little legal research, or they saw an opportunity to get some face time on a "vote-winning" issue and grabbed it. Because the "I'm just trying to do what's right" line? It's BS, because our legal system already has a precedent for what's "right" in situations like this.

And people wonder why our court system is overtaxed? It's not so much that so many people are suing, it's that the few people that are suing never get out of the system. Losers never accept the fact that they lost, because they keep coming of with new reasons to argue that they shouldn't have. Terri's parents have had so many bites of the apple that they would have had to plant the seeds in order to grow new apples to keep biting.

Because the "I'm just trying to do what's right" line? It's BS, because our legal system already has a precedent for what's "right" in situations like this.

I just read one article a few minutes ago through Yahoo that had a comment from a former political speechwriter saying that the Republicans had to take this up or piss off the anti-abortion... er, pro-life crowd.

The article went on to say that some are using this for another rallying point against abortion... and the right to die.

The final quote was from a guy from some pro-life group saying that, to paraphrase, he wants to see he "right to die" taken away altogether.

Jeff In NC: Oh yeah, that evil Bush. He's the entire problem here, not the "husband" that's been living with another woman, had 2 children with her, and stands to inherit close to a million dollars from a malpractice settlement when Terri dies. Yes, close to a million dollars. None of this money has been used to care for Terri, that's being handled by medicare or medicade. Terri didn't make a choice! Her angel of a husband says she did, but there's nothing in writing. But, again he has no ulterior motive in wishing Terri dead, does he.
Luigi Novi: Which is precisely why she should’ve gotten in writing, and why we all should, which is what Peter said. The question isn’t whether Bush is “evil,” it’s whether it is the business of politicians like him to attach themselves to a private citizen’s case and make decisions like this for them.
Jeff In NC: And his wife isn't dead. So, he's technically an adulturer.
Luigi Novi: So what? If he is, he has every right to be in this situation.
Jef in NC: If Terri is brain dead like some believe, then her soul/essence/whatever isn't there anymore. So, what's the harm in keeping her fed. She's not on life support keeping the organs alive. She's on a feeding tube. If she just has brain damage, and there is some chance of recovery, however slim, isn't it worth trying?
Luigi Novi: To who? Her next of kin, whose decision the law says it is, or you? Obviously he has decided that it’s not, and that’s the whole point. It’s his call to make, not yours.

Jerome Maida: While it's easy to call the politicians entering this fight leeches, or use it as yet another excuse to bash Bush or the GOP, the fact is this is a very tough issue.
Luigi Novi: Only if you decide to shove your nose into it. It’s not difficult if you say, “Well, it’s none of my business,” something the politicians can’t seem to do.
Bob Jones: Myths versus Facts Terri's husband has started another family and probably has gone on with his life. Terri's family want to provide her therapy and a safe home.
Luigi Novi: That Michael Schiavo started another family is a fact. That this disproves the notion that he should decide is not. That’s an argument, but not a “fact,” and I thought you were talking about Myths vs. FACTS.
Bob Jones: Isn't removing her tube a natural and dignified way to die? No. Dehydration and starvation cause horrific effects and are anything but peaceful.
Luigi Novi: Nope. Sorry. That’s an opinion, not a fact. Thank you for playing. Please drive through.
Ken: As opposed to the hypocrites who considered all life meaningless unless they are serial killers or known terrorists.
Luigi Novi: Examples?

Ken: It is your usual BS to state something as fact that is not. Conservatives don't state all life is sacred, but rather all innocent life is sacred. Death row inmates, in most cases, are not innocent.
Luigi Novi: Neither, in the opinion of some anti-death penalty advocates, are those who are for it. Hence, should those against the death penalty do whatever they want to advocates of it like me, using the same argument?
Ken: Those we fight against in Iraq are not innocent. Unfortunately to put an end to the tyranny and terrorism, some innocents have died. No one feels good about that.
Luigi Novi: The point is not whether one “feels good” about it. The point is the inconsistent way in which the “all life is sacred” crowd makes that argument. The fact that you advocate war even if some of those “innocents” are killed shows that your “we only think all INNOCENT life is sacred” is internally inconsistent. Either it’s “sacred” to you or it’s not.
or adopt them or something.
Iowa Jim: I absolutely agree that everyone should get a living will. That would obviously have resolved this a long time ago. PAD's comments, however, are absurd. It SHOULD be the governments job to protect innocent life.
Luigi Novi: So people aren’t “innocent” if they have living wills?
Iowa Jim: For example, I believe the death penalty, when fairly applied, is a legitimate method of protecting other innocent life from being killed.
Luigi Novi: Your belief is false. Statistics show that the death penalty is NOT a deterrant. States that have the death penalty have the highest murder rates.
Iowa Jim: Yes, the GOP is interfering. And rightly so. They are acting to protect an innocent life.
Luigi Novi: Again, you said people should get living wills. Would she not be innocent if she had one?

Luigi, I'm in complete agreement with you in regards to those spewing slurs towards a man who they have never met, who they have no conceivable way of knowing his "motivations", and who they couldn't even coming close to relating to unless they walking a long-term care facility isle in his shoes. I continue to be as amazed by those who have an opinion of this man as I do of the government's intervention in a judicial case.

Fred

Please excuse the obvious typos in my previous post. A day spent in the office for far too long has me more incoherent than usual. ;)

Iowa Jim: For example, I believe the death penalty, when fairly applied, is a legitimate method of protecting other innocent life from being killed.
Luigi Novi: Your belief is false. Statistics show that the death penalty is NOT a deterrant. States that have the death penalty have the highest murder rates.

Luigi, you are usually logical to a fault, but I don't think this argument holds much water. The fact that states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates (I'll take your word on this) does not mean that the death penalty is not a deterrant. You can't show cause and effect--maybe it's because of the high crime rate that the citizens of the state instituted the penalty. And how can you state with any certainty that the crime rate would not be higher had the death penalty not be legalized there?

Logically, I can't think of any really convincing reason why having the death penalty would INCREASE the murder rate and I should think there would be at least a FEW people who might think twice about murder given the liklihood that they will be executed. So I imagine it may have at least some small positive effect. (I feel the same way about drug laws--they do deter some. Just not enough to justify the tremendous cost).

Overall, though, I don't think that this is worth the trouble it causes. Plus, I don't like the State having such power. If one of my loved ones was ever, god forbid, murdered by some scumbag, the death penalty would bring little solace. Killing the perp myself, or, alternately, offering a lifetime supply of cigarettes to the inmate who mails me specific body parts, now that might put a song in my heart.

I took a Sociology course (many years ago) and learned that studies show the death penalty is not a deterrent, it is simply society's revenge against the murderer. Why? Most inmates are on death row for many years awaiting appeal. No swift hand of justice there. Also, most murders are spur-of-the moment due to high passion, anger or fear. (This discussion is based on those considered sane.) No one reconsiders their actions based on the possibility that they may be put to death while in a highly emotional, less than logical state of mind.

While I don't understand why the murder is higher in states with the death penalty, I do know that since this administration saw fit to cut many of the law enforcement programs put into effect in the Clinton administration, and cut many of the social safety nets keeping people from desperation, that crime statistics have risen sharply. For info on the statistics:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/MaryPennisi.shtml

Although national security has been tightening and focused on protecting the nation after the World Trade Center bombing, based on the statistics of the past 44 years, it can be predicted that the number of crimes committed in the US will continue to rise as long as the nation's economy continues to worsen and unemployment increases.

While I don't understand why the murder is higher in states with the death penalty

I certainly don't have any inside info here, but one reason I've seen suggested is that convicted criminals are a lot more likely to kill their victims and leave no witnesses if a conviction would lead to death. For a prison term, they'll take the chance, but if it's kill-or-be-killed, they kill.

I'm not saying this is absolutely the reason by any means, but it's food for thought.

TWL

Tim, that's one argument and I wouldn't be surprised if it had some effect, as I can see criminals deciding to kill if they think they have nothing (further) to lose by doing so.

However, I agree with Karen that the death penalty is society punishing/getting revenge on criminals for their crimes. If you accept that viewpoint, then it can be eaily argued that the death penalty is a raction to a higher murder-rate instead of a cause of it. BYW, this should not be taken as an indicator that I'm for the death penalty. I'm not an advocate of revenge which, as I stated, I believe the death penalty to be.

Tim and David,
Both logical points. I'm willing to bet that both contribute to the high murder rate. Along with the economy and cuts to social programs. If we take away hope, whether it's decent medical care or a living wage or a good education, then where are we as a society? The prisons are overflowing, but instead of prevention all we seem to want to do is lock people up. We need a new plan. I'm not sure any of the entrenched politicans are up to the task; liberal, conservative, Democrat, or Republican. They are too interested in where the next campaign donation is coming from. All I know is that the Clinton policies were making a dent. Of course this administration would never admit that, or put those policies back in place.

Small Victory for all you Bush haters tonight. Terri will die soon enough. Then you can go party.

Luigi Novi has stated "the question isn't whether Bush is "evil", it's whether it is the business of politicians like him to attach themselves to a private citizen's case and make decisions like this for them."
This train of thought seems to be one of the core arguments/issues for many here, who feel the GOP, which normally abhors government intervention, has taken the lead in this case and is therefore being hypocritical.
But truth is, those in the GOP are acting on their deepest pro-life convictions - that life is to be treasured in whatever form it takes.
I realize many disagree with those positions, but none can deny that from abortion to stem cell research, that is the GOP position. And it has also been part of this doctrine that war and the death penalty are viewed differently, although there are obviously some in the party who object to both based on their pro-life views.
But THIS CASE is consistent with GOP views. The starkest inconsistencies are on the other side, on the part of liberals who ordinarily support the federalization of everything, but can't bear the thought of a federal judge reviewing the schiavo case to determine whether or not she should be starved to death.
If we concede that the facts of the schiavo case are in dispute (and they really are) - whether she is in a persistent vegetative state, whether she can improve, whether she had previously expressed a desire to die in these circumstances. Then, let's taly the inconsistencies.
FEDERAL HABEAS REVIEW - Death-row inmates, as a matter of course, appeal their cases in the federal courts, even after they have been in the state courts (like the Schiavo case) for years.
Liberals have traditionally defended this federal habeas review, even when it drags on endlessly. In the '90s, when Republicans passed a law (signed by President Clinton) limiting death-row inmates to one federal appeal, Rep. John Conyers attacked the bill as "inconsistent with our democratic system of laws." Conyers was one of 53 House Democrats - half of all Democrats voting - to oppose giving Schiavo essentialy the same right (to have her case reviewed by a federal judge) that he supports for convicted killers.
[An aside, a majority of the Congressional Black Caucus voted FOR giving Schiavo this right. So, despite what many believe, many obviouslu were voting based on their convictions.)
CIVIL RIGHTS - Under the Schiavo bill, a federal judge will review whether any of her federal civil rights have been violated. Since when do Democrats oppose federal scrutiny of potential civil-rights violations? They have consistently used the 14th Amendment to make what had previously been local matters - from voting rights to housing - the jurisdiction of the federal government on civil rights grounds. They supported federal intervention in 2000 to investigate traffic stops on the New jersey turnpike that allegedly violated motorists' rights. Traffic stops! But federal judicial review of whether Schiavo should live or die is out of bounds?
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN - In the early 1990s, Democrats championed legislation to create federal penalties for gender-related violence. In other words, every time some abusive husband slaps his wife, it is a federal matter. But when a husband - with motivations questioned by his wife's family - wants to starve his wife, suddenly some Democrats want to become George Wallace-like opponents of federal power.
THE DEATH PENALTY - Whenever life-related issue arise, liberals ask: How can conservatives favor preserving life when they support executing people? But I have a question for the other side: How can you oppose death sentences for killers, but support one, in effect, for Schiavo, whose only crime is not being capable of feeding herself?

Fred,
"Luigi, I am complete agreement with you in regards to those spewing slurs towards a man who they have never met, who (i.e. when) they have no conceivable way of knowing his 'motivatons'"

There really is no need to put quotes around motivations, you know. Whether heartfelt or cold-blooded, he obviously is motvated to do what he is doing, for whatever reason.
And please, "spewing slurs toward a man they have never met"? This is done all the time. I don't know anyne on this board who has met Bush (I have, briefly). But that hasn't stopped them from questioning his motivations for everything from tax cuts to the Iraq War to trying to reform Social Security.
Here is an example, from Karen, on this very thread,
"Now try and tell me that he really cares if this woman lives or dies. Or maybe they are just jumping on this to distract us again. From Delay's ethics problems, or something worse this time."
Or maybe it's a...vaaaaast riiiighht-wing conspiiiiiracy.
So if you're amazed at people who would have an opinion of a man they've never met, you're pretty easily amazed.
As for "the government's ntervention in a judicial case", please see my response to Luigi above.

"Although national security has been tightening and focused on protecting the nation after the World Trade Center bombing, based on the statistics of the past 44 years, it can be predicted that the number of crimes committed in the US will continue to rise as long as the nation's economy continues to worsen and unemployment increases."

Then I guess we can expect the number to go down since the jobs situation is improving...one reason you don't hear about it so much anymore.

Small Victory for all you Bush haters tonight. Terri will die soon enough. Then you can go party.

Cheap shot--what possible evidence do you have that anyone here will derive any pleasure from the poor woman's death? There's no happy ending for anyone here.

I certainly don't have any inside info here, but one reason I've seen suggested is that convicted criminals are a lot more likely to kill their victims and leave no witnesses if a conviction would lead to death.

That's a good point, Tim, though it would make no sense unless the criminal had already killed once. Again, I'm no death penalty fan, but I don't think it would be easy to show a definitive cause and effect. One can certainly make a case either way but the evidence would be suspect--if one could show that murder rates in the 1920s, when the death penalty was commonplace, were less than today what would that prove? It was a different time and the reasons for the disparity may have nothing to do with the punishment.

The death penalty is primarily a tool of vengeance. Which does not instantly invalidate it in my book, vengeance being highly underrated by most people, in my opinion, but if the proponents are going to argue for it they should probably admit to this.

(At the very least--the very least--there should be some independent government panel that goes over every death penalty case in painful detail and rescinds it if there are any legit questions. It's impossible to ensure that only the guilty are convicted but it's not too much to ask that anyone about to be executed be guilty beyond a level of doubt way beyond reasonable. In other words, Scott Peterson, (and I agree with the jury that he did it) would not be eligible. The guy who shot the people on camera in the courtroom would be.)

Forming an opinion doesn't automatically mean one has dismissed one side of the equation as worthless. If God forbid I ever found myself in that situation as a parent, I certainly allow for the possibility that I might well be doing the exact same thing the parents are doing here. I hope I never have to find out.

Taking a side, forming an opinion, doesn't mean that I automatically see it as a black and white issue. It just means I've sided with a particular shade of gray.

Those are words of reason. Too many people on both sides are being quick to lable the others when, depending on circumstances, any of us could be facing a situation that could make us see things in a completely different light.

Look, I know this is an emotional case, and different people can have lots of different views on what should or shouldn't be done in Terri's situation. For those who recognize the difficulty and simply fall elsewhere on the spectrum than I do – let's hope we can reach some common ground. For those who insist that there is only one answer and they've got it, however – you, and you, and you over there are precisely the reason I keep predicting this country is headed for civil war.

More words of wisdom, though, as we've gone over before, I really really doubt the civil war part (at least I hope so, since I don't own guns).

"Posted by Sowhat at March 23, 2005 02:57 AM
Small Victory for all you Bush haters tonight. Terri will die soon enough. Then you can go party."

I will assume your talking about some kind of wake, otherwise your juat a big asshole.

JAC

And score points for the Federal Appeals court in Atlanta...

"In a 2-1 ruling, a federal appeals court panel in Atlanta has refused to order Florida doctors to reconnect the feeding tube that had been keeping her alive. A lower court judge issued a similar ruling Tuesday despite extraordinary action by Congress over the weekend to transfer the case to the federal courts. Florida state courts authorized its removal last Friday."

Ok, let's see now, that makes it 22 or 23 different judges/courts who have said that the husband is in the right.... Isn't it time to just allow things to go as they're going to go?

And by the way, to all of those who have mentioned the "million dollars" Michael Schiavo is going to "inherit": Not true. Any and all money received in the settlement has gone to her care. There's no money to inherit. Her parents have seen to that in dragging this out in court ad infinitum and keeping her "alive".

Oh, and that was reiterated by Barbara Walters on Monday morning when she was interviewing Michael Schiavo that there's no money for him to inherit. Check out the facts before throwing that bit out there....

The only thing he has to gain in this is keeping a promise to his wife. No money and this kind of fame we can all do without.

Except for the one dissenting judge. Maybe he's just making a statement to appease the supporters of the parents, but by saying "there'd be no harm in allowing this to go to trial....AGAIN," he's basically ignoring the standards for granting a TRO. Which is just what *I* want in my appeals judges...those that will disregard years and years of legal precedent because someone cries on national TV.

Check out the facts before throwing that bit out there....

Why check the facts when it's so much easier to demonize Michael Schiavo?

Hell, with the latest BS being thrown out by the parents that removing the tube now violates Terri's religious beliefs (excuse me while I laugh), I'm surprised nobody's trying to claim Michael Schiavo is the anti-Christ or something.

PAD wrote:

Our bombs have killed innocent men, women and children in Iraq at a clip that Saddam could only dream about, in a war that was NOT dedicated to putting an end to tyranny and terror, but to finding weapons that never existed.

I seem to recall your candidate, John Kerry, saying that George W. Bush has 23 different rationales for the war (although Kerry apparently meant this in a bad way, as though offering 23 supporting arguments means that you're changing your rationale with each argument you put forth, instead of bolstering your stance. Silly man.)

But don't take my word for it. Read for yourself the President's rationale for war, taken from a 10/7/02 speech in Cincinnati. See how many different reasons you can find, and how far off-base your your "one reason, one war" attitude is. Yes, Peter, this will require you to read the President's own words, not some inaccurate (or as the President would say, "in-AK-ur-it") leftist distillation of his words.

It's quite a detailed argument for war, right down to Saddam's "failure to account for missing Gulf War personnel". Anyway, read on, Peter, and learn:

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is: How can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: About the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action---why be concerned now?; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussion with you.

First, some ask why is different from other countries and regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone---because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations withou warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility towards the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, ''The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.'

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world, The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today---and we do---does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime gas produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, inlcuding mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation. "

As for the main topic (Terri's "right-to-die"), thanks for reminding me that Congress hates gays. I will accept that in lieu of an actual argument.

-Dave O'Connell

Read for yourself the President's rationale for war, taken from a 10/7/02 speech in Cincinnati

And then when they couldn't find WMD, read for yourself in other speeches how Bush change the "rationale" for the war.

And then changed it again, and again, and again.

I realize many disagree with those positions, but none can deny that from abortion to stem cell research, that is the GOP position

Actually, I can most assuredly deny it.

In abortion, the GOP position is that fetal rights trump women's rights. Both are alive, so "life is to be treasured in whatever form it takes" is a rather bilgeworthy claim.

Concerning stem cell research, the GOP position is that fetal rights trump cures for disease. Thus, the unborn's lives are more important than the people already here.

Saying "life is to be treasured in whatever form" is a nice way to put lipstick on that particular pig, but the GOP position is not that it's the Party of Life -- it's that it's the Party of Fetuses Who Can Go Fly A Kite Once Born.

Happy to clarify.

TWL

Tim, your forgot to add "Until They Try to Die On Their Own Terms."

Some of you may have already seen this piece from last Sunday's Miami Herald:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/11183185.htm

--------------------------------------------------

Posted on Sun, Mar. 20, 2005

/In My Opinion

For one mom, the personal isn't political

The Friday lunch crowd at Jimmy's Eastside Diner was starting to dwindle. Jerita Collins, a waitress everyone calls Shorty, was carrying several plates when she noticed the television behind the counter airing a Washington, D.C., news conference featuring House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

''It is now 1 o'clock on the East Coast, the time preordained by a Florida state judge to allow for denial of food and water to Terri Schiavo,'' the Texas Republican declared. ``That act of barbarism can be and must be prevented.''

Across the bottom of the screen CNN noted a judge temporarily stopped Terri Schiavo's feeding tube from being removed because Congress had issued subpoenas for the brain-damaged woman to appear in Washington.

As DeLay spoke, Shorty stared at the TV and shook her head. ''This is wrong,'' she said. ``This is incredibly wrong. How can they interfere like this?''

Shorty, 57, a waitress at the Biscayne Boulevard diner for 35 years, should know.

''Two years ago,'' she said, ``I had to make the same decision for my son. It was the hardest thing I ever did. You don't plan on your children dying before you do. You don't even want to think about it.

''But if you love your child,'' she continued, tears welling up in her eyes, ``sometimes you have to let them go.''

Shorty's son, Jerry, was 36 when he died in 2003 from pancreatic cancer. He wasn't married. He had one child who was a minor, so the decisions fell to her.

''Toward the end, he didn't want to be kept alive,'' she said. ``But I wanted him to live. I didn't want him to go. The hospital, they had to tie his hands down so that he couldn't pull his own tubes out.

'After a while, I realized he was ready. I told him how much I loved him and I didn't want him to continue to suffer because of me. He couldn't talk anymore, so he wrote me a note. It said, `Forgive me.' And I looked at it and I said, 'For what? For dying?' And he shook his head yes.''

He died a few days later, on Dec. 29, from a heart attack. By then, Shorty had signed directives for her son's care, including instructions not to resuscitate him if his heart stopped.

On the TV, another politician talked about saving Schiavo.

''These politicians,'' Shorty hissed, her hands trembling with emotion. ``They're just playing a game. It's not about her anymore, it's about them getting what they want. It's about them wanting to look good in front of the people who are pro-life. I'm against abortion, too, but I believe each person has their own right to decide. You know in your heart what is right for you and you have to live with any decision you make.''

Shorty paused as CNN showed a clip of Schiavo.

''This is a very personal thing,'' Shorty said. ``They can get up there and play politics and say that removing the tube is killing her. But the young lady is already gone. Let her go in peace.

``She's growing old without living. I'm sure her soul is crying to be let loose.''

Around the diner, other customers spoke about Schiavo.

Thanks to Republican efforts, this case is quickly becoming one of the most polarizing and divisive issues in the country.

And yet it's important to remember there is nothing extraordinary about Schiavo. Every day, feeding tubes are removed. And every day people like Shorty make gut-wrenching decisions about the fate of their loved ones.

By mid-afternoon Friday, Schiavo's feeding tube was removed. ''Hopefully now it will be over,'' Shorty said.

Unfortunately not.

Ignoring that in the past seven years, this case has already been reviewed by more than three dozen judges and justices on both the state and federal level, congressional leaders proudly announced Saturday that they would pass a law moving Schiavo's case to federal court and effectively requiring that her feeding tube be reinserted while a new round of appeals begins.

--------------------------------------------------
What I've been reflecting on continuously over the past few case regarding this case is, if Terri Schiavo's parents & siblings "win", and Terri continues on in the state that she's been in for the past 15 years, what are their actual expectations? I know that before the cameras, the family has expressed continuously that that clinging to however many thin shreads of hope exist that she'll come out of her vegetative state is what Terri would really want, but I wonder if they've truly, honestly thought about if when the outcome should be their favor, when they no longer have to focus on the battle, what their roles will be? Will they continue to actively seek out physicians who'll tell them what they want to hear, that therapy methods exist that, with time and patience, just may offer a small chance of Terri's recovery; or will they just continue to visit her regularly, taking each eye blink or head movement as sign that Terri's still in there, fighting to get out? Will their hopes eventually wane, with their visits becoming less and less frequent, to the point where visiting her becomes a chore that they have to struggle to remember to do? Or will they patiently leave it to God's will, believe that it's ultimately in his hands when she should die?

To me, the statement "sanctity of life" is a platitude that many rattle off without really believing it whole-heartedly; to them, some lives are sacred, others are not. A more important statement to me is "quality of life" and the fulfillment that one derives, or is able to derive, from one's life. It doesn't mean I'd recommend suicide to anyone who can't get their fulfillment, especially when they still have the conscious choice of how to direct their life. But in the case of Terri, unless she'd expressly stated otherwise before her trauma, I can't see how anyone would see it as a benefit to her to prolong her life other than for their own personal desires, selfish or not.

I'm getting my living will together now. I've no desire to become someone's potted plant.

And then when they couldn't find WMD, read for yourself in other speeches how Bush change the "rationale" for the war.

And then changed it again, and again, and again.

My point was that the pre-war argument was a multi-faceted one (note Saddam's ties to terrorists, Saddam firing on U.S. planes in the no-fly zones he agreed to, plans to acquire even greater weapons, that sort of stuff) and if they "changed" their argument, it was to something they were arguing before the war anyway. The only historical revisionism going on is by people like Peter, who insist Bush's argument was "Saddam has WMD" and nothing else. I believe Peter has been throwing around a word that aptly describes this sort of "thinking"---one that begins with "B" and ends with "T".

Oh yes, and something else I'd like to add in response to PAD's quote:

Our bombs have killed innocent men, women and children in Iraq...

And also very guilty insurgents, perhaps in even greater numbers. (There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the numbers, I've noticed. Reuters says one thing, Michael Moore another.) The pertinent question is: Are we operating under a scorched-earth policy or are the innocent dead the inevitable byproduct of the effort to root out the terrorists? In Terri's case (returning to the main topic), her husband is starving her so that she will die of starvation. (That she wished to die is arguable; what seems very unlikely is that she specifically wished to die in an excruciatingly slow manner.) I seriously doubt that our military, as a general rule, is killing innocent people so that innocent people will be dead. But feel free to "support our troops" with your implied assertion that only innocent Iraqis are dying (and only by our hands, and not from, say, Iraqi suicide bombers) if you feel that is a fair way to go about it.

-Dave O'Connell

David, I'd just ask this about your statement "The pertinent question is: Are we operating under a scorched-earth policy or are the innocent dead the inevitable byproduct of the effort to root out the terrorists?"

What terrorists are we rooting out in Iraq? We're killing insurgents, people that, for one reason or another, don't want the US there, and don't want a US backed government ruling what is, essentially, their country. By most accounts, remnants of Saddam's army. Any ties Saddam and his Iraq had to terrorists are inquiries for assistance on the terrorists part, and a rejection on Saddam's part.

So, if we're there to root out terrorists, where are they? And if we're there to kill terrorists, but the only people that are dying are insurgents and other Iraqi nationals, what good does that do in rooting out terrorists?

So, for the record: No WMDs, very little capabilty to use them, even if they had them, no connection to terrorists, no terrorists. Shooting at our planes in no-fly zones that Saddam agreed to? You mean had imposed on him? So it's ok to attack someone because they try to take actions to defend themselves?

Every single one of Bush's reasons, stated then or now, has such a false ring to it we may as well as call this the Casio war.

And also very guilty insurgents, perhaps in even greater numbers.

Ahh, yes.

This goes back to the innocent being nothing more than "collateral".

Who cares how many innocents die as long as we *think* we killed a few insurgents?

Never mind that we have no idea how many of those insurgents are actually terrorists, and how many are just defending their country, legitimately, against an invading and occupying force.

But we just don't give a damn.

TENS OF THOUSANDS have been killed.

Apparently that figure means nothing... unless you're naive enough to think that the majority of those killed were actually our enemies.

When was the last war where the majority of casualties were the fighters, and not the innocents?

re: killing of innocents in Iraq:

Prior to the invasion Rumsfeld boasted of all the super-precise & high-tech weaponery we have at our disposal. When the time came for the invasion, did we use these weapons so that we would only take out military & strategic targets so as to minimize 'collaterial damage'? No. We went in with "shock & awe" dropping record numbers of bombs for a couple of days. Result? Tens of thousands dead, mostly innocent civilians.

**********************

Yes, bush cited several reasons for the invasion, but his primary claim, the one he repeated over & over in every speech, was WMD's. The WMD's were an "Imminent threat" & if we didn't act right away, the proof of this would be "a mushroom cloud".

*******************

As for Al-Queda people being in Iraq before 9-11, Al-Queda were also in the U.S. prior to 9-11. Does this mean they met with representatives of the U.S. government? I hope they didn't.

"As for Al-Queda people being in Iraq before 9-11, Al-Queda were also in the U.S. prior to 9-11. Does this mean they met with representatives of the U.S. government? I hope they didn't. "

I hope not, but then again, was the fact that Bush was visiting that school instead of in the White House the morning of 9-11-01 known to the general public in advance? Did the terrorists know he wasn't home and hi-jacked the planes anyway?

gee, Dave O'Connell, go off topic much? On topic, never mind the demonizing the husband, the polital circus, and the parents who can't let go. If Terri dies the terrorists have already won, or if Terri lives the terrorists have already won. In fact screw it, no matter what happenes to any one any where the terrorists have already won. As Bush pointed out during the campaign only he can protect us from forest fire...terrorists, which means in 1398 days I suppose it will be a terroist free for all. Hoody-ho, don't forget to bring the suds!

Sigh

To quote Xena: warrior princess, "WE'RE ALL GOIN' TO HELL! BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAH!"

JAC

Thanks to Republican efforts, this case is quickly becoming one of the most polarizing and divisive issues in the country.

Except the opposite is happening. Most people agree she should be let go. This issue is back-firing on the GOP bigtime.

Karen, just to be sure, I just sent comments off to both my state's senators to make sure they know my opposition to the Federal interferance here. I know there are a very small number of people speaking out in support of Terri's parents, but they are speaking very loudly. I'd encourage everyone here to make your opinion, whatever that may be, known directly to your elected officials. We can (and often do) talk about the issue on PAD's dime till we're blue in the face, and then bitch about it when our government acts in a way we disagree with. But it's easier than ever to express your wishes to your elected officials these days. We should do so, so the next time congress gets the urge to act on a very public issue, maybe they'll have a better idea of what the "public" wants, and not just what the media is reporting.

Believe me, Bobb, my Congresspeople are sick of hearing from me> :) By the way, what happened to Kingbobb? Were you dethroned? Did you abdicate?

And another appeal has been shot down.

But now Jed Bush has pulled a New York City sewer rat out of his ass in claiming that there is new information that Terri was "misdiagnosed".

Maybe Michael needs to sue Jeb for Medical Malpractice and practicing medicine without a license...

I saw on MSNBC's Abrams report that they are trying to now claim their was suspicion of abuse so they want to put Terri in Protective custody.The kicker the "evidence " of "abuse" was like 5- 10 years ago.Huh???Why if this was taking place was it not mentioned sooner?Also is the abuse from accounts given by a nurse that Media Matters.org shoots down the credibility of???
If the type of protection that Florida provides is anything like the protection for children in their foster care programs ,the Schindlers and Schiavo's will have much bigger problems.

This may be a strange question, but why is would it take 1-2 weeks for Terri to pass away without food or water? I'd always heard that a person could only go 1-2 days without water before dying of dehydration.

In most cases like this, person's fluid and electrolyte levels are maintained via IV, so dehydration won't be a concern, unless they stop all of her drips as well.

-Rex Hondo-

And does the idea of a GOP "talking points memo" on this case disgust anyone as much as it does me?
">http://dcinsidescoop.blogspot.com/2005/03/exclusive-gops-schiavo-talking-points.html

I had assumed that the "GOP talking points memo" that ABC and others had reported was genuine...when will I ever learn? Not that it will make any difference to the folks who STILL think that the CBS National Guard story was "fake but accurate, so it's ok" but the more one looks into this aspect of the story the more it looks like either an out and out hoax or just somthing that some lobby group slapped together and sent to some senators (parts of it are copied word for word from one such group's website). But that isn't the story that ABC wanted...

Now ABC is saying that they reported nothing more than that a memo was written and distributed to some senators...they never implied it was written by anyone in congress. Funny how just about everyone who read the story came to that conclusion...

Monday night, I wrote:

This case has gone through several courts, but at the moment has been decided by one particular Florida judge. Said judge has received multiple death threats, and has been forced to travel everywhere under armed guards. I'm not even sure he and his family feel safe in their home at this point. I would very much like to see those who claim to value Terri for the sake of "a culture of life" distance themselves from the sick bastards who think killing a judge is okay. I frankly don't think some of you have it in you.

It is now Thursday morning.

Not one single person has stepped forward to say that the threats against this judge are wrong.

Not. One. Person.

Can't say as I'm entirely surprised, but I'm profoundly disappointed.

TWL

Tim, I agree, I'm not really surprised either.

THe folks are their must be using their "Old Testament" decoder rings that say "an eye for an eye", if Terri dies, they figure the judge must die too...

But of course, National Health Care for all Americans is just wrong and bad...

Plus, the Supremes are being courted now (bad pun, I know) by the ignorant parents, and that's much bigger news to the religi-fascists, so naturally they won't admit to how crazy they are...

Tim, I think that pretty much everybody here would agree that the stalking and threatening of the judge (or anybody) is wrong. Sometimes when you state the obvious, it's unnecessary to jump up and shout "I AGREE".

But when their initial response to something as preposterous as stalking and death threats is silence, you really have to wonder about them...

There's a lot of things that are "obviously wrong" (to paraphrase you), you think people shouldn't speak up about them because they are obviously wrong?

THAT is obviously wrong...

Tim,

Kinda have to agree with Jeff in NC here. Answering the question gives it a legitimacy that the people in question may not feel it deserves. Sort of like if a conservative pro-war person insisted that all the liberals take a pledge that they were not, in fact, unpatriotic--I'm guessing the response would be largely comprised of the words "screw" and "you", in various forms.

I have to disagree with you, Bill. I think in any case, if a fringe element is engaging in violence of terroristic threats, any nonviolent group that may share the same position has an obligation to distance themselves from the fringe element. To not do so is giving that group their tacit approval.

Anytime a suicide bomber goes off in Israel, one of the first things you hear are calls for the Palestinian leadership to condemn them.

Den,

I understand your point but if, say, a right wing Christian asked everyone who supports gay marriage to publically condemn the North American Man Boy Love Association and swear that they were not in favor of pedophilia it would not be unrealistic for the people asked to take umbrage at A-being linked to an extremist group just because they happen to share a few goals (which is arguable anyway) and B- the implication that they would support an unsupportable position.

Also, it invite easy reprisals. It's just a variation on the Guilt by Association fallacy.

I have to disagree with you, Bill. I think in any case, if a fringe element is engaging in violence of terroristic threats, any nonviolent group that may share the same position has an obligation to distance themselves from the fringe element.

I think this is a good idea, because it helps create a more nuanced spectrum of views. Too often, the opposing side takes the more extreme elements of the opposition and states the entire opposition is like that---and folks let it happen without comment. That's a contributing factor to the polarization in current society.

Bill,

Kinda have to agree with Jeff in NC here. Answering the question gives it a legitimacy that the people in question may not feel it deserves. Sort of like if a conservative pro-war person insisted that all the liberals take a pledge that they were not, in fact, unpatriotic--I'm guessing the response would be largely comprised of the words "screw" and "you", in various forms.

Perhaps, but (1) if you look at the paragraph, I didn't challenge "all conservatives" to do so, and (2) nobody even stepped up to say "screw you for even intimating that we might think it's okay."

The tactics of Earth First! are often used to smear the entire environmental movement. Doctors who perform abortions are routinely threatened and shot at, and people like Randall Terry stand idly by whistling past the graveyard. Jerry Falwell blamed liberals and atheists for 9/11, and while criticized was not nearly as condemned as he should have been. Your own senator, dear ol' Jesse Helms, gave Clinton a veiled threat not to come to NC lest he be killed, and I don't recall him getting particularly roasted for it.

Your analogy is entirely too broad. I've asked the people who have spoken about this specific case for a particular specific reason to condemn violent acts related to this specific case for a particular specific reason. The silence has been deafening.

I didn't seriously think a lot of people here think violence is fine -- but frankly, now I'm a lot less sure of that confidence, not more so.

Perhaps you feel I'm giving the issue unfair legitimacy. I think urging people to speak out against violence is entirely legitimate and appropriate to the situation. Your mileage may vary.

TWL

The Schindlers have offered to "free" Schiavo of any legal connections to to his unfortunate wife. But he refuses, because this isn't about money. It's about Michael Schiavo burying his conscience.

Sorry if being married to a vegetable is putting a crimp in your libidinous needs, dude. But adultery is still adultery. Adultery is grounds for estrangement. Estrangement is grounds for removal of Powers of Attorney.

Let's see if Jebediah can figure that out.

I understand your point but if, say, a right wing Christian asked everyone who supports gay marriage to publically condemn the North American Man Boy Love Association and swear that they were not in favor of pedophilia it would not be unrealistic for the people asked to take umbrage at A-being linked to an extremist group just because they happen to share a few goals (which is arguable anyway) and B- the implication that they would support an unsupportable position.

Bill, your analogy is false on its face. Supporters of gay marriage and NAMBLA do not share the same goals. One wants legal recognition of a coupling between two consenting adults; the other wants to legalize child rape. Only ignorant people equate homosexuality with pedophelia. They are two different things.

The people who threatened Judge Greer share the same goal as anyone else supporting Shiavo's parents does: reinsertion of the feeding tube. What Tim asked was for people who share that common goal to condemn threat of violence done in Terri Shiavo's name. For your analogy to be even remotely valid, Tim would have had to have asked supporters of the Schindlers to condemn the Oaklahoma City bombing.

Sorry if being married to a vegetable is putting a crimp in your libidinous needs, dude. But adultery is still adultery. Adultery is grounds for estrangement. Estrangement is grounds for removal of Powers of Attorney.

If all he wanted was separation from his wife, he could have just divorced her years ago, left her in her parents care and washed his hands of his responsibility towards. Despite taking up with another woman (something I don't agree with), he has continued to act as Terri Shiavo's legal guardian. Since another way out form the marriage is available to him, that means he's doing this for only one of two reasons:

1) He's a complete sociopath who just wants to see her dead.

2) He truly does believe this is what she would want.

As far as denouncing goes, keep in mind that the threats to the judges are probably coming from the same religious right that routinely calls on all Muslums to denounce the terrorist actions of the few, then labels all Muslums as supporting terrorism when there isn't (to these groups) sufficient denouncation.

The religious right is awfully quiet about denouncing violence when it is carried out or threatened by those who claim to be 'Christian'.
* A medical clinic that provides abortions
* A doctor or other clinic staff (including non-medical personnel such as secretaries) is murdered
* A televangelist calls for God to 'remove' judges from the Supreme Court (Being a lifetime appointment, you figure out how they would be removed)

I don't recall ever hearing other parts of the religious right condeming any of these things the way they expect all Muslums to do when something is done by someone claiming to be a Muslum.

Powell:

>The Schindlers have offered to "free" Schiavo of any legal connections to to his unfortunate wife. But he refuses, because this isn't about money. It's about Michael Schiavo burying his conscience.

Honestly, how do you come up with these conclusions? Seems to me that if this were the situation, it would only strengthen the liklihood that Shiavo is doing what he believes is right over money or an easy way out. Regardless, none of us can really say what is truly going on with any amount of certainty.

Fred

Michael probably hasn't divorced her because he knows that her parents would then become her guardians, and they clearly desire to keep her body alive for as long as possible. If her true wishes were to not live like this, then by staying legally married, he can make sure that the one last thing he can do for her, give her the death she wanted, is carried out.

Powell, if you were to die, would you want your spouse to give up, for the rest of their life, companionship? A chance for a family? Would you really be that selfish to deny the one you supposedly loved more than any other a chance to move on with their life? If Terri parents hadn't started this attempt to preserve an empty shell over 8 years ago, the husband would have been free to move on however he deemed fit. Instead, because of the prolonged court battle, he's forced to carry the burden of fighting for the wishes of his wife.

And Karen, I actually got promoted, but "SupremeEmporerBobb" is too much to type all the time.

Living in Illinois, we just lost a judge's husband an mother to some crazy that blamed everyone in the legal system for the injuries and financial loss he suffered associated with his heavy smoking. He had a whole hit list of judges and lawyers he was going to kill in revenge.

These people are just doing their jobs, best they can. Judges are bound by law. Following the law sometimes means making a hard decision that will have very real consequences on very real people. From having worked for a judge, I know that (at least not all of them) do not take this responsibility lightly.

For those that receive unfavorable decisions to blame those charged with making those decisions, I think, just shows how small-minded they are.

Estrangement is grounds for removal of Powers of Attorney.

Apparently not, as the courts have not ruled that way.

But I'll just quote Ted Rall on this one:

"Why are people picking on Michael Schiavo? Many right-wingers are attacking him for having acquired a girlfriend a mere two years after his wife slipped into oblivion. Where were they when some 9/11 widows remarried a year after their husbands and wives had died?

I remember: the 9/11 widows, they said, were crazy with grief and were therefore justified to behave any way they wanted. Anyone who thought differently was a cur and a traitor.

Michael Schiavo, a 26-year-old man whose wife suddenly collapsed in the hallway of their home five years after getting married, surely was just as devastated.

In the United States, however, victimhood depends on your political affiliation."

An observation:

There are quite a few people, both here and in the media spotlight, who are trying to demonize Michael Schiavo.

On the other hand, I've not heard a single person taking Michael's side who is demonizing the parents. Nobody thinks they're evil -- grief-stricken and not seeing straight, perhaps, but not malicious.

I completely and utterly believe that both sides, the parents and the husband, are doing what they believe best reflects Terri's wishes and desires.

A number of people on the other side of the argument are not willing to grant the same courtesy.

I leave it to the reader to decide which "side" sounds rational and which one sounds as if it needs to pause and wipe the froth from its mouth on occasion.

TWL

I just read an article in the paper (Seattle P-I) today that says Michael cared for Terri for 5 years and even took nursing lessons to better care for her. After 5 years he came to agree with her DOCTORS that there was no hope since part of her brain is gone. That he held on for 5 years before accepting the inevitable shows he did not do this for any reason except for Terri. So he has a new family now. Should he have given the rest of his life to a woman who will never be sentient again? The easy way would have been to give up long ago and let her parents have their way. He did not. He is fighting to give Terri HER wishes. If I were in that state and no one, including my parents, listened to my husband about what I wanted, well, I guess I'd have to haunt them when I finally died because being a vegetable I couldn't do much else.

Congratulations SupremeEmporerBobb. Why weren't we invited to the coronation?

100% agreed, Tim. The fact that there is even a need that is felt to pick sides between those effected is troublesome.

Fred

About those talking point memo's:

I heard two things today. First, the Republicans have denied the talking point memo is authentic. The memo is not on senate letterhead and it is unsigned. Second, there is growing evidence that is was possibly forged by Democratic Senate staffers. ABC and the W. Post have not been willing to offer any authtication for the memo or give their source.

If this unfolds as being true, remind me again, who is the political bloodsuckers?

Iowa Jim

Bobb,
To continue, my stepson is "The next step in the evolution of man". I am simply known around the house as "The envy of all I survey."

As for the talking points memo, I doubt it came from the Democrats. They aren't that well organized. About the only thing they are organized enough to do is to cave in & allow the Republicans whatever they want.

Besides, if it had come from Democratic Senate staffers, I have no doubt they'd be able to get the correct letterhead. Hell, I could probably get it through a Google image search.

IowaJim:

If this unfolds as being true, remind me again, who is the political bloodsuckers?

Does this mean that you'll be fine with casting the GOP as political bloodsuckers if the memos ARE legitimate? Just checking -- seems to me that you're implying a bit of a double standard.

(I would also point out that almost nobody here is looking at the memos as the only, or even primary, reason why we think the Congressional actions have been so disgusting.)

Karen:
Congratulations SupremeEmporerBobb. Why weren't we invited to the coronation?

"What do you mean 'we', white man?"

TWL
Checker of Coats and Server of Bits of Food

No white men here. I like to go with "swarthy" myself. It keeps people guessing.

What can I say...the world's a dangerous place. And if I didn't do something to expand my empire, I've got an arch-nemisis with mind-controlling spider plants that's just waiting for his chance at world domination. We're working on getting an heir, now that I rule everything. Or at least my 2br condo.

Not ANOTHER forged memo. Who's going to take the fall for this one? Haven't we already lost all the Big Three nighttime news anchors I grew up with (surely a sign the apocolypse is almost upon us...either that, or I'm going to have to start admitting I'm getting closer to OLD rather than YOUNG). Did Ted Koppel retire yet?

It wouldn't surprise me if that memo did turn out to be a fake or a joke. Which is sad. What's even more sad is that I'd not be surprised if it turned out to be real. In which case, no surprise that it's not on Senate letterhead. Those staffers can be pretty bright folks, and the government's full of people that excel at dodging responsibility.

And I'm not JUST talking about the elected ones.

About those talking point memo's:

I heard two things today. First, the Republicans have denied the talking point memo is authentic. The memo is not on senate letterhead and it is unsigned. Second, there is growing evidence that is was possibly forged by Democratic Senate staffers. ABC and the W. Post have not been willing to offer any authtication for the memo or give their source.

If you'd written it, would you want to sign your name to such a disgusting example of politicking? Anyone would deny its parentage. And why would it have Senate letterhead if it's a GOP memo?

And what growing evidence is there? I've not heard anything.

If this unfolds as being true, remind me again, who is the political bloodsuckers?

Well, since the GOP actually instigated this mess, yeah I'm afraid they're the bloodsucking opportunists here. (Even if they didn't explicitly outline their motives in a memo, the sentiments listed in the memo -- forged or not -- are dead accurate.)

And I would be very disappointed in those Democrats who would sink down to the opposition's level.

Way off topic but here we go. Tonight is the jewish holiday of Purim where, as tradition dictates, Jews should get drunk. Sort of like a Jewish St. Patrick's day. To those of you that are jewish, go out, and get happy drunk. To those of you that aren't, go out and get happy drunk too. The more the merrier I always say, and after all this mess I think we all could use a good drink.

So cheers. (I was going to say L'chaim, but that means "to life" and it's a bit too loaded for this conversation).

From Tim,

Perhaps, but (1) if you look at the paragraph, I didn't challenge "all conservatives" to do so, and (2) nobody even stepped up to say "screw you for even intimating that we might think it's okay."

I wasn't trying to make a totally accurate comparison between your statement and my hypothetical, only to give an example of something that was unfair and unlikely to elicit much response.

The tactics of Earth First! are often used to smear the entire environmental movement.

And the thing is, it's wrong to do so. thanks for giving me a perhaps better example to use. If someone complains about drilling for oil in Alaska and I come back with a request that they first renounce any alliance with those who set fires to SUVs and try to maim loggers, wouldn't that that be correctly perceived as using the guilt by association card?

Your own senator, dear ol' Jesse Helms, gave Clinton a veiled threat not to come to NC lest he be killed, and I don't recall him getting particularly roasted for it.

I recall he DID get some grief...probably about as much as John Kerry did for his joke about assasinating Dan Quail.

Ok. So then I say:
I understand your point but if, say, a right wing Christian asked everyone who supports gay marriage to publically condemn the North American Man Boy Love Association and swear that they were not in favor of pedophilia it would not be unrealistic for the people asked to take umbrage at A-being linked to an extremist group just because they happen to share a few goals (which is arguable anyway) and B- the implication that they would support an unsupportable position.

and Den comes back with:

Bill, your analogy is false on its face. Supporters of gay marriage and NAMBLA do not share the same goals. One wants legal recognition of a coupling between two consenting adults; the other wants to legalize child rape. Only ignorant people equate homosexuality with pedophelia. They are two different things.

Geeze louise...first off, I KNOW all this. THAT'S why it would be WRONG to do it, which was the point...I think it's likely that NAMBLA members are in favor of gay marriage. I am also in favor of gay marriage. If someone expected me to renounce pedophilia to earn some measure of credibility on the gay marriage debate I would be pissed off because it would be, by its nature, putting me in the same category as those creeps.

And I think its wrong to do that. maybe I'm being oversensitive. Since I don't have a particular dog in this fight I guess I'll just let it go but I'll bet that the next time some anti-war anarchist group does something stupid we can expect some pro-war poster to insist that everyone else who is against the war take the loyalty pledge or something.

Capital Punishment as revenge? Hmmm.

I always thought is was something along the lines of "he/she did it once. Never again."

The DP may not be a deterent, but it prevents the executed person from killing again (except, you know, in comic books and movies).

Of course, so does true life imprisonment, without the added messy bit about "are we really, really sure that guy was innocent?"

Something that bothers me with all this is that many of the people "erring on the side of life" are also saying things like "we aren't God...I thought only God could decide who should live or die."

Yet many of these same folks support the death penalty. If you're of the mindset that only God can say who can live or die, shouldn't that dictate an opposition to capital punishment?

And speaking of capital punishment, it's really only punishment of you believe in Hell. Atherwise, what't the point? Punishment is supposed to teach someone the error of their ways. If you just kill them, well, not like they can demonstrate that they've learned their lesson, can they?

Talk about completely missing the point. Bill, it's about common goals. That's what Tim was trying to get at.

"Talk about completely missing the point. Bill, it's about common goals. That's what Tim was trying to get at."

Tim's exact statement was "I would very much like to see those who claim to value Terri for the sake of "a culture of life" distance themselves from the sick bastards who think killing a judge is okay. I frankly don't think some of you have it in you."

I think that, while Tim's intentions are good and I agree with the "sick bastards" part--(well, actually, calling them sick sort of implies that they are not entirely responsible for their actions, and they manifestly are. I would further suggest that they, if caught, get a very very harsh amount of jail time since, unlike murder, this is the sort of thing that CAN be easily discouraged by making an example of a few idiots.)--the phrasing was deliberately confrontational and not at all conducive to any real dialogue.

My point is and has been that you shouldn't have to defend yourself against linkage to people who use immoral and illegal means to achieve ends that you agree with. There are few causes worth fighting for who do not have extremists who are either willing to use any means to acheive the end or are just sociopaths latching onto a good reason to hone their skills.

First, the Republicans have denied the talking point memo is authentic.

Is this a "Hello, McFly?" moment or what?

Second, there is growing evidence that is was possibly forged by Democratic Senate staffers.

Let me guess: the same evidence that has the Republicans denying the memo?

Get real, Jim. You're usually above this kind of political BS.

Based on the precedent of those that bombed or killed doctors at abortion clinics (or worked at them), those penalties have been pretty harsh. I don't think the perps had any priors, but at least one was executed, and another is serving life. The fact that not many more happened after that either does support the idea that harsh penalties for this kind of "planned retributive" murder does deter copycats.

Craig,

The thing about the "GOP talking points memo" is that, if you read the story carefully, ABC and the Wash Post were pretty careful not to actually say that it was from the GOP or necessarily talking points. It was a memo though. ABC now describes it as "the memo discussed a republican bill and was distributed to republican senators." Hmm, a memo that discusses a republican bill. Wow. Not QUITE the same impact as "a secret high level strategy plan to exploit the Sciavo tragedy" which is the impression most got from the initial stories.

All they said was that it was "distributed" to several senators. Seems like it's more significant who it was who distributed it than who it was distributed to. But maybe that's just me.

The fact that it has some curious mistakes (such as getting the number of a mentioned bill wrong) and has sections that were apparently copied from a website make it look more like the sort of thing that a lobby group would send out than an actual, made by a staffer talking points memo.

There is also the red flags that might have gone up at the following line from the New York Times article on the memo: "As tensions festered among Republicans, Democratic aides passed out an unsigned one-page memorandum that they said had been distributed to Senate Republicans. "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," the memorandum said."

Umm, so the first we heard about this came from Democrats? And THEY said it was given to republicans? Hello McFly!

Not that it will matter to the folks who think that Fake But Accurate is a legitimate journalistic standard. Me, if it turns out some Republican staffer wrote it, I hope they get fired. If it came from the Democrats I doubt that any heads will roll--they'll probably be congratulated for outside the box thinking.

Tim,

Off topic but I was wondering--has your wife read about the new amazing discoveries reported this week in the field of genetics? http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gene24.html

NPR had a good segment on it yesterday. If this holds up it's time to rewrite those textbooks again.

Bobb said:
"Something that bothers me with all this is that many of the people "erring on the side of life" are also saying things like "we aren't God...I thought only God could decide who should live or die."

Yet many of these same folks support the death penalty. If you're of the mindset that only God can say who can live or die, shouldn't that dictate an opposition to capital punishment? "

Me:
That has always confused the hell out of me.I mean i would think you would support the importance of all life,not just the ones that you can live with.Of course that is assuming that someone is truly sincere in their beliefs and not just a situational believer.
Of course if we have pro lifers are there pro -death advocates too???

Tim Lynch,
This response is a bit late, but I typed the hell out of a response to your opening speech at the beginning of this thread on Tuesday night into Wednesday morning and found out my URL connection was screwed up when i tried to post. (Same thing happened to some of my Dixonverse responses).
let's just say, after my lengthy response was lost that "Scarface" had less cursing than was heard in my humble abode.
Anyway, here goes, and I'd like to get this one out of the way first.
"Monday night I wrote:
'This case has gone through several courts, but at the moment has been decided by one particular Florida judge. Said judge has received multiple death threats, and has been forced to travel everywhere under armed guards. I'm not even sure he and his family feel safe in their home at this for the sake of a "culture of life" distance themselves from the sick bastards who think killing a judge is okay. I frankly don't think some of you have it in you'

I do, Tim. I have always been of the mind that to be silent about something is to passively endorse it. I condemn those who have threatened this judge completely, totally and vehemently.
Sorry I was not able to post this the first time I tried.
Let's

Okay, several things here to respond to.

Bill:

I wasn't trying to make a totally accurate comparison between your statement and my hypothetical, only to give an example of something that was unfair and unlikely to elicit much response.

So noted -- but unless the comparison is accurate, it doesn't make the point that my statement is unfair. I mean, I could draw a comparison between those who buy into astrology and those who sexually molest pygmy marmosets, but I think I'd have a lot of problems making the comparison stick.

The tactics of Earth First! are often used to smear the entire environmental movement.

And the thing is, it's wrong to do so. thanks for giving me a perhaps better example to use. If someone complains about drilling for oil in Alaska and I come back with a request that they first renounce any alliance with those who set fires to SUVs and try to maim loggers, wouldn't that that be correctly perceived as using the guilt by association card?

Perhaps -- but it's also extremely easy to respond with a simple "they weren't allied with us in the first place, and I absolutely reject their tactics."

Even that comparison, however, isn't really all that valid, as Earth First! and your hypothetical complainer do not have identical goals. Some of those goals are similar, but the goals of EF are much broader than simply objecting to ANWR drilling.

Ok. So then I say:
I understand your point but if, say, a right wing Christian asked everyone who supports gay marriage to publically condemn the North American Man Boy Love Association and swear that they were not in favor of pedophilia it would not be unrealistic for the people asked to take umbrage at A-being linked to an extremist group just because they happen to share a few goals (which is arguable anyway) and B- the implication that they would support an unsupportable position.

and Den comes back with:

[Den's response deleted for space]

Geeze louise...first off, I KNOW all this. THAT'S why it would be WRONG to do it, which was the point...

But you're missing Den's point, which is similar to mine. The two groups do not have identical goals.

Randall Terry and Eric Rudolph (if I'm remembering his name properly) DO have identical goals: to stop any and all abortions. Rudolph does it by gunning them down. Terry does it politically, but to my knowledge has never condemned Rudolph or others of his ilk.

Those out protesting the judge's decisions in the Schiavo case and those threatening the judge's life and family DO have the same goals -- to get Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinstated and the court verdicts reversed. Only their tactics differ.

As such, I consider the comparison valid.

And I think its wrong to do that. maybe I'm being oversensitive.

Maybe.

On a related note, however ... a ways back I said that I thought you were showing a decided reluctance to criticize one side in a political debate, despite claims of fairness and evenhandedness. We left it unsettled, but if memory served you asked me to provide examples. This is one: you claim you "don't have a particular dog in this fight", yet you're jumping on my point while letting those accusing Michael Schiavo of abuse and attempted murder go unchallenged. I find that somewhat less than even-handed -- perhaps I'm being oversensitive because I'm the one being jumped on, but I think some of your claims of doglessness are ringing a little hollow.

I'll bet that the next time some anti-war anarchist group does something stupid we can expect some pro-war poster to insist that everyone else who is against the war take the loyalty pledge or something.

Probably -- and they'll look rather silly in so doing, since that comparison isn't valid either. (I also never "insisted" upon anything.) Asking members of that group to disavow support for their more extreme members, however, strikes me as valid -- and yes, if some member of the ACLU blows something up I'll be perfectly happy to disavow them.

Just to draw one more example -- do you think it's wrong for Gerry Adams to be called upon to disavow actions taken by the IRA?

TWL

As far as I'm concerned, one of the reasons this is so attractive to the GOP in general--and Bush in particular--is because it's a very attractive sop to the religious right.

I mean, they can't be very happy. As much as they shout and fuss, their anti-abortion efforts remain stalled. Two thirds of the country still believes in a woman's right to choose. The Supreme Court isn't any closer to overturning Roe v. Wade. But this...the right-to-lifers must be lapping it up with a spoon. Their representatives, steamrolling over the traditional GOP belief in state rights (a philosophy that went out the window with Bush vs. Gore) are doing their best to give the right-to-lifers a really good show. Oooo, see the evil liberals not giving a damn about some poor woman's life!

It's good politics. The fact that the majority of the country thinks they should've kept their nose out of it is irrelevant. They did this, at least in part, to appeal to the remaining minority, the ones who vote aggressively and often.

PAD

Okay, several other responses to shorter posts of Bill's.

I think that, while Tim's intentions are good [...] the phrasing was deliberately confrontational and not at all conducive to any real dialogue.

I'll cop to that. I don't know that it changes the validity of the point as much as you seem to think, but it was definitely more confrontational than a lot of my posts. I take this particular case extremely seriously, not least because my mother watched my stepfather die of a brain tumor a decade or so back. I'm a huge believer in Death With Dignity acts and in living wills -- and I see Congress's moves in this case to be about half a step away from claiming the ability to invalidate living wills on a whim. I find that terrifying, and as such tend to get rather vehement in these arguments.

On the "talking points memo" bit -- which I'll admit I've not been following and don't really care that much about...

Me, if it turns out some Republican staffer wrote it, I hope they get fired. If it came from the Democrats I doubt that any heads will roll--they'll probably be congratulated for outside the box thinking.

Would you also agree that whatever administration official linked Valerie Plame's name to the media should be fired? Seems that in the heat of little scandals people seem to forget about the ones that actually, y'know, cause deaths and stuff.

Off topic but I was wondering--has your wife read about the new amazing discoveries reported this week in the field of genetics?

It was on the front page of Wednesday's NYT (and quoted a professor we'd heard speak back when we lived in LA). You bet she's read about it. :-) (She thinks it's overstating the case a bit -- it might be more along the lines of providing an evolutionary "backup" than anything else. Regardless, it's monstrously cool.)

TWL

Jerome,

I condemn those who have threatened this judge completely, totally and vehemently.

Thank you -- and my regrets that you weren't able to post that when you originally intended.

Let's

"It's..."

TW (semprini!) L

Actually, PAD, I read something earlier that says that quite a few conservatives are actually getting semi-pissed about this.

It seems that the Republicans in power have caught themselves in a Catch-22:

Ignore the pro-lifers or ignore those conservatives that still believe in small government and the rights of the states.

Also, Bill, I consider the NYT about as reliable as Fox News.

Deano,
"I realy hope there is a special part of HELL reserved for the politicians and media members that have turned this tragic situation into a f----ing three-ring circus."

First, I'm really tired of that phrase. Every celebrity trial is a "three-ring circus". The California recall was described that way, too. Now, this. It's getting a lot of attention, because A.) people (believe it or not, that includes politicians) passionately believe what they're doing is right, whichever side of the debate they're on.
B.)It is something, unlike abortion, going to war, or capital punishment that can DIRECTLY happen to each and every one of us.
Sorry, I don't see such people sharing living quarters with Hitler, Stalin....

"ME: That [death penalty supporters]. I mean, I would think you would support the importance of all life, not just the ones you can live with."

Gee, Deano, that is such a black-and-white position! You mean there isn't any precious "nuance", which is seemingly so important to liberals on every issue to be had when it comes to being able to call yourself a "pro-life"?

"Of course, that is assuming that someone is truly sincere in their beliefs and not a situational beliver."

And you judge this using what scientific method?

"Of course, if we have pro-lifers, are their pro-death advocates too."

I could say - to illustrate how I feel about that statement, "Yeah, they're pro-abortion, pro right-to-die crowd" - but I don't really feel that way. So I won't.

On a related note, however ... a ways back I said that I thought you were showing a decided reluctance to criticize one side in a political debate, despite claims of fairness and evenhandedness. We left it unsettled, but if memory served you asked me to provide examples. This is one: you claim you "don't have a particular dog in this fight", yet you're jumping on my point while letting those accusing Michael Schiavo of abuse and attempted murder go unchallenged. I find that somewhat less than even-handed -- perhaps I'm being oversensitive because I'm the one being jumped on, but I think some of your claims of doglessness are ringing a little hollow.

I guess the difference is that I highly respect you and, therefore, would be more troubled by any statement from you that I disagree with. Also, I know you will either agree with me or make a good argument in reply, which makes for a more interesting exchange than either silence or a snarky non sequitor insult.

I can see why you might not find that to be all that great a thing but, when you think about it, it's a compliment. There are some people, who shall remain nameless, who can pretty much say anything and it's just water off a duck's back at this point--they amuse more than provoke. There are others, you among them, who I think I actually can gain something from.

And, to defend myself a bit here, I did, either in this thread or the other one, bring up the accusations against Mr Schiavo and state that they did not pass the logic test--if he had attempted to kill his wife he would NOT be trying to take out her feeding tube, turning a potential attempted murder charge into a potential murder charge. In Florida, state motto "We execute almost as many people as Texas".

It also seems to me that 15 years is plenty of time for people to have investigated this claim.

Perhaps I should be more angry at those who make the accusation but after 4 years of paranoid theories regarding 9/11, everything from "Bush did it" "Bush knew about it" "And the Jews, they had something to do with it too" etc. I am becoming somewhat immune to outrage. It seems like everyone WANTS there to be a Big Conspiracy. Maybe there is a comfort in that, I don't know.

Just to draw one more example -- do you think it's wrong for Gerry Adams to be called upon to disavow actions taken by the IRA?

I thought he was a member of the IRA. In which case, that's not quite the same thing. But if someone were in favor of better civil rights for Catholics in Northern Ireland, it would be wrong to automatically link them to the IRA.

I mean, am I wrong here or isn't it at least skirting with the "Guilt by Association" fallacy to ask proponents of an argument to disavow illegal actions of a few extremists? (Assuming that nothing they have argued in any way would give one reason to believe that they are in favor of such tactics)? It makes at least an implicit link in the minds of the audience between the argument that the person is making and the actions of a few and it in no way shape or form addresses the true merits of the argument.

Would you also agree that whatever administration official linked Valerie Plame's name to the media should be fired? Seems that in the heat of little scandals people seem to forget about the ones that actually, y'know, cause deaths and stuff.

Absolutely, if it was a crime. I had thought that this was beyond questioning but just the other day I nearly spit out my coffee reading the WaPo:

A federal court should first determine whether a crime has been committed in the disclosure of an undercover CIA operatives name before prosecutors are allowed to continue seeking testimony from journalists about their confidential sources, the nation's largest news organizations and journalism groups asserted in a court filing yesterday.

The 40-page brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argues that there is "ample evidence . . . to doubt that a crime has been committed" in the case, which centers on the question of whether Bush administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in the summer of 2003. Plame's name was published first by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak and later by other publications.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61388-2005Mar23.html

Amazing how, after the election, the seriousness of the story has shifted in the eyes of the media.

Now, in MY mind it would still be wrong, regardless of whether or not it's a crime. I don't know of any "deaths" you mentioned but I can see serious issues around the naming of CIA operatives. (I can also, however, see some interesting first amendment issues regarding this...what if a reporter wants to report on crimes committed by a CIA guy, is he or she legally unable to write about this possibly very important aspect or the case).

Anyway...I'm off to PA to see my girls. Take care everyone, happy easter, happy spring break, vernal equinox, annual sacrifice to the Corn God, whatever floats you boat.

To those who would denounce Michael Schiavo for his "adultery", I would strongly suggest they shut their mouths unless they want to defend the adultery of Newt Gingrich.
For those who don't recall Newt's sordid little tale, when his first wife, Jackie, was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment, he discussed divorce. He DID have her sign the papers while she was recovering from surgery. Then, a few years after marrying Wife #2, Marianne, he started fooling around on her (all the while criticizing sex outside marriage, even while participating in the attacks on Clinton's extramarital relationship). The timeline is a bit sketchy, but Marianne was diagnosed with a neurological condition which could lead to MS and some months later, in May of 1999, Newtie called his mother-in-law to wish her a happy birthday, then told Marianne he wanted a divorce just a few minutes later.
Let's also not forget the sad tales of Rudy Giuliani, Henry Hyde, and Bob Dole, among others.
Michael Schiavo may be less than an angel when it comes to the strict *religious* concept of adultery, but no one has any right to judge his concern for Terri.

Technically speaking, they have all the right in the US to criticize.

Whether they *should* is another matter entirely. And pretty much, from what I've seen of the accusations leveled against Mr. Schiavo regarding his "adultery," all pretty empty, and only serve to make the critic look shallow, unrealistic, and deluded.

Gerry Adams is a member of Sinn Fein, a group that has often been called the "political wing" of the IRA. Sinn Fein doesn't engage in violence, but it's widely regarded that its members has close ties with the IRA.

Bill,

I guess the difference is that I highly respect you and, therefore, would be more troubled by any statement from you that I disagree with. Also, I know you will either agree with me or make a good argument in reply, which makes for a more interesting exchange than either silence or a snarky non sequitor insult.

After I posted, I wondered if your response might be something like this. I'm flattered, and I can certainly take that for a good answer at present -- I'll just remind you next time someone cogent says something that's desperately demanding a rebuttal.

And, to defend myself a bit here, I did, either in this thread or the other one, bring up the accusations against Mr Schiavo and state that they did not pass the logic test

Fair enough -- I'd forgotten that. Apologies. (It doesn't address the general abuse/neglect charges, but you're certainly making the overall point.)

Just to draw one more example -- do you think it's wrong for Gerry Adams to be called upon to disavow actions taken by the IRA?

I thought he was a member of the IRA.

I believe he would disagree with that, though I'm not sure. He always refers to himself as a member of Sinn Fein, which is not the same thing.

He sympathizes with the IRA's goals, certainly, but he's not a member and not one of the people who's ever been accused of the bombings.

I mean, am I wrong here or isn't it at least skirting with the "Guilt by Association" fallacy to ask proponents of an argument to disavow illegal actions of a few extremists?

Skirting with it, yes; actually falling prey to it, IMO no. Again, I think it's a question of the specificity of the arguments as opposed to just broad overall sympathies.

Would you also agree that whatever administration official linked Valerie Plame's name to the media should be fired? Seems that in the heat of little scandals people seem to forget about the ones that actually, y'know, cause deaths and stuff.

Absolutely, if it was a crime.

It is. I don't care what the Washington Post says. It's a crime, and IMO one bordering on treason.

Amazing how, after the election, the seriousness of the story has shifted in the eyes of the media.

I'll agree with that, only I'd add "appalling" after the "amazing". Perhaps I'm more easily appalled.

Anyway...I'm off to PA to see my girls.

Have a great time. Me, I'm doing third-quarter grades this weekend, which either means I won't be around here at all or will be here way too much and should be getting back to work...

TWL

I guess I missed it, but how do the accusations against Michael Shiavo not pass the logic test (though abuse tends to be illogical anyway)? I have no first hand knowledge, but living close allows me to hear the local news about it, which is a lot sharper than the national news (and to be honest, I'm not sure why some of it doesn't fall into the libel or slander arena).

I've thought about things a bit further, and I've decided that - while remarkable and uneven - it doesn't bother me at all that the government would try to stand up for the life of one person.

We carry on about the accusations against Mr. S., but we don't really know, just as we don't really know if Terri is in PVS. Enough doctors have said she isn't to make me wonder. Part of that wondering is if the media has a quantum physics effect on such cases - simply by peering so hard at the event, does the media shape the event? We've all been talking about something in which few, if any of us, know the facts. Hasn't stopped anyone (myself included) from drawing conclusions though.

We carry on about the accusations against Mr. S., but we don't really know, just as we don't really know if Terri is in PVS.

Sorry, but this doesn't stand the logic test either. Do you KNOW what a persistent vegetative state actually is and how they diagnose it?

Robbnn, I think there's an implied faith in the legal system involved here. Shocking to consider, I know, but I don't see many other rational reasons for those that side with the husband.

What it comes down to is that this case has been in and out of the court system for over 8 years. It's been appealed up and down Florida, and rejected by the US Supreme Court at least 5 times. And the courts have consistantly sided with the husband.

Now, if the US Congress can just come in and undo 8 years of judicial work, where would that leave us? EVERY person on the losing side of a heart-breaking, lose-lose case would appeal to the media and congress. There'd never be any finality or permanence to any judicial issue, because the loser would always have the chance that they could appeal to congress and have the courts overturned.

That's not the way our system works. I've seen some statements about how the Supreme Court doesn't have the final say about the laws in this country. That's really just flat out wrong. Our triumverate government is designed so that the courts DO have the final say about laws. Congress drafts them, the President signs and enforces them, and the courts decide what is and isn't "good law." And if the courts decide that the other 2 branches screwed up, that's the end of it.

So while it's not totally inconvievable that the husband could have fooled 8 years' worth of judges, it's highly improbable. And some of the accusations have been just that, and pretty wild. Such as the one that suggests that he tried to kill Terri by choking her...like the EMTs wouldn't have noticed the signs of strangulation? There's just no evidence anywhere to support that claim.

And from what I've seen, all the doctors that are now claiming that she's not in a PVS have not done more than study her records and view the tape the parents made. It's not the husband's doctors that declared her as being in a PVS...it was the court appointed doctors. The state of Florida declared her medical condition as PVS.

Do you KNOW what a persistent vegetative state actually is and how they diagnose it?

Most people apparently don't.

They'll just say what they want to make themselves believe that Terri has a chance to recover.

Fat chance that they'll listen to logic, science, and the rulings of a couple of dozen judges.

"Actually, PAD, I read something earlier that says that quite a few conservatives are actually getting semi-pissed about this."

Oh, I have no doubt that they are. But as you say, merely "semi-pissed." Not enough that they'll go vote Democrat. And what cheeses me are the Senate Democrats who know perfectly well that this is Congressional abuse, but caved and voted with the GOP because they didn't want to give the conservatives another opportunity to paint them as uncaring, unfeeling liberals come next election.

To me, it comes down to this: Two thirds of this country supports a woman's right to choose, but it also elected into office--and turned entire control of the government over to--a party that would love to overturn Roe v. Wade. The GOP isn't interested in how the people feel. It's interested in how the people WHO VOTE feel. And the latter doesn't always reflect the former.

PAD

Fat chance that they'll listen to logic, science, and the rulings of a couple of dozen judges.

You get used to it, dealing with creationists/intelligent designists. Same thing happening there.

Robbnn, I think there's an implied faith in the legal system involved here. Shocking to consider, I know, but I don't see many other rational reasons for those that side with the husband.

It's not an implied faith in the legal system, at least for me -- it's a belief that doctors, by and large, get it right far more often than they get it wrong. The science behind the diagnosis of a PVS is, while not perfectly clear-cut, relatively cut-and-dried -- and when several different independent physicians say that Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex has liquified, I take that as very solid evidence. Logic and science go a long way with me.

Of course, those who think science is merely another tool in politicians' arsenals are not likely to agree. This is why I'm an educator -- I'd like to correct those misimpressions as much as I can, or at least make sure that there aren't enough of those people to elect anti-science idiots on a regular basis.

Hasn't worked yet, of course.

TWL

Planning to move to Kansas, Georgia or Dover, PA any time soon, Tim?

" Also, I know you will either agree with me or make a good argument in reply, which makes for a more interesting exchange than either silence or a snarky non sequitor insult."

Sushi-thief.

Just read this on Bartcop:

"The Republicans have redefined marriage to be 1 man, 1 woman, her parents, & Congress"

Just thought I'd share

Planning to move to Kansas, Georgia or Dover, PA any time soon, Tim?

Not a chance. There's education and then there's nothing but masochism.

(Note to any Kansans, Georgians, or Doverians -- this is not to entirely slam your fair state/city. It's simply a comment on recent educational initiatives there.)

TWL

Re :Jerome

Okay ,while the parties on both side of this issue
may passionately believe they are right that does not mean they necessarily are right or should be involving themselves in things that quite frankly are none of their damn business.

My reasons for wanting these people in Hell is because they are exploiting peoples emotions ,not telling all the facts and demonizing a husband be he flawed or not going thru a horrible moment in his life.

Yes ,we could all find ourselves in this position but its something that should be decide by individuals not people with an agenda.

As far as my "black and white "answer somethings have no "nuances".More to the point if you call yourself a pro-lifer that means ALL life baby,adult,american,iraqi..whatever.

People being situational believers can be proven by simple observation,Example being someone who considers themselves "pro life "but would send death threats or commit acts of violence against another because they are executing their LEGAL RIGHT to perform abortions.

My comments about Pro -Death were meant to say can any truly call themselves antilife??!!!I mean outside of a fricking comicbook,the vast majority of the population is prolife ,it may not fit your or my specific views,but we all put some value on human life.
Im done Galactica is on

Posted by: Bobb at March 25, 2005 04:56 PM

That's not the way our system works. I've seen some statements about how the Supreme Court doesn't have the final say about the laws in this country. That's really just flat out wrong. Our triumverate government is designed so that the courts DO have the final say about laws. Congress drafts them, the President signs and enforces them, and the courts decide what is and isn't "good law." And if the courts decide that the other 2 branches screwed up, that's the end of it.

Actally, though that's the way it's worked since roughly the days of John Madison, that's not what the Constitution says -- a recent bill introduced in the House which would allow Congress to override any Supreme Court decision by a 2/3 majority stimulated me to go back to the actual words establishing the Supreme Vourt and definiong its relationship to the other branches, and i found:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To...

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

... so, apparently, the Congress does have the power to tell the Courts what they may or may not hear (or have to or not have to hear). Also, at no point does the Constitution overtly spell out the power of judicial review; i believe that it was John Marshall who arrogated it unto the Court (but i could be wrong about which Chief Justice it was).

(Also, notice that the Consittution does not capitalise "supreme" when talking about the court; it is simply the supreme [as in highest] Court rather than The Supreme Court, a proper name...)

The GOP isn't interested in how the people feel. It's interested in how the people WHO VOTE feel. And the latter doesn't always reflect the former.

What that tells me is that while most support choice, they don't base their votes on it. I doubt that more than 10% of the electorate based their vote on abortion policy. Part of that is the extremes in both parties. The GOP wants to restrict all abortion, the Democrats none. Most people are in the middle. Most believe that abortion in the first 3 months is okay, abortion in the last 3 is wrong.

As to the bit about the people versus the voters, well, "decisions are made by those who show up" to quote West Wing. Participation isn't mandatory, but it sure helps.

My ex-wife, a neurologist and thus better able than most to weed the truth from the crap on this issue, says that the reporting on both sides has been deplorable. There have been doctors who say she has a "flat EEG" which is impossible--she wouldn't be able to breath much less do her other actions. On the other hand, she is appalled by those docs who look at her scans and say they don't look too bad--they are, in fact, terrible.

One further though I haven't seen addressed: in all the talk about how the settlement money was spent, I have yet to see any justification for there even BEING any money to begin with. A woman chooses to starve herself, has a heart attack, sufferes 10 minutes of brain damage and this is the doctors fault exactly how?

A woman chooses to starve herself, has a heart attack, sufferes 10 minutes of brain damage and this is the doctors fault exactly how?

I'm guessing it has to do with something after she was taken to the hospital.

Now, I know that's a big "Duh" when you stop and think about it, but, well, yeah. :)

Maybe they didn't do something they should have that could have prevented some of the brain damage, etc.

As I understand it, no MRI or other kind of imaging has been conducted on Terri. If her brain is liquified, they haven't determined it by looking. I'm not saying it isn't, either. I just don't know. FWIW, my brother is missing a sizable chunk of his brain (the only way to stop his constant epileptic seizures was to remove several square inches of his brain).

He used to be perfectly healthy (he's gained too much weight to say he is healthy now, though). He can move, breath, and obviously feed himself, but - golly - a part of his brain is gone and he doesn't think like he used to. His personality is even quite different. He's said at various points of his life that he wishes he were dead (not related to his handicap, though). Should we stop feeding him?

Terri is physically healthy. She's not dieing when she is fed by a tube. The tube doesn't make her stomach work, it does that by itself. A ventilator actually works the lungs. A person on a ventilator IS dieing. I admit it is a fine line, but killing someone because she doesn't think like she used to (aaagggh, even as I write this, I do see your side of the argument - I wouldn't want to live like that either - nor like Chris Reeves did, nor like my brother, but suicide or medically assisted suicide - murder if it wasn't her wishes (and Michael admitted on Larry King's show that it wasn't her wish, it was his) is against the law. THAT'S what bugs me about this case, it doesn't blur the line, it steps right over.) What was I saying?

Also, none of the court cases dealt with Michael, just with the question of what to do with Terri (not WHAT was done to her).

The unborn have a right to life; the living have a responsibility to life. It doesn't end because we're unhappy with our condition. Chris Reeves made a greater contribution than he did before his accident. Terri will never recover what she lost, but that doesn't mean she's done.

Craig,

I just read something in the last few minutes that sted, without much deatil, that the money came from 2 doctors for not diagnosing here condition before the heart attack--ie they didn't know she was anorexic.

Sounds bogus but believable. Juries feel bad for someone and hell, it's just the insurance company that pays, right?

In the latest weird development, that noted neo-con RALPH NADER just came out for reinstating the feeding tube. Oy.

Robnn,

A CAT scan was done on Terri Schiavo in 1996. That's where the doctor's determined that the cortex was spinal fluid. For almost nine years, Terri has been "alive" with no higher brain functions.

the living have a responsibility to life. It doesn't end because we're unhappy with our condition.

Bull.

Life doesn't HAVE TO end because we're unhappy with our condition, but I'll be damned ('scuse the phrase) if I let you or anyone else tell me that I'm not allowed to die at a time of my own choosing.

Yes, Christopher Reeve made enormous contributions after his accident. Yes, he should absolutely be admired and celebrated for them.

That does not mean everyone else can or would do the same, and it does not mean that everyone MUST stay alive after a similar challenge. Reeve wrote that he strongly considered letting go and dying after the accident, and that he chose not to.

You admire that choice. So do I.

But it was a choice, not a mandate -- something which seems to be forgotten with alarming frequency.

And as for...

and Michael admitted on Larry King's show that it wasn't her wish, it was his

and

Also, none of the court cases dealt with Michael, just with the question of what to do with Terri (not WHAT was done to her).

... I believe the appropriate phrase is "Post proof or retract." Accusing Michael Schiavo of attempted murder is not only disgusting, but potentially libelous -- and I, for one, will need some sort of evidence in hand before I regard said accusation with anything other than disgust and contempt.

TWL

One more factoid from the ex-wife--She says that Christopher Reeves died, in part, from septic shock due to infections from bedsores. Not through any lack of care; it is very difficult to prevent bedsores in people afflicted with paralysis.

Ms Schiavo has been remarkably bed sore free, according to accounts that I have read, which would seem to put in serious doubt the claims by some that she has had sub-par health care since the imbroglio began.

Tim, you don't have the right to die at a time of your own choosing; you have the ability, but it is against the law. No need to be damned, though. :)

I've tried to be careful about accusing the husband of anything. It has been suggested, though, and as far as I know it has not been legally pursued. Accusing him without fact (which I haven't done, I don't think) is as bad as defending him without fact.

Mark, I hadn't heard about the CAT scan. I'd heard that it hadn't been done. One hears a lot, one does, whether we want to or not. Seems the only two things they can talk about on the radio is Terri and the show Survivor. Does that quality as ironic?

I've tried to be careful about accusing the husband of anything. It has been suggested, though, and as far as I know it has not been legally pursued

Actually, it has, and it was dismissed by multiple judges.

Personally, I think folks should be a LOT more careful about talking about this case without doing a little research.

Tim, you don't have the right to die at a time of your own choosing; you have the ability, but it is against the law

Well, not quite right. You do have the right to refuse care and therapy under the law.

And, frankly, I don't think you've been very careful at all about the facts about this case.

Tim, you don't have the right to die at a time of your own choosing; you have the ability, but it is against the law.

As Roger pointed out, this claim is incorrect. If I'm ill, I can refuse care.

Now, as for the idea of an otherwise healthy individual deciding to leap off a cliff or something ... you may be right that suicide in that sense is against the law, though I believe it varies state-by-state. It is, however, an exceptionally moronic law -- how exactly does the state file charges against a corpse?

(Pass laws against ATTEMPTED suicide if you like, though I'd advise you to avoid the irony of making it a capital crime...)

I've tried to be careful about accusing the husband of anything.

Fine: you've slyly insinuated it rather than directly accusing him. You have implied that there are untoward things going on that should be investigated (cf. the quotes I mentioned earlier).

That's even more slimy, and the fact that you're weaseling out of it here is not even remotely helpful or endearing.

And I notice you still have posted precisely zero evidence. You say he made some statement on Larry King -- give us a link to the transcript and let us judge for ourselves.

As Roger also mentioned, you've not been very careful about the facts of the case. The fact that you appear not to care unduly about this is saddening.

TWL

Mark L,
The GOP wants to restrict all abortion, the Democrats none.

Where did you get the idea that Democrats want unlimited abortion on demand? Could this be more Republican talking points? Democrats, traditionally, defend the woman's right to choose. I do not know of anyone who has endorsed abortion, unless the health of the mother is in peril, any time after it is now LEGAL to do so.

Tim, you don't have the right to die at a time of your own choosing; you have the ability, but it is against the law.

Well, as others have said, that's not quite right.

But then, as Congress has shown, if they don't want you to have the right to die, you won't.

And now some lawmakers have discussed bringing forth bills that would make it so you cannot pull the plug on somebody who doesn't have a living will.

So, if you're in the situation of Terri Schiavo, your parents will win.

I wonder how this would work, as it contradicts Texas' wonderful "futile care" law (signed by one George W. Bush)?

. I do not know of anyone who has endorsed abortion, unless the health of the mother is in peril, any time after it is now LEGAL to do so.

Peter Singer

BTW, for anyone interested in seeing a CT scan of Ms Schiavo, it's at http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT%20scan.png

The dark areas in the center are spinal fluid where brain tissue should be.

Bill,
Peter Singer

Well, I had to look him up and he does not endorse abortion on demand. Specifically: (from Wikipedia) (bolding mine)

Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide
Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being's ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one's future. Since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack the latter (but not the former) ability, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

While I defend that he doesn't want abortion on demand, I will also claim that ethically he is seriously challenged. He goes waaaaaay too far and citing the fringe element does as much to bolster your argument as those citing the fringe "doctors" who say Terri Schiavo can recover from her current PVS.

Peter Singer's name has come up in a number of places. I recall a lengthy article in the NYT Magazine a couple of years ago about a disabled woman (paraplegic, I think) who debated him about some of his ideas.

Singer is definitely pretty far out there on one extreme in terms of his ideas. (Not that this invalidates Bill's use of him as an example, mind you -- unless he tries to claim that everyone here must therefore believe likewise, and I rather doubt that's going to be the case.)

TWL

Couple of folks have mentioned CT scans and the like.A social worker at my job downloaded some info for us about the situation.Sorry I dont have the site address in front of me but.
CT scans were performed.
While people have shown some recovery from a brain injury like Mrs schiavo's it is only with in the first few months after such an injury that this has been seen.
Micheal Schiavo spent the first three years or so with various conventional or unconventional methods to try to restore his wife's condition.
He was very proactive in his wife's care to the point of being considered a nuisance to some of the careworkers.
Again I will try to post the site for anyone interested.

On another note do the people protesting on both side have jobs??Families???And for petes's sake leave the kids away from your protests.The reality of what kids may have to experience in life are hard enough ,let them be kids.If you decide to discuss with your children fine but to take them to rallies is just wrong in my opinion.

Somehow I think most kids would rather watch Nemo,the Incredibles,or go to the Zoo than stage a protest unless heavily influenced by an adult.
Just my opinions .

While I defend that he doesn't want abortion on demand, I will also claim that ethically he is seriously challenged. He goes waaaaaay too far and citing the fringe element does as much to bolster your argument as those citing the fringe "doctors" who say Terri Schiavo can recover from her current PVS.

I'm not exactly sure what the last part of your statement means (but I'm tired) but anyway, I'm not sure exactly under what circumstances Singer would not be for abortion on demand. He seems to be an extremist Utilitarian so I think he would see no absolute wrong in aborting a fetus at 8 1/2 months for purely monetary reasons.

And while Tim is correct that I don't think everyone here believes as he does--at the very least I think I can safely exclude myself--this IS possibly the most famous and influential living ethicist in this country. Which is pretty damn frightening.

'The GOP wants to restrict all abortion, the Democrats none.'

"Where did you get the idea that Democrats want unlimited abortion on demand?"

Gee, I don't know how ANYBODY could come with such a PREPOSTEROUS notion.....Oh, wait. Yes, I do. How about, because...

1.) The vast majority of politicians endorsed by NARAL and similar groups are Democrats, and that has been the case for about three decades now

2.) Any bill, from "Laci's Law" to restriction or elimination of federal funds for abortion to the partial-birth abortion ban - which to many supporters of abortion "rights" is an exception they would be willing to have, equivalent to the exception most people who oppose abortion would grant to rape, incest or life of the mother - are opposed by most Democrats

3.) It is generally accepted that a pro-life Democrat cannot win the Presidential nomination in his party, regardless on his support of other "women's issues"

4.) In 1984, Walter Mondale ran campaign ads accusing Reagan and the Republicans of wanting to end abortion, "even in the cases of rape and incest." He endorsed these cases, which is more than in just the case of the life of the mother."

5.) In 1992, highly respected Governor Bob Casey of Pennsylvania wanted to speak to the Democratic Convention about the issue, and some common ground for those on both sides of the aisle of his party on the issue. But the "party of diversity", led by Team Clinton, shut him down. How dare there be a dissenting voice on such an explosive issue! To add insult, female Republicans WERE invited to speak. The message was (and is) clear: If you dissent from the party line on this issue, well, we might put up with you (especially if you're from the South) but we will not welcome you, and will even choose members of the OPPOSITION PARTY who support the "right" view on this issue
But wait, there's so much more...

"Could this be more Republican talking points?"
No. The following statement, however, has become a cliched, absurd Democrat taling point:

"Democrats, traditionally, defend the woman's right to choose?"

Choose what? A new dress? To smoke in a restaurant? Whether or not to wear a seatbelt?

Sorry, but this line really pushes my buttons. If there are health issues or legal issues or equity issues in regard to the issue, fine. State them. Defend them. Argue them. Using such semantic sleight-of-hand will not work. Not anymore. Especially, when you follow it up with

"I do not know of anyone who has endorsed abortion"

Right. Neither did the women at the DNC who wore the "I got an abortion and am proud of it" t-shirts.They just endorse the "right" of someone to get one. There is no other issue where people are allowed to get away with such nonsense.
If George W. Bush were to proclaim, I do not endorse the drilling at ANWR, I just support the right of people to do so, you would rightfully laugh in his face.
If Robert Kennedy said, "I don't endorse segregation, I just support the right of local communities and individuals to do as they see fit", I believe history may be far less kind to him.
And again, why not just say you are "pro- abortion", since the press still labels people as anti-abortion. It's the only issue I know of where the natural flip term is not used on a regular basis.

"unless the health of the mother is in peril, any time after it is now LEGAL to do so"

Wrong. As stated, Democrats far outnumber Republicans in opposing "restrictions" like parental notification. And the time it is now LEGAL to do so can be done for ANY reason, not for women's safety but women's convenience.

"citing the fringe element"

No. What you don't realize is that while most Americans are divided about abortion, the Democrats more and more have leadership, especially on this issue, that is on the fringe.

Tim Lynch,
As I said, there are some excellent points you make that I would like to comment on (and have already but lost to electronic oblivion) so here goes. Since this thread is still highly active, I am hoping to get your responses.

"The bottom line, though, is this: the fact that the federal government's full bureaucratic force is being put into play for legislation concerning ONE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL is something that should frighten every single person out of every bodily fluid they possess."

First, this is done all the time in constitutional/judicial cases. ROE was only one woman. Anita Hill's sexual harassment charges were deemed worthy of Congress's attention for an inordinate amount of time. And so on.
The end , where you state every living person should be frightened out of every bodily fluis they possess,is a perfect example of the "politics of fear" you acuse Bush and the Republicans of so often.

"It is about as huge an intrusion as government can make into the life of an individual or the lives of a married couple."

Well, as I stated later, there are plenty of examples of this, one of the chief among them being domestic violence laws where a spouse (there are some wives who abuse their husbands) can be charged with abuse even if the their spouse doesn't want to press charges. But you conveniently ignored all my points in that post except to bash my contention that the Republican pro-life position in this case as being consistent with their views. But there IS hypocrisy on the parts of the Democrats, whether you choose to see it or not.

"It's amazing to me how many how many so-called small-government conservatives appear to be just fine with this action."

Not all of them. George Will is steadfastly stating that this violates states rights and that he is uncomfortable with it and does not support it. Bill O'Reilly has said the decision by the courts have been legally correct.

""If Congress is allowed to make legislation that is affecting one specific person and only that person, that opens a far bigger can of worms than removing a particular feeding tube."

Agreed, though I don't entirely agree that is being done here.

"It means the way is open for a Constitutional Amendment that, rather than lifting the "natural-born-citizen" ban, could be put in place to let Schwarzenegger and only Schwarzenegger get around the problem."

I understand your analogy, but feel the odds are incredibly smaller that would happen. An amendment would be tough enough if it included ALL foreign-born citizens.
An example of this is the backlash that resulted when one group took out ads that said basically what you suggest, "change the Constitution for Arnold." That is incredibly elitist, and was criticized by conservatives like Michael Reagan.
As an aside, I do feel the ban should be lifted. With so many people foreign-born contributing to this country, it is ridiculous that their "non-natural" status can keep them from the highest office in the land.
I think your Governor is doing some incredible things and think he would be a great choice if the rule were no longer in place.

"I've said before in the occasional abortion discussion that the same government we give the power over a woman's body to outlaw abortion will then have the power to mandate them, ot anything else with said body that it wants to."

You know, that is one of the sharpest arguments I have heard in the abortion debate. It is far superior to most arguments, most of which have become cliched.
However, we outlaw drugs people inject nto their own bodies, be it pot or cocaine or steroids. Do you reject these laws as well?

"

Tim Lynch Part 2,
Sorry. Just wanted to make sure my words weren't lost again.
Anyway...
"For that matter, what's to stop Congress from going the other way, and 'saving' Medicare, by saying that after you've spent $X on extreme care you're done, regardless of the particular situation?"
Oh, plenty. Plus, they're not as similar as you suggest. One involves the government not supporting (financially) keeping a citizen alive. In this case, two parents are willing to pay to keep their own daughter alive.
When you get down to it, who would that hurt?

"Anyone who claims that they want to 'protect' marriage from those evil gays"
I'm not one of them. I fully support civil unions, health benefits, etc. for gay couples. I just don't feel you can call it marriage, snce that is a religious institution. That so many would fight over what is essentially semantics and invite a backlash is beyond me.

"and simultaneously wants Congress to prevent a woman's husband from carrying out her final wishes is cordially invited to keep their mouths shut until they take, and pass, a basic logic course."

And you are cordially invited to prove, oh man of science, that these were indeed her wishes. No one else has succeeded in supporting his "claim" or corroborating it. And neither will you.

"To those who are saying, with no evidence, that Michael Schiavo intentionally put his wife in a coma and has been milking the situation for over a decade for the sake of what's now nonexistent cash - you are sick, twisted, hateful people, and I am ashamed to share a planet with you."

Agreed.

"Let's not get into the brain-dead action of subpoenaing a brain-dead woman."
And why would this bother people? Because the fact is she's ALIVE.

"Were I in a position to do so, I'd follow this up by sunpoenaing all the people that Bush's war put at risk. Every single soldier, one by one. Maybe their families, too."

See, you're starting to turn this from a reasoned argumnet to a rant against the Administration. But, actually, I would support your doing so. Since most of the troops support what they're doing and feel it's honorable, maybe we would hear that from the men who fight than the people on talk shows and in the media and on college campuses who claim to be speaking for them while bashing the war and everything they're doing at every turn. Maybe then, the NY Times and others would be forced to have america hear about the good we're doing, the schools we are building, etc., rather than beating incidents like Abu Ghraib to death.

"A few thousand Iraqi citizens, while I'm at it."
Same as above. Maybe those who were brutalized by Hussein, braved voting and are working with our troops and each other to build everything from new schools to a new government would actually have their voices heard, as well.

"So far as I can tell, little issues like factual evidence mean zero to those bent on interfering"

The same can be said of those who insist that 10% of our population is gay based on ONE study; that DDT should be banned; that global warming is a FACT despite evidence to the contrary; that we ever had 1.5 million homeless; that abortion is 'safe and legal' though many women die from legal abortion,and so on.

"Look, I know this an emotional case, and different people can have lots of diferent views on what should or shouldn't be done in Terri's situation. For those who recognize the difficulty and simply fall elsewhere on the spectrum than I do - let's hope we can find some common ground."

Thank you.

"For those who insist that there is only one answer and they've got it, however - you, and you, and you over there are precisely the reason keep predicting this country is headed for civil war."

A bit hyperbolic and cynical. I DO feel one of the major parties is going to crumble in the next two decades. We are reaching critical mass of frstration with government, whether it should do more or less. Whether more regulation is good or less. While the Democrats are not in a good position, they are still in the game. The pendulum COULD swing back. But if the Republicans start winning more minority voters, gain true control of the Supreme Court,if they succeed in Social Security reform and the like and make us less dependent on traditional programs and continue to gain strength on issues like health care and education, the Democrats are done.
If on the other hand the republicans overreach and blow this opportunity, they could be in big trouble, as the big tent splinters.
That's why the battles the next few years are so mportant. To both sides.

Jerome,

You put out the Democratic positions much better than I could, but remember that the Republican position - a Constitutional amendment banning ALL abortions - is just as much on the fringe of what most Americans think.

Jerome (part 1):

The bottom line, though, is this: the fact that the federal government's full bureaucratic force is being put into play for legislation concerning ONE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL is something that should frighten every single person out of every bodily fluid they possess.

First, this is done all the time in constitutional/judicial cases. ROE was only one woman.

Roe V. Wade was not a Congressional act. Of course judicial actions tend to affect single individuals -- that's how they come about.

Anita Hill's sexual harassment charges were deemed worthy of Congress's attention for an inordinate amount of time.

That's because they were direct accusations made against someone about to take a position on the highest court in the land.

There was also no Anita Hill Act proposed or enacted. Your analogy is more than a little specious. Show me a case where legislation has been put forward and passed specifically to affect one single individual and no one else.

The end , where you state every living person should be frightened out of every bodily fluis they possess,is a perfect example of the "politics of fear" you acuse Bush and the Republicans of so often.

First, it's called an opinion. I'm known to have them. So are you. Kindly deal.

Second, I very rarely use the term "politics of fear" or its equivalent. I think you've confused me with someone else on this point.

It's amazing to me how many how many so-called small-government conservatives appear to be just fine with this action.

Not all of them.

I'm aware of that. There's a reason I said "many" and not "all."

It means the way is open for a Constitutional Amendment that, rather than lifting the "natural-born-citizen" ban, could be put in place to let Schwarzenegger and only Schwarzenegger get around the problem.

I understand your analogy, but feel the odds are incredibly smaller that would happen.

The odds are not what concern me. The fact that we're opening the door to make it possible AT ALL is what concerns me.

As an aside, I do feel the ban should be lifted.

So do I, but not immediately. Given that natural-born citizens can run once they're 35, I would be completely in favor of letting a foreign-born indvidual run once they've been a citizen for 35 years. I seem to recall that at least one proposal has suggested exactly that -- I'd certainly support it.

I've said before in the occasional abortion discussion that the same government we give the power over a woman's body to outlaw abortion will then have the power to mandate them, ot anything else with said body that it wants to.

You know, that is one of the sharpest arguments I have heard in the abortion debate. It is far superior to most arguments, most of which have become cliched.
However, we outlaw drugs people inject nto their own bodies, be it pot or cocaine or steroids. Do you reject these laws as well?

Most drug convictions are for possession or distribution, not actual use -- but that's arguing semantics.

In general, I think we'd do a whole lot better if most of said drugs were legalized and then heavily regulated. It would allow us to treat drug abuse as the illness it is, and wipe out most of the crime connected with the drug trade.

For us to spend pile after pile of money on pot busts and leave the alcohol trade firmly in place is not only hypocritical, but absurdly ineffective. Booze is responsible for a whole lot more death than marijuana's ever been.

(And I say this as someone who doesn't drink and has never tried pot or any other drug, so it's not as though I have much of a personal stake here.)

TWL

Jerome (again),

"For that matter, what's to stop Congress from going the other way, and 'saving' Medicare, by saying that after you've spent $X on extreme care you're done, regardless of the particular situation?"

Oh, plenty.

Name one way. Don't toss the argument aside. Once you give Congress the power to decide the life-or-death fate of one person, you've given them the power to do it for everyone.

and simultaneously wants Congress to prevent a woman's husband from carrying out her final wishes is cordially invited to keep their mouths shut until they take, and pass, a basic logic course.

Okay, Jerome, stop right there.

That is not what I wrote. That is the spirit of what I wrote, yes -- but you removed a word. My exact phrase was "to keep their goddamn mouths shut".

You want to edit my words so that they don't offend you, fine. You do it again without making it obvious that you've done so, and we have a huge problem.

Back to the topic.

And you are cordially invited to prove, oh man of science, that these were indeed her wishes. No one else has succeeded in supporting his "claim" or corroborating it. And neither will you.

19 court cases (if I have that number right) say otherwise. I am not privy to all the facts of the case, and will not be without being one of the judges or juries involved. Neither can you.

The people entrusted by our judicial system -- not one person, but many different ones over the course of many different cases and many years -- have all agreed that there is clear and convincing evidence to support Michael Schiavo's claim.

They did not have a vested interest in one outcome or the other.

I, therefore, will believe them over the claims of an anguished parent, who while well-intentioned is likely blinded by grief and not thinking clearly about the matter. I would expect others to believe a judge over me were I in the Schindlers' situation (which I hope with all my being I never shall be).

That's how the system works, Jerome. Considering that you've always been one of the first to defend the legal system when it gives you outcomes you like (Bush v. Gore, for instance), I find it curious that this time you're not.

Let's not get into the brain-dead action of subpoenaing a brain-dead woman.

And why would this bother people?

Because it's fucking moronic, Jerome. When my tax dollars are being spent on clearly moronic activities, I tend to get annoyed.

End of point.

I'm not going to get into the Iraq discussion now. No time, and frankly not much interest. Believe what you will.

A bit hyperbolic and cynical.

As I said before -- it's an opinion.

TWL

Jerome Maida posted:
Gee, I don't know how ANYBODY could come with such a PREPOSTEROUS notion.....Oh, wait. Yes, I do. How about, because...

1.) The vast majority of politicians endorsed by NARAL and similar groups are Democrats, and that has been the case for about three decades now

Well, perhaps that's because abortion has been legal in this country "for about three decades now". You might want to recall that a certain George H W Bush was pro-choice right up until he was selected to run as Reagan's vice-president AND that the Republican Party, until 1980, recognized abortion's legality. It wasn't until the GOP unholy alliance with the Religious Right that the GOP included an anti-abortion plank in its party platform (and it was largely due to Reagan's own ties with the Religious Right).

2.) Any bill, from "Laci's Law" to restriction or elimination of federal funds for abortion to the partial-birth abortion ban - which to many supporters of abortion "rights" is an exception they would be willing to have, equivalent to the exception most people who oppose abortion would grant to rape, incest or life of the mother - are opposed by most Democrats

How about because those laws are simple end-runs around allowing a woman to choose to have an abortion? "Laci's Law" is as big a piece of shit as this garbage that Congress pulled with Terry Schiavo. I will guarantee you that in the very near future some fool will decide to use "Laci's Law" to prosecute a doctor who has performed a LEGAL abortion.
As for "partial-birth abortions", THERE IS NO SUCH THING. That's a fucking lie (sorry for the profanity, but it fits), put forth by the far-right anti-abortion extremists. And ANYONE who dares use that lying terminology doesn't have the first clue about the reality of the true procedure and has only listened to anti-abortion extremists who aren't interested in facts when they don't match what they want.
Anti-abortion extremists are the ones who devised the term "partial birth abortion" because they know it provides a more disturbing image even though it doesn't exist. You tell me how someone is "partially born" and then you define what a "partial birth abortion" is. Otherwise, you're just spewing forth a meaningless phrase.

3.) It is generally accepted that a pro-life Democrat cannot win the Presidential nomination in his party, regardless on his support of other "women's issues"

Gee, as opposed to a pro-choice Republican who can't win the Presidential nomination in *his* party? Face it. Since 1980, there has not been a truly pro-choice Republican who has received his party's nomination for the Presidency, and we've recently seen just how anti-choice the current GOP is when Arlen Specter was threatened with the loss of becoming the Senate Judiciary Commission chairman by commenting that anti-choice judicial nominees wouldn't be likely to be approved (since--when he made the comment--judicial nominees needed enough support to overcome a filibuster). It's also interesting to note that Specter is one of the few pro-choice Republicans in the Senate.
Don't make it seem like the Democrats are somehow alone in their "single-minded" attitude on the abortion issue.

4.) In 1984, Walter Mondale ran campaign ads accusing Reagan and the Republicans of wanting to end abortion, "even in the cases of rape and incest." He endorsed these cases, which is more than in just the case of the life of the mother."

Are you somehow suggesting this is the Republican attitude NOW? If so, you're woefully misguided.
From 1980 through the present, the OFFICIAL Republican Party platform has been narrowing and narrowing on its interpretation of abortion rights.
From LAST YEAR's Republican Party platform:

We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption.
(Note, if you will, no "punitive" actions against women, aside from the criminalization of a medical procedure so that doctors are not immune to prosecution which means that a woman who wants an abortion will be forced to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. We've already witnessed states enacting harsh anti-abortion measures--whether it's a mandatory 24- or 48-hour waiting period *after* being told of the "horrors" of an abortion, or, as with South Dakota's new law which forces doctors to tell a woman seeking an abortion that the procedure puts an end to a "human being", and the woman then has to sign a form which states she's been advised that she's ending that "being's life"--so who needs "punitive action" being taken against the woman who has an abortion? Strip away all provisions in which a woman can obtain a legal abortion, and you won't have to take "punitive action" against her.)

5.) In 1992, highly respected Governor Bob Casey of Pennsylvania wanted to speak to the Democratic Convention about the issue, and some common ground for those on both sides of the aisle of his party on the issue. But the "party of diversity", led by Team Clinton, shut him down. How dare there be a dissenting voice on such an explosive issue! To add insult, female Republicans WERE invited to speak. The message was (and is) clear: If you dissent from the party line on this issue, well, we might put up with you (especially if you're from the South) but we will not welcome you, and will even choose members of the OPPOSITION PARTY who support the "right" view on this issue

Oh, do some research, will you? What *really* caused Gov Casey's being "banned"? Could it be his lack of endorsing his Party's presumed nominee? That seems to be the real reason, not his anti-abortion stance. The simple fact is that a political party is not likely to allow ANY speaker who refuses to support the party's presumed ticket (which has been the case for both the Democratic AND Republican tickets for the better part of the last 3 decades). It's very easy for the anti-choice movement to claim that Casey was barred from speaking because of his stance, but it's also very easy to accept that issue wasn't the cause.
Furthermore, in 1996, Ohio Congressman Tony Hall did speak at the Convention in which he said, in part,
I'm a pro-life Democrat. I'm one of about 40 Democrats in the Congress. And many of us have felt left out by our party's position on abortion for many years. But this year is different. For the first time, the Democratic Party has included in our Platform a conscience clause on this divisive issue. It says, "the Democratic Party therefore recognizes that individual members have a right to abide by their conscience on this difficult issue and are welcome participants at every level of the party."
Then, we have the very odd situation where a Catholic Archbishop provided the invocation to the 2000 Democratic Convention in which he said, in part,
"I welcome you to the "City of Angels" with all its vibrant religious, ethnic, and racial diversity. I come to this great convening out of respect for our nation's democratic traditions. I come as a pastor, not a politician; an advocate of values, not candidates.

[. . .] As you gathered your people into the land that was promised to them, you called them to heed your voice and follow your commandments. These commandments are at once simple and profound: To love God above all else and to love our neighbor as ourselves. We have been called to "choose life" and to "serve the least of these."

[. . .] In the span of just three weeks, our nation's major political parties will have gathered at their conventions to select their candidates for the upcoming presidential campaign. We pray tonight that your Spirit will inspire all candidates, regardless of party, to embody in their words, actions, and policies values that protect all human life, establish peace, promote justice, and uphold the common good. For it is in you, O God, that we trust.

In You, O God, we trust that you will keep us ever committed to protect the life and well-being of all people but especially unborn children, the sick and the elderly, those on skid row and those on death row.
(emphasis added)

Of course, prior to last year's Republican Convention 127 of the House's 227 Republican members signed a formal complaint to Bush over the lack of any pro-life supporters being able to speak during prime-time. They weren't mollified by John McCain's prime-time speech as he had run "against" religious conservatives in 2000 nor could they take comfort in Zell Miller's speech as he's a (nominal) Democrat.
A comment from Sen Lindsay Graham of South Carolina was rather telling: "But a lot of conservatives believe the conservative movement that got us here is being ignored at the convention." One can't help but guess which "movement" he's alluding to.

Show me a case where legislation has been put forward and passed specifically to affect one single individual and no one else.

The Elizabeth Morgan case. Which was also an abuse of power (and eventually declared unconstitutional).

Arguably, the bill that was put through congress specifically to overrule the contract that Nixon made with the government for his papers was also designed to apply to one single person.

Joseph W.
Nice rebuttal. You added many things I didn't think of when I read Jeromes post.

If this were a man's choice, I wonder if we as a country would still be arguing over this 3 decades after it was made legal. It is a woman's body and SHE has the decision on whether she will allow a couple of cells to grow into a baby. I'm coming to believe the whole argument is more about control of women than about what is life and when it begins. I became pregnant at 39. When we found out is was more than just pre-menopusal symptoms my husband asked whether I wanted to have an abortion. It was my decision. Having a baby at 40 is not as easy as at 20. Knowing I will be past 60 when my child graduates college, knowing to pay for that we will be working well into what could have been retirement. There were many mental and emotional reasonings that went into my decision. (Not financial, since at our age we are getting by, unlike a teenager) I could have decided I could not raise a child at this age, when many are becoming grandparents. If my baby had a genetic anomoly (tested for with the amniocentisis) I would not have hesitated to get an abortion. I don't believe I am emotionally or physically able to care for a child with those kind of needs.

The bottom line is that this decision is a woman's to make. It is law, just like it is law for Michael Schiavo to decide on Terri. Everyone else needs to butt out. Until the neo-cons in charge manage to change the constitution so they get to make all the decisions. And since they seem to be heading in that direction, we should all be very frightened.

"19 court cases (if I have that number right) say otherwise. I am not privy to all the facts of the case, and will not be without being one of the judges or juries involved. Neither can you."

I'm no expert in law and I'd like to throw this out there to those who know better--this phrase, or something like it, often gets thrown around when we face, as now, the end of a lengthy court process.

My impression, and again, let me know if this is incorrect, is that it is highly unlikely that 19 courts actually looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion. That, in actuality, when you appeal up the ladder you are having to prove that there was something wrong with the way that the first court reached it's decision. If you just got outlawyered you are pretty much SOL. This is why you sometimes have death penalty cases where, in my view, a jury that has all of the evidence available TODAY would have reached a different conclusion, but the verdict stands unless they can show some malfeasance or incompetence on the part of counsel or judge.

None of which changes my opinion on this case but I think we should be clear on the facts (and, if you ever go to court, spend the money up front. Plan to win the case, not the appeal.).

Bill,
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. My point was that there are extremists on both sides of the questions. The people who get abortions, women, want it to be their decision. Those against abortions want to be able to make those decisions. A very small percentage of abortions occur after the 3rd month. (I posted a link to that research a while ago.) Any group of cells at that time is not viable. Most done after the 3rd month are for the woman's health or because the fetus has developed major problems. By creating these laws, like the 24 hour rule, you are making it more difficult for a woman to legally end a pregnancy. The longer a pregnancy continues the more expensive it is to terminate. I guess some people won't be happy until it is illegal, but just as before Roe v. Wade, it won't stop. There will simply be many more deaths from complications or botched abortions.

Mark L.,
"Jerome,
You put out the Democratic positions much better than I could, but remember that the Republican position - a Constitutional amendment banning ALL abortions - is just as much on the fringe of what most Americans think."

Possibly. But that is not the point. I was simply responding to Karen's bewilderment that the Democratic party is seen as supporting abortion.

Oh, do some research, will you? What *really* caused Gov Casey's being "banned"? Could it be his lack of endorsing his Party's presumed nominee? That seems to be the real reason, not his anti-abortion stance. The simple fact is that a political party is not likely to allow ANY speaker who refuses to support the party's presumed ticket (which has been the case for both the Democratic AND Republican tickets for the better part of the last 3 decades).

Please. A little research into this shows that Casey was exiled and humiliated for exactly the reason of his opposition to abortion. Kathleen Brown of California had not endorsed Clinton, but she was allowed to speak. The party even went to the extraordinary trouble to give the microphone to a pro-choice REPUBLICAN who had just campaigned unsuccesfully against Casey. Al Gore even called to apologize for that snub.

Even more damning--the Democrats have never made much effort to disavow the idea that Casey's views arewhat got him banned. I guess they wanted the message to get out and it has, judging from how several candidates for thr presidential nomination became born again pro-choicers once their ambitions grew.

What amazes me is how Casey gets described as a "conservative" democrat when he was an extremely progressive liberal. For all the good it did him.

Show me a case where legislation has been put forward and passed specifically to affect one single individual and no one else.

The Elizabeth Morgan case. Which was also an abuse of power (and eventually declared unconstitutional).

Hmm. I'm not familiar with that one. I'll have to go see what I can find on it; thanks. (The fact that it was recognized as an abuse of power just supports my point, of course -- but I'm 99% sure you realized that.)

Arguably, the bill that was put through congress specifically to overrule the contract that Nixon made with the government for his papers was also designed to apply to one single person.

Perhaps (though you could make a serious argument that it was intended to set a precedent) -- but like the Anita Hill hearings, that's a rather special case when the single individual in question is in a special position and possessing extraordinary power.

My impression, and again, let me know if this is incorrect, is that it is highly unlikely that 19 courts actually looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion.

I'm no lawyer either, but I suspect you're right on the money here. I think my point is still valid, though -- if there were a significant error on the facts of the case, at least one step of the appeals process would have noticed that and acted accordingly.

I do agree with your advice, though -- plan to win the case and not the appeal. I'm hoping not to be in a position where I'm worried about either one, but if you've got to win, win the first one.

TWL

Even more damning--the Democrats have never made much effort to disavow the idea that Casey's views arewhat got him banned. I guess they wanted the message to get out and it has, judging from how several candidates for thr presidential nomination became born again pro-choicers once their ambitions grew.

While I have a lot of criticisms for the current incarnation of the Democratic party, this isn't really one of them.

Parties need guiding ideals and visions -- without any vision beyond "we've gotta win this one", they can flounder, as the 2004 election proved conclusively. (Not that said election was as pure as the driven snow IMO ... but if the Dems had done even a half-decent job it wouldn't have ever been close.)

As far as this particular Democrat is concerned, respect for a person's right to control his or her own body is a non-negotiable tenet. Individual people can and will differ in their opinions about abortion and under what circumstances it's appropriate or inappropriate ... but if someone is going to offer legislation giving the government power over that decision rather than the woman in question, that shows a contempt for the average citizen that I want no part of.

I'm not familiar enough with the Casey imbroglio to know exactly where on the spectrum he happened to fall (and I'm almost ashamed to admit that, given that the '92 election was the only the second one I had a chance to vote in), so I can't really talk about whether this particular decision was reasonable or not -- but I have no objection at all to the Democrats simply saying "we are a pro-choice party." It'd be a lot less hypocritical than any number of other things both parties have done.

TWL

Jerome:
Possibly. But that is not the point. I was simply responding to Karen's bewilderment that the Democratic party is seen as supporting abortion.

No, you said abortion on demand, which is quite different than supporting abortion. We support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Abortion on demand has quite a different connotation.

I'm a bit late to the debate here but I'll throw my two cents in anyhow.

On Terri herself:

The talking heads and public figures fighting for both sides of this case seem to have no second thoughts about throwing the most extreme points for their sides out there for public consumption. This has resulted in a mess where about half of what everyone "knows" about the history of this case is about as factual as a photo of the Loch Ness Monster. It's also almost completely pointless. Even the facts.
The thing we should be looking at is what is right now. Did her husband spend these years fighting to carry out her last wishes or did he do everything he could to destroy her chances of ever having a chance. To some degree it doesn't matter in this arguement. The damage is done. Scans of her brain and other medical tests show that she doesn't have the ability to recover the way so many want/pray her to. The things reported as what she has done or "said" in recent times to respond to family are accounts stretched thin by hope. The hard science of the matter, taken into account everyday in this country to do this same thing in hospitals in every state (and begging the question of just what planet these people and Pols who act like this is a wholey new or unique case have been living on all these years), says that she is basically brain dead. She is a shell with little or nothing of who or what she was left in it.
Whatever has brought her to this point is, for just this choice, pointless. If she was abused or her husband did things that were designed to bring her to this point..... That's another matter and another legal case/cause.
The simply named "feeding tube" is another matter. Everyone keeps talking about how they won't feed her by court order as though just putting a Big Mac in her mouth is all it takes. Just give her a glass of water and she'll be fine. That machine that so many talking heads want to talk down as if it were light years from being the type of machine that keeps the lungs or heart working is actually a far more complicated system that took longer to develope and perfect. Read up on the thing sometime. It's amazing in how much it actually does that the name "feeding tube" doesn't come close to describing.
If I were in her position, my soul trapped between life and death, I would want to die. I would look on it as a mercy.
Don't get me wrong on one point. I Think her husband, from what I've been able to learn on my own and from having lived down there in sunny Florida when this was still just a local thing, is an jerk. I think he did more then his fair share at putting her into the state she is in now. I think some of his actions should have been fought. But the time to fight that cause was 5, 10, or 15 years ago. Not now. Now isn't the timw to be fighting over what has been done. The choice now is keep a shell alive with an advanced machine or let a soul rest.

On Bush and the GOP.

They disgust me right now.

These are the people preaching about state rights and the constitution and keeping big Gov out of our lives and they pull this garbage for votes. And make no mistake about it. The GOP internal memo stating backing this cause would be great for votes in the base displayed what quite a few of these "fine men with noble hearts erring on the side of life" are really looking at here.
The garbage they've pulled in the last week was a slap in the face to the Constitution in their attempt to run around both state's rights and the seperation of powers. These are the same people that claim "the Libs" are always doing things to strip the Constitution of meaning and thwart the rule of law or the Seperation of Powers and they just did something that dwarved the greatest attempts of anyone before to undermine it and turn the Constitution and what it stands for to Bathroom tissue. It was an example of Goverment power out of control. An attempt to pass a law for one person too preen for their base and get votes? It was the single most shameless act I've seen in some time.
The Dems aren't making me much happier. They spoke out against this but, like the Iraq vote and the many votes since 9/11 dealing with important issues, failed to stand behind their statements when the vote came. They spoke against it, voted for it and then point the finger at Bush. Can't risk actually standing for something when the next vote comes up or they may have to explain it in straight up langauge when they're about to be voted on by the public. It's no wonder that they're a party in ruin. They deserve it. Maybe once they completely destroy themselves they'll be reborn into a party that remembers what it was and will regrow a spine.
Makes it so much fun to pick a lever to pull in elections. Disgust VS slightly greater disgust. Great choice there.

We support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Abortion on demand has quite a different connotation.

Karen, I'm not entirely certain I see where you're coming from...what exactly is the definition of "Abortion on Demand"? My understanding of the current law is that you can get an abortion at just about any time during pregnancy, even the third trimester, as long as a doctor signs off on the pregnancy being harmful to one's "health"--which can just as easily be mental health as physical health.

At any rate, if one truly does "support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion" in the absense of any qualifiers, isn't that pretty much abortion on demand? If there are qualifiers what are they and by what moral logic do you have them? (Me, I use the patented "Bill Mulligan Ewww Test" which pretty much outlaws most of the things that make me go "Ewww..." but I recognize that few modern ethicists have signed on to this epistemology.)

Casey was restricted from speaking at the convention, but it wasn't because of his pro-life position per se as it was the fact that he wanted to use the forum to protest the party's position. For better or for worse, convention speeches are not the place to air the party's dirty laundry. Party members are expected to show unity in their support for the platform and their candidate. It was a scuzzy thing to do to him, but that's politics.

It's interesting to note, though, that Casey's son, Bob Casey Jr. is now seen as the Democrat's big hope to unseat Rick "So what if my kids don't actually live in Pennsylvania, fork over the taxpayers' money" Santorum.

And in fairness it should be noted that Bob Casey Sr WAS allowed a place at a later convention, in the form of a filmed tribute.

It's regrettable that honest and informed disagreement on an issue that has closely divided the population can be accurately described as dirty laundry. And I'll note that there have been Republican speakers at their conventions who have defended their pro choice and pro affirmative action positions, without being ridden out of town on a rail.

Tim, I apologize for just tossing out Elizabeth Morgan as though that was a case that everyone would automatically know about. One of my many failings is the tendency to forget that my advancing age and lifelong interest in semi useless trivia is not shared by the world at large. She was a doctor, divorced from another doctor who she said was molesting their daughter. When the court did not believe the charges she smuggled her daughter to New Zealand or someplace and was placed in jail on contempt charges.

It became a cause celebre and, despite the fact that she has crazy eyes she got a number of politicians to help draft the Elizabeth Morgan law which pretty much overturned all the previous court findings and let her get away with it.

I followed the case because it was on eof those where I just wasn't sure who root for. Dr Morgan had, as mentioned, crazy eyes and just an air of cold blooded creepiness and turned me off...but her ex-husband sent off major creep vibes as well. The law was eventually overruled, the daughter has now grown up to be, judging from the one interview I have read, a very biter unhappy woman. She does support her mother's version of events but I guess we'll never know.

Anyway, there is an old saw about "hard cases make bad laws". Truer words were never spoken.

On the abortion issue...how are Democrats going to begin to win if they try to purge their ranks of however many remaining pro-lifers they have left? This is not a party that can afford to lose too many more constituants. I know that PAD and others have said that 3/4 of the country is pro-choice...I'm not sure if that is accurate, if the gallup polls I have here are true. And it seems like the situation is getting worse, since young people are even less pro choice than older ones.

I'm no fan of the current democratic party but if it self destructs we are in for a bad time. Ditto the Republicans.

Tim, I apologize for just tossing out Elizabeth Morgan as though that was a case that everyone would automatically know about.

No apologies needed -- it's reasonable to expect people to do their own research some of the time, after all. (I do appreciate the extra info, though.)

Anyway, there is an old saw about "hard cases make bad laws". Truer words were never spoken.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

On the abortion issue...how are Democrats going to begin to win if they try to purge their ranks of however many remaining pro-lifers they have left?

By speaking out strongly and cogently against the fallacy that "pro-choice" equals "pro-abortion". Clinton was and is pro-choice, but got a very long way by frequently referring to his desire that abortion be "safe, legal, and rare."

If Democrats can say "look, we want to do all we can to minimize the conditions that make women feel as if abortion is their only option, but we cannot and will not say that we know her fate and her situation better than she and her doctor do," they can win in landslides, especially when there's somebody like Tom Coburn in the other corner making an ass of himself.

The problem with the Democratic party is not that their ideals are wrong -- it's that most of the leadership is a bunch of cowards who aren't willing to explain clearly and forcefully why they believe what they do.

(That, BTW, is exactly why I think Dean taking over as head of the DNC is a good thing. I know you believe otherwise, but the word "meek" is not a word I associate with Dr. Dean at all. And hey, as a physician he can even position himself as the anti-Frist. I like this.)

If the American public really is too dense to grasp the distinction between pro-choice and pro-abortion when it's explained clearly ... well, then, we're all pretty much screwed anyway, because that will bespeak equal density on a number of other issues as well.

I was going to save this for another thread, but since you've sort of provided a context for it, I've been meaning to ask: why DO you self-identify as a Republican? You've said you don't like the current leadership's stance on deficit spending, you're clearly against their position on gay marriage, and I can think of several other issues where your position does not exactly link up well with that of most prominent Republicans. So where's the appeal?

This isn't an attack, and I'm not trying to peel you away (though I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't mind that). I'm just curious about where that allegiance (too strong a word, but best I can come up with for now) comes from.

TWL

"The problem with the Democratic party is not that their ideals are wrong -- it's that most of the leadership is a bunch of cowards who aren't willing to explain clearly and forcefully why they believe what they do.

(That, BTW, is exactly why I think Dean taking over as head of the DNC is a good thing. I know you believe otherwise, but the word "meek" is not a word I associate with Dr. Dean at all. And hey, as a physician he can even position himself as the anti-Frist. I like this.)"

Tim,I couldnt AGREE with you more.The problem I have is too many Dems seem timid and wishwashy to not offend the middle ground voter.I go with Bill Maher who said (paraphrasing)"they either get your message or they dont,but have a message to give"
While I dont like a lot of what the Republicans say they at least have conviction about it.This doesnt mean they are right it just means they believe what they are selling (or at least sound like it).
My only concerns with Mr Dean is that he is still perceived by some as the screaming guy from the election.Hopefully he will stay thinking ouside the box and clearly define the goals of the democratic party and sell them to the voters

Deano 8)

Tim,

A reasonable question. My answer is simply that on the Big Issue I think that the Democrat Party has, by and large, yet to prove itself worth the risk of giving them a crack at leadership. I think--andthere are times when I optimistically think that I may be wrong about this--that we are at a major crossroads in civilization, a point at which the world may either begin an ascent into a technological rebirth the likes of which can only be compared to either the industrial age or the discovery of agriculture. Basically, the Golden Age of our pulp fiction dreams.

Or, conversely, a step backward of a few hundred years.

It could happen through natural means. 4 billion years or so of life and it was only in the last few hundred thousand years that anything with intelligence evolved. I suspect it was because of a very finite window of opportunity, a brief pause in the up to now endless cycle of natural disasters that tend to hit the reset button on the whole game of life. I don't know what it was that brought the precambrian party to its knees but I know it'll be back.

What little chance we may have to avoid extinction will come from our technological innovations and I see the republicans, or at least conservatives as much more positive toward industry and innovation. There are obvious exceptions to this generalization. Stem cells spring to mind. The sort of thing I'm thinking here is that, to hear many Democrats talk, there are few industries more evil and insidious than the pharmaceutical industry. Blood sucking parasites, living off the misery of others. Since I owe my life or at the very least my designation as a biped to the invention of Vancomycin (Long story. It involves my cat.) and I owe much the enjoyment of that ife to the inventors of computers and stuff like chocolate redi-whip (seriously--it's chocolate whipped cream...,i>in a can!) I just have a much more pro business attitude than is often present among some liberal activists.

And as far as foreign policy goes, phew, I'm so far away from what the Democrat party is and where it will be going if you have yopur way that there is just no chance of reapproachment, as far as I can see. Maybe if Hillary gets elected. At the risk of giving my fellow conservatives an aneurism, I have a feeling that she may end up being exactly the kind of unilateralistic ball buster the world needs. They may name nuclear subs after her. Imagine Hillary is in office, first woman president, and the North Koreans start sneering about how they will rain fire down upon us if we fuck with them. Boom! Thermic mist. She might even invade Vietnam--what the hell would anyone do about it?

I mean, to give you an idea of how neo THIS neoconservative is, I'd have done Iraq as scheduled only I would have A-bribed as many turk politicians as needed to get the north corridor cleared, B- paved over Falluja the first time, and C- flooded the real pain inthe ass cities in the Sunni triangle with my newly formed crack Kurd army. My Sudan policy would be to keep assasinating the leaders until we got one who was not in favor of genocide. I'd announce to the world that 50 years of freedom is enough to establish the fact that Taiwan is its own country, as we all know it is, and the Chinese should just learn to deal with it. They'll get over it, the benefits of taking over what would be nothing more than a bombed out husk would be outweighed by the loss of a few hundred million jobs if we suddenly stopped buying their stuff.

So George Bush is way too meek for me. We're getting to that point where even pissant countries have nukes and we need to come up with some guidelines, unfair as it may be--I'd like to see the USA, Russia, China, England, Israel, India and a few of the other nuclear powers just announce Hey, that's it. Clubhouse is closed. And when someone tests their resolve, as someone will...we hope that it's a country few will miss. I think that the lesson is one that will not have to be repeated.

All of which is terribly unfair and hey, who made us king and how would we like it if a big giant came and yadda yadda yadda. I've got 40 maybe 50 years left in me, with a bit of luck. My children, bless them, may live to see the Golden Age, my grandkids almost certainly will. For now, it is my conviction that the people following the conservative line, which pretty much means the Republican Party, are more likely to get us there. When that changes, if it does, I'll change my affiliation at the drop of a hat.

And my darling daugter is now kicking me off the computer so she can IM her boyfriend. So excuse the spelling errors.

On the abortion issue...how are Democrats going to begin to win if they try to purge their ranks of however many remaining pro-lifers they have left?

That may be a problem for them, but I think they're waking up to that fact. And I point to the tremendous political support being put behind Bob Casey Jr (whose views on abortion mirror his fathers) as proof.

On the other, the Republicans are also engagin in, if not a purge, then at least a freeze out of all remaining pro-choice members.

The GOP internal memo stating backing this cause would be great for votes in the base displayed what quite a few of these "fine men with noble hearts erring on the side of life" are really looking at here.

Something not widely discussing the in the mainstream media is that the "GOP internal memo" is possibly bogus. It was not on Congressional/Senate letterhead, it was not distributed except to ABC News, it was not signed and is sloppily researched by whoever wrote it. Though it hasn't been fully discredited as a Republican memo, neither has it been shown to be one.

(http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php#009940)

I seem to remember reading a couple of days ago that a few Senate Democrats are even beginning to doubt it and ask for investigations.

Am I the only one amused by the sheer hypocrisy by both major parties?

The Republicans, the "smaller government" party, the party that is all about state rights, now wants the federal government to step in and "correct" the state's mistakes. And they have done this by giving the federal government even MORE power!

Meanwhile, the Democrats, who are all about the government regulating every facet of our lives, from cradle to grave, suddenly want the states to decide this one thing. (At least they're consistent in wanting to control the fate of this individual's life, regardless of what her wishes may or may not be.)

No wonder I hate both major parties.

I think Dean taking over as head of the DNC is a good thing.

I agree. Dean taking over the head of the DNC is a good thing ...

For the Republicans.

If the Democrats have any hope of regaining control of Congress in 2006, or even the White House in 2008, they need shun the fringe, lunatic, "Michael Moore" part of their base. Dean is practically the de facto leader of that group.

You will note how Hillary Clinton is slowly moving towards the center as she positions herself for the inevitable run to the 2008 presidential nominationship?

Something not widely discussing the in the mainstream media is that the "GOP internal memo" is possibly bogus.

You know, it's funny how I always learn about items that aren't "widely discussed in the mainstream media" by watching the mainstream media.

If the Democrats have any hope of regaining control of Congress in 2006, or even the White House in 2008, they need shun the fringe, lunatic, "Michael Moore" part of their base. Dean is practically the de facto leader of that group.

Not really. While Dean got stuck with that lunatic fringe label, the truth is that he's actually a very moderate Democrat compared to Moore.

Most hurtful thing to Dean's bid for the White House? Looping his "war cry" over and over. No one wants a lunatic as President. Which is not to say that, occasionally, one ends up there anyway.

Den,
"On the other hand, the Republicans also engage in, if not a purge, then at least a freeze-out of all remaining pro-choice members"

Which is why Rudy Guliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger were both given maximum exposure at last year's convention, why the former is a leading GOP candidate for his party's nomination and why the latter has started a debate withing the party, not merely about his positions, but whether the Constitution should be changed to allow him to run

Deano,
"My only concerns with Mr. Dean is that he is still perceived by some as the screaming guy from the election."

Whereas my concerns would be that he seems to grate on people even those inclined to support him, through sheer arrogance and nastiness. The people of Iowa had two years to get to know him. At first, they were excited, then that quickly wore off once they got to know him and he lost. Michael Moore was ready to support him, but put his checkbook away because he felt "this guy is kind of a prick." And the one of the few times he was actually challenged during the debates, by Sharpton about minority hiring in his Vt. Cabinet,he was left grasping for words.

"they either get your message or they don't, but they have a message to give. This doesn't mean they are right it just means they believe what they are selling (or at least sound like it)."

Yes, they do. Finally. For 40 years, in the aftermath of the New Deal and World War II and through the Cold War, and even Republican presidencies, Congress remained in Democratic hands. Many felt they were doomed to minority status in perpetuity (sound familiar?). The best that could be done, many felt, was elect a Republican president to keep them in somehat restrained.
How did they do this? While Republicans talked numbers on an issue like Social Security or Nedicare, the Democratic Congressional candidate would make an ad that went something like this, "Here's 86, year-old Mrs. Jones. A great-grandmother of 16, she depends on her Medicare benefit. My opponent wants to take that away."
The Democrats were great at such images.
The Republicans truly learned the game in 1994, by personalizing the health care debate, and swept in. They have continued to do so and show no sign of losing their edge. Which means Democrats have to put some ideas of their ow on the table, something they have not done successfully.

Dean is practically the de facto leader of that group.

I fail to see how Dean is 'fringe'. The looping of his "war cry" should alone show how the media isn't liberally biased (why hurt your own candidates?).

If being on the 'fringe' means you're not a Democrat in Republican's clothing, then I'll take Dean any day of the week.

Bill,
"I'm no fan of the current Democratic party but if it self-destructs we are in for a bad time. Ditto the Republicans."

No. See, I don't think these are the two parties we are "stuck with" for perpetuity Neither party is entitled to exist. If they slowly lose potency or support, then a party with ideas they are willing to stand up for like the Libertarians or the Greens or one we do not know yet will step in and fill the vacuum.The libertarians have been gaining strength for years, which is a sign the country is definitely tilting "Right". But they would also be a place for those who are fiscally conservative, yet consider themselves pro-abortion rights and anti-drug war - among many 'liberal' positions - to go.

Dean has not been bad so far butthe problem is that his job is to sell the Party, not himself. he can get a crowd fired up but can anyone remember the names of the people he came to promote?

He has one thing in his favor--you have to figure that the Democrats will pick up some congressional seats in 2008. I mean, just the law of averages, there comes a point where you can't lose any more. casey has a good chance in PA and they are running a Kennedy in Rhode Island (ironically, against the most liberal Republican in the senate).

On the abortion issue...how are Democrats going to begin to win if they try to purge their ranks of however many remaining pro-lifers they have left?

That may be a problem for them, but I think they're waking up to that fact. And I point to the tremendous political support being put behind Bob Casey Jr (whose views on abortion mirror his fathers) as proof.

On the other, the Republicans are also engagin in, if not a purge, then at least a freeze out of all remaining pro-choice members.

On the Democrats you are correct but I was talking about Tim's ideas--after the election he was talking about what can only be a purge of people like Lieberman who didn't fit the image of a more aggressively liberal party (I don't know that Tim still feels that way--emotions were running high at that time).

On the Republicans...hello? Remember the convention? Rudi, Arnold, Condi--it IS possible to be a pro-choice republican and reach high levels (presidency? We'll see.). The problem with Specter was that some felt he would refuse to allow any pro-life judges through. Bad enough to have the other party using litmus tests, one can understand how there were some reluctant to allow one of their own to attain a position of power to do it. But, in the end, he became the chairman (so much for being frozen out).

Tim,

My point is that there is just too much unknown (mostly to me, it seems) to come to decent conclusions. I've obviously done it badly; limited time and laziness being the reason. I felt this was an imbalanced discussion because so much of what I've heard hasn't been represented (and I haven't represented it very well). I'm not trying to weasle out of anything, I simply don't know.

Jerome,

I don't see either the Greens or the Libertarians ever amounting to much--too single issue, too unrealistic (Libertarianism sounds great if you live in an Ayn Rand novel but I can't see us succesfully pulling it off at this late in the game).

As a passionate beliver in free market capitalism, I think it's obvious that if one party weakens too much it will also weaken the dominant party--no competition makes for a shoddy product.

Unfortunately, the solutions to the Democrat's problems will probably not come about if they let the MoveOn.org crowd hold sway. Those guys (like Dean) are good at raising and spending money. Results? Not so much.

Karen,
"The bottom line is that this decision is a woman's to make"

First, in all seriousness, thank you for sharing your personal experience. It just proves that what we are talking about here is tough stuff.
But it also brings up an important point I would like to make. What about a male who is in the same position as you were? What about a 16-year old male teen whose hormones were raging and now is obligated to be a father until he is 34? What about a 55-year old who does not have Michael Douglass money suddenly finding out his 22-year old girlfriend is pregnant and he has to worry about T-ball practice and school plays again? What about the many women who "trap" men by getting pregnant. This is often done with pro athletes. Because to get the child support from such a wealthy athlete is akn to hitting the lottery. One athlete spoke about waking up and seeing his date that evening using a turkey baster to retract his semen from his condom he had thrown away and...try to squirt it into herself in an attempt to get pregnant.
But as the law stands now, males have no right in such a situation.
How's this for "equality"? A woman is deemed to have the right to choose whether she has a child; likewise, the father has the rght to one-month notification, during which time he can choose whether he wants the legal responsibility of being a father. Whether he accepts it or declines would play a role in the woman's eventual choice.

"Here's 86, year-old Mrs. Jones. A great-grandmother of 16, she depends on her Medicare benefit. My opponent wants to take that away." Attributed to democratic campaigns of years gone by.

With the announcement that Medicare will have 0 funds in 20 years, and that this year it will pay out more in benefits than it takes in as revenue, it seems the republican run government has in fact fulfilled that little bit of prophetic campaigning. Not for 86-year old Mrs Jones, maybe, unless she has plans to join the centarian club.

So, is it scare tactics/paranoia if the predictions are correct?

Bill,
" I dont see either the Greens or the Libertarians amounting to much - too single issue, too unrealistic"

Obviously, we disagree. But I DO feel they are gaining ground, and they are each far from 'single issue'.
As for 'this late in the game', well there is no wat to know for certain that these are the two parties that will exist for the rest of the 21st Century and beyond. In fact, I find it unnatural that that would happen.
Just like businesses, political parties must mprovise and adapt. When they fail to do so, they will die. Then another will take it's place.
THAT is healthy. Maintaining a duopoly bankrupt of ideas and energy is not.
I'm sure there were those who never belived the Whig Party was going anywhere, either.

Yes, we were all impressed with the way that Rudy and Arnold were trotted out in a "see, we're not all loopy extremists" manner.

When I actually see a prominant pro-choice Republican win the nomination for president, I'll believe it. The savage attacks on Specter, the freezing of Christine Todd Whitman out of any meaningful policy role in her own agency, the bypassing of Colin Powell in the war planning, and the constant sniping at a host of other moderate Republicans as "RINOs" speak far more then having Arnold talk about economic "girlymen" or Rudy making up things his didn't say on 9/11.

I find it far more likely that the existing parties will evolve, rather than die. Your point about the Whigs is true but they did not have the advantage of the entrenched structure and media power of the GOP and the Democrats. Hell, as Nader and Perot discovered, the game is well rigged against interlopers. It seems as though for the last 100 years the only third party movements that went anywhere were pretty much personality driven. Where were the Bull Moosers after Teddy Roosevelt?

Rather than reinvent the wheel and leave one party in power for too long it would be wiser for the samller groups to try to leverage their power from within. (imagine if an African American splinter party could guarantee around 20% of the Black vote to the GOP. What kind of concesions do you think the Republicans would make on affirmitive action if it meant that they would win every presidential election in perpetuity? Converesely, what would the Democrats do to keep this from happening?)

Jerome, there's nothing "equal" about that suggestion. The problem with all of the "male/fatherhood rights" is that, aside from a sperm donation, there's no physical risk born by men. My wife's 10 weeks and 2 days pregnant today (not that we're counting or anything). I've learned more about what physical changes, stress, and risks a woman goes through in carrying a child to term. What you're suggesting is that a man, who is bearing none of those risks, could void his financial and emotional responsibility. Which means, STDs aside, men would be able to have obligation-free sex all they wanted.

Currently, on both parties' part, there's an implied acceptance of the risk of pregnancy in having sex. Even protected sex carries some risk. Those that want to outlaw abortion (and let's leave it to medically unnecessary abortions for the sake of this discussion) want to put an assumption of that risk onto the act of sex. Meaning, if you want to do the crime, you'd better be ready to do the time, because there's no getting out of the responsibility. Your suggestion that a man could void his obligation as the father of a child would put all of that risk on the woman...if she wants to have sex, she'd not only be prepared to get pregnant, but to be solely responsible for the child that could result, in addition to the physical risks she's going to bear. Your suggestion of "equality" actually would move us closer to inequality, and put more women in a position where abortion would seem like a better option.

I have to agree with Bill. Unless the Greens or the Libertarians find a way to reach beyond a narrow niche element. The Libertarians talk a good game, but you aren't going to win any offices by claiming to eliminate 2/3 of the federal government. There's a reason that those programs stick around - They're very popular with many key voting groups. Go ahead, campaign through Kansas and Nebraska about eliminating farm subsidies and see how far you get.

The Greens have a similar problem. Their ultimate goal is the elimination of most private property rights and that isn't going to fly in this country either.

No, like it or not, the only political philosophies that have any hope of gathering any support in this country are "Regulated Capitalism" and "Slightly Less Regulated Capitalism." And by sheer coincedence, those as the philosophies of the Democrats and Republicans distilled down to their purest forms.

The Reform party had a good thing going for a while, but once they let Pat Buchanen hijack them, I knew it was over. What do you do when you're looking at Ross Perot to restore sanity?

Bill,
Karen, I'm not entirely certain I see where you're coming from...what exactly is the definition of "Abortion on Demand"? My understanding of the current law is that you can get an abortion at just about any time during pregnancy, even the third trimester, as long as a doctor signs off on the pregnancy being harmful to one's "health"--which can just as easily be mental health as physical health.

I guess we are getting into semantics here, but words have power. The term "abortion on demand" seems to mean to the general population that a woman can walk into a clinic and simply get an abortion at any time she wants for whatever reason. This is not what happens. Most women wrestle with this decision. It is not made lightly. Many factors go into such a decision. Even teenagers, who may not be able to think through all of the ramifications of their decision don't just saunter in the clinic as if they were having an ingrown toenail seen to. To say "abortion on demand" seems to make the decision something easy or frivolous. A majority of abortions are performed before the third month. Past that time there is more danger of complications the further along a woman is in her pregnancy. No doctor would perform abortions or countenance them for frivolous reasons in the third trimester. An abortion then would be for a serious risk to the woman's physical health, as any complications that result could be quite serious in themselves. I guess that by trivializing the way these decisions are made, it makes it that much easier to demonize them. Any way, I think the language we use to discuss this issue needs to change. The anti-choice people have co-opted many words that put them in the best light and pro-chice people in a bad light. This is my opinion. I have no research to back me up. Of course I'm sure the PR firms hired by both sides have those facts. I am not always as precise as I would like to be with the language, but I also think that we are all being manipulated in ways we cannot even begin to fathom by those who know exactly what to say to get the emotional reaction they desire.

Jerome,
If a man does NOT want to be a father then he should either NOT engage in sex, or use birth control. You talk as if he has no responsiblility for the act. If a woman does not want to become a mother she should NOT engage in sex, or use birth control. Once a woman is pregnant, it is she who must decide whether she has the means, both physically, mantally, and emotionally to care for a child. Why? How many single mothers are there compared to fathers? How many court cases are there to try and make fathers pay their child support? Men "decline" responsibility all the time. This is not about sex. This is about a woman's rights to make decisions about her body and her future. The man can make decisions also. See the first sentance above.

Bill,
What little chance we may have to avoid extinction will come from our technological innovations and I see the republicans, or at least conservatives as much more positive toward industry and innovation

We aren't anti-business. We are anti- greedy corrupt corporations who take advantage of it's employees and customers. (Enron, anyone?) For example, I love Costco and their business model.

Karen, your post highlights exactly why this is the huge problem it is today. Because while many, if not most or even almost all decisions to abort a pregnancy are health related, and made only after an agonzing decision process that includes the family and the health care staff, it's not all. And the state of our law today does in fact allow the base concept of abortion on demand, provided you can find a willing doctor to perform it. Which, of course, we should know that there are enough doctors around that will (this will be true whether the law changes or not...there will always be someone willing to perform this procedure for money. Whether they'll be licensed, practiced doctors is another matter).

This is where the pro-life folks get off saying that those of us that aren't with them support the idea of abortion on demand. Roe v. Wade makes it very clear that the government does have the authority to regulate abortion, and even prohibit the procedure to a limited degree. It does not say that we have to have unregulated abortion, or no abortion. This latter is stane advocated by most pro life supporters, to outlaw it altogether. Which of course ignores or simply discards those cases where an abortive procedure is mediacally necessary to provide for the health of the mother.

No law that we have is absolute. And programs that are absolute (zero tolerance in school disciplinary cases) often results in punishments seen as too harsh for the actions taken. The world is not composed of starkly "good" and "bad" actions/decisions. Killing somone is normally a crime, but when done in self defense? Not a crime. Why should the solution to abortion be an all-or-nothing issue? That kind of thinking ignores too many realities to allow for a fair and just application.

I'll borrow a current favorite line of thinking of Bush's. We (those in favor of some form of abortive procedure) are willing to consider any suggested regulation of abortion, except an outright ban. We're waiting to see what this (now 2 term) republican government has to offer us.

What little chance we may have to avoid extinction will come from our technological innovations and I see the republicans, or at least conservatives as much more positive toward industry and innovation

Whether that is true or not, it is more that countered by what I see as a growing anti-science tide among conservatives. These innovations can only happen if scientific knowledge is allowed to thrive and we are increasingly becoming a society where willfull blindness is considered a virtue.

Alright, last post for now, you all are proably getting sick of me.

Jerome, Bill, and Den,
Both arguments about the two party system are valid. I think it would be wonderful if we had more choices, and I also think it is entirely possible that if the Dems don't wake up and start being Dems, instead of Republican-lite, that the party could become increasingly irrelevant and another party will rise to take it's place. The entrenchment of the Democratic party is a reality, though. Many of the problems the party has today are because of those entrenched interests unwilling to give up the money and power they have accumulated, but also unwilling to confront the new challenges ahead. But, Bill, eventually, they will dry up and fade away as we lose more and more congressional seats. Whether a new party is the result, or a revitalized Democratic party is anyone's guess at this point. Den, the Reform party came out of nowhere with a charismatic (if not quite balanced) leader. This could happen again if enough people are fed up.

Bobb,
Congratulations on your happy news. I wish I'd read your post before I wrote mine. I seem to have echoed some of your points. Many men seem to believe that women only want to "entrap" them. It may happen occasionally, but in this day and age I think most women are choosier and would not want a man just for the sake of having a man. Not to mention having the responsibility of raising a child. Jerome, are we that vapid?

Den, the Reform party came out of nowhere with a charismatic (if not quite balanced) leader. This could happen again if enough people are fed up.

Aside from the fact that you described how Hitler rose to power, the problem with any movement that depends on a charismatic leader is that, if they lose the leader, the movement is essentially dead. Once Perot lost interest in running for president, the Reform Party floundered.

I think the two party system is too entrenched in our politics for there to be room for a significant third party. The only way for a third party to rise to prominance is for one of the two major parties to fade away, as happened when the GOP rose to fill the vacuum left by the demise of the Whig party.

But for those who think the Democrats are dead in the water, don't count them out. It is possible for them to recover. Remember, after Hoover took the blame for the stock market crash in 1929, the GOP were so discredited that they were lost in the political wilderness until 1952. That's five consecutive presidential elections with GOP losses (32, 36, 40, 44, and 48). So it is possible for a party to recover.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I think polls are now showing that the Shiavo case is turning out to be a gross miscalculation on the part of the GOP. Most Americans don't want the federal government interfering in end-of-life decisions that belong in the realm of the family, even when there is strong dispute among family members.

If the Democrats are smart, they should keep their heads down until the dust in this case settles and then come out in 2006 (without mentioning the Shiavo case) as the party that will empower families to make their own decisions about health care issues.

My only fear about the GOP handling of the Schiavo case is that they are still strongly motivating the conservative religious part of their base. Since this went a long way toward votes in this past election, I'm not sure this is such a miscalculation. They have shown a large voting block of people that they care about their issues, even though they didn't really accomplish anything. This builds strong party loyalty. I am afraid to underestimate them. They have done more with less.

We aren't anti-business. We are anti- greedy corrupt corporations who take advantage of it's employees and customers. (Enron, anyone?) For example, I love Costco and their business model.

and

Whether that is true or not, it is more that countered by what I see as a growing anti-science tide among conservatives. These innovations can only happen if scientific knowledge is allowed to thrive and we are increasingly becoming a society where willfull blindness is considered a virtue.

Although the anti-stem cell position of many on the right has gotten a lot of attention, it would be hard to argue that the extremists on the left who have fought against bioengineered food and animal testing--two technologies that have had tremendous success--has been far more damaging to our advancement.

It isn't the far right that thinks the idea of Utopia is a return to those carefree days of yesteryear, before machines and medicine turned life into this awful condition of longevity and leisure.

Also, wasn't Enron brought down during conservative control of the govenrment? What was happening when liberals were in charge?

As far as a new thried party rising, it will either take people away from the republicans or from the democrats. Neither oarty will fade away, so such a division will only empower the other party. Hard to see that lasting very long before people decide that half a loaf is better than none and decide to compromise. (One reason I don't favor the European model is that it allows minority view wackjobs to stay insane and still get a bit of power in government, which they can use to gain power they could not otherwise earn without some level of moderation.

Although the anti-stem cell position of many on the right has gotten a lot of attention, it would be hard to argue that the extremists on the left who have fought against bioengineered food and animal testing--two technologies that have had tremendous success--has been far more damaging to our advancement.

I'd agree. That's the demonization of concepts that plagues human of whatever political vent; I get irritated when simple caution gets ramped up into hysterical panic.

Also, wasn't Enron brought down during conservative control of the govenrment? What was happening when liberals were in charge?

Well, depends on which level of government you're talking about. Certainly, the local government here was yelling and screaming about Enron fraud early and often. And the poo-poohing of energy market manipulation is not the finest hour for anybody....

Also, wasn't Enron brought down during conservative control of the govenrment? What was happening when liberals were in charge?

Enron was brought down? Last time I checked, Ken Lay was still walking around a free man.

Silly me.

For bioengineered food and animal testing, not going to argue with your there. But while that is the extreme left, the anti-environmental agenda, anti-stem cell agenda has moved the mainstream of the Republican party.

"Last time I checked, Ken Lay was still walking around a free man."

And, uh...underindictment and waiting for the trail to begin that could send him to jail for the rest of his life.

A tad, just a nubbin different from being the chairman of the 7th largest company in America, no?

Yeah, and if you believe he'll actually serve a day in jail, I've got some swamp land I'd like to take look at.

Funny how it took three years to indict Ken Lay, but Martha Stewart was investigated, indicted, tried, convicted, went to jail, and was paroled in that same time period.

About the movement that only lasts as long as the charismatic ruler... you guys are more up on this stuff than I am: does Fidel Castro fall into that group? Will Cuba remain communist long after his death?

Funny how it took three years to indict Ken Lay, but Martha Stewart was investigated, indicted, tried, convicted, went to jail, and was paroled in that same time period.

Does Bernard Ebbers ring a bell?

Lay will get his.

Does Bernard Ebbers ring a bell?

MCI, not Enron. Ebbers made the mistake of not renting out the Lincoln bedroom.

Lay will get his.

Not in our lifetime. He'll get off on a slap of the wrist and fine.

About the movement that only lasts as long as the charismatic ruler... you guys are more up on this stuff than I am: does Fidel Castro fall into that group? Will Cuba remain communist long after his death?

A good question. Certainly, there are thousands of Cuban-Americans in Miami who have spent the past few decades waiting for him to kick off. I think it'll all depend on who succeeds him and whether they can hold the country together by their force of personality the way he has. Remember that the majority of Cubas alive today only know about life under Castro, so his death will really shake things up.

Robnn said: [i]About the movement that only lasts as long as the charismatic ruler... you guys are more up on this stuff than I am: does Fidel Castro fall into that group? Will Cuba remain communist long after his death?[/i]

I'm not Cubano, but I've visited the country a few times. From talking privately with people, I think it's a good bet that Communism there won't last long beyond Castro's death. The folks really don't like the system that much, but they [b]do[/b] regard Castro as a good man and a hero. I got the impression that Castro himself really doesn't have a succesor in mind- certainly, there wasn't anyone being portayed as his trusted second or anything of the sort in the papers or on the radio.

Well, this makes for quite a set of headlines on Yahoo:

• Indonesia quake death toll could top 1,000
• Schiavo clings to life amid pleas for lifeline
• Boy Scouts official charged over child porn
• Reverend Jerry Falwell in critical condition

Add * Jesse To The Rescue * on drudgereport.

This is where someone with a Michael Moore mentality will say something like "If you mange to unite Randal Terry and Jesse jackson against you, you know you're doing the wrong thing."

I'd be tempted to argue the exact opposite but it would still be a dumb piece of logic.

Wow.... a well-respected professor from a local college here in northeast PA was arrested in Florida as he attempted to break into the hospice where Terri is in a reported attempt to provide her with a drink of water. Regardless of where you stand on this and the medical impossibility of hand-fed water for her at this point, you have to respect the guy's convictions.

Fred

Hopefully his conviction wil get the whack-job a few years in prison...in her condition she could choke on the water and die...

Wow.... a well-respected professor from a local college here in northeast PA was arrested in Florida as he attempted to break into the hospice where Terri is in a reported attempt to provide her with a drink of water. Regardless of where you stand on this and the medical impossibility of hand-fed water for her at this point, you have to respect the guy's convictions.

I respect that he's an idiot who got himself arrested doing a pointless grandstanding excercise for the TV cameras that wouldn't have made any difference if he had gotten to her bedside anyway.

Den:

>>Wow.... a well-respected professor from a local college here in northeast PA was arrested in Florida as he attempted to break into the hospice where Terri is in a reported attempt to provide her with a drink of water. Regardless of where you stand on this and the medical impossibility of hand-fed water for her at this point, you have to respect the guy's convictions.

>I respect that he's an idiot who got himself arrested doing a pointless grandstanding excercise for the TV cameras that wouldn't have made any difference if he had gotten to her bedside anyway.

Which proves you speak out of turn and about a person that you no nothing of, at least in this case. The guy is a professor with a Ph.D. I have spoken with this man on numerous occassions in professional settings and, while I disagree 100% with his actions on both a practical and even moral level, I can tell you with solid confidence that this guy did not do it to grandstand and only out of what he believes was a moral course of action.

".in her condition she could choke on the water and die..."

Not that I support this guy...but so what?

Assuming she can feel no pain--which had better be the case--I'm not so sure that a quick end to this circus would be so bad a thing.

Also, wasn't Enron brought down during conservative control of the govenrment? What was happening when liberals were in charge?

I love that question. It's the fave of the Fox News grew and the Rush crowd. Its major problem is that you have to empty your brain of years of memory to ask it. Go back and look at the work done by Congress in the last six years of the 90's. Once Newt and the boys took over 2/3 of the Government they set about "taking the gloves off of capitolism." The "Revolution" set about making federal agencies that watchdogged businesses like that weaker, fighting to reduce fines and moving hard and fast to strip the regulations that were "crippling" poor victims like Enron. Bush came in and really cut loose. My fave was when he chose a man to head the S.E.C. who was a former head of a major company being investigated BY the S.E.C. (sorry, can't remember the names and I'm on a work break. I'll get the info later tonight at home and post it.)
Those "Libs" who objected and pointed out that the laws and regulations in place came about because of so many acts by businesses forcing the need for them were painted by G.O.P. members on chat shows, the Rush types and the Fox News Zoo as UnAmerican, anti-capitolism, pro-communist, under or over educated depending on what the arguement was, desiring to cripple and destroy the backbone of this country, etc....
Yeah, those libs didn't do anything. Enron fell with a Republican White House as an act of timing. It crashed so bad that they couldn't get away with doing nothing to "Kenny Boy". But, like the S&L crash, how much of the scandle was created by a Republican "hit(ting) the jackpot" and "unleashing capitolism" by making it so much more easy to get away with it for as long as they did.
And, as a bit of a side note, ain't it just too funny how a number of those scandles, from S&L to Enron and beyond, involve Bush family and/or friends. But he's such an honest man from such an honest family.

I want to know why Terri Schiavo is so much more important, and has people up in arms and crying and whooping and hollering about the injustice of it all, compared to the Red Lakes school shooting?

Precident setting. Schmesident setting. Who cares? I think a school shooting qualifies as a much, much, MUCH bigger tragedy compared to a woman who is completely brain dead.

TFE, I've thought the same throughout the whole mess.... the homeless, the poor, drug addicted, etc. The percentage of Americans effected by each of those afflictions dwarves those that end up in a scenrio similar to the one making all of the news.

Fred

Those "Libs" who objected and pointed out that the laws and regulations in place came about because of so many acts by businesses forcing the need for them were painted by G.O.P. members on chat shows, the Rush types and the Fox News Zoo as UnAmerican, anti-capitolism, pro-communist, under or over educated depending on what the arguement was, desiring to cripple and destroy the backbone of this country, etc....

I suppose it would be rude to ask for an example? You seem so certain...

Anyway, my point was not to exorcate liberals in all this--the truth of the matter is that both sides of congress get lots of money from corporations and to only paint one side as benefiting from big business is, well, charmingly naive.

I want to know why Terri Schiavo is so much more important, and has people up in arms and crying and whooping and hollering about the injustice of it all, compared to the Red Lakes school shooting?

Sure, but isn't it always the case that what intrigues us may have nothing to do with the relative severity of the problem? If you want to take that train of thought to its logical conclusion, isn't it awfully silly of PAD to worry about some comic store owner when there are tsunami victims waiting to be fed?

(NOTE TO THE LITERAL MINDED--that was a rhetorical question)

Some stories capture the moment or the imagination, they resonate. Lots of people died around the same time that Matthew Shepard was killed buthis was the one that stayed in the papers. Other children besides John Bonet Ramsey were killed but hers is the one we remember. It's easy to accuse the media of creating the hype but I think that both stories were driven by the interest of the public; I know that when I heard about both I wanted to know more.

Perhaps the Schiavo case has dragged on too long but that's in part because the media probably thought that it would have been resolved by now. Terri has lasted longer than expected.

There's another factor, I'm guessing--people like Jesse Jackson think thatthey can still have some effect on the outcome of this story, as opposed to the school shooting which has already happened and isn't about to be changed.

Bill:

>>I want to know why Terri Schiavo is so much more important, and has people up in arms and crying and whooping and hollering about the injustice of it all, compared to the Red Lakes school shooting?

>Sure, but isn't it always the case that what intrigues us may have nothing to do with the relative severity of the problem? If you want to take that train of thought to its logical conclusion, isn't it awfully silly of PAD to worry about some comic store owner when there are tsunami victims waiting to be fed?

I don't disagree with your point. I'd only point out that PAD is not a news agency (Though some here may utilize him as such) nor is he a an elected representative with influence on policy.

Perhaps the Schiavo case has dragged on too long but that's in part because the media probably thought that it would have been resolved by now. Terri has lasted longer than expected.

There's another factor, I'm guessing--people like Jesse Jackson think thatthey can still have some effect on the outcome of this story, as opposed to the school shooting which has already happened and isn't about to be changed.

Yah, the Schaivo case is still ongoing, which is a good point. And people other either side of the issue can soapbox and pontificate about it, so its half a person's life and half a political muckity muck.

However, I'm pretty dumbstruck that Red Lakes has gotten, at most, a passing mention. Compare it to Columbine. How long did that dominate the headlines? Both huge tragedies with teenaged killings in school.

I hate to imply this, but: would the lack of Red Lakes coverage have anything to do with the fact that it happened on an impovrised Indian reservation, as opposed to a clean cut suburban white kid school?

Schiavo doesn't fill me with any sort of emotion, at all. Red Lakes makes me feel sad and I want to hear more about. Seeing it pushed aside from the headlines for, well, everything, is really getting me ticked.

Well, there's one other factor--Columbine had video footage, ready to be replayed endlessly.

Believe me, if there had not been all those great videos of the tsunami it would have been a one day story.

I've long thought that if activists really wanted to get this country involved in stopping some of the various atrocities around the world they should simply invest a few thousand dollars in handing out camcorders to the people of Sudan, Rowanda, etc.

(PS--I think the owrd Iwas looking for was excorciate)

Which proves you speak out of turn and about a person that you no nothing of, at least in this case. The guy is a professor with a Ph.D.

So, he's an educated idiot. Big Deal.

Exactly what did his stunt accomplish? Nothing.

Idiot.

>>Which proves you speak out of turn and about a person that you no nothing of, at least in this case. The guy is a professor with a Ph.D.

>So, he's an educated idiot. Big Deal.

While this may or may not be true, you have no clue of the man or his character, only his actions as reported in 1 instance.

>Exactly what did his stunt accomplish? Nothing.

End results have nothing to do with intent.

>Idiot.

You forgot to follo-up on the part about grandstanding. My original point was focused only on conviction, by the way.

Bill said "Not that I support this guy...but so what?"

That was the point Bill, these f-ing idiots people are prasing for their "conviction" would end up killing the woman they claim to be trying to say if they got their food and water to her room.

These disgusting scumbags remind me of the mindless in zombies in monster movies, too bad the cops can treat the attempted tresspassers and meddlers the same way, shotgun blast to the face....

Leave the Schaivo's alone and let Terri pass already you morons, there are people who are still within reach of help and need help, but they waste their time on this crap...

TFE, I don't think you're far off base. The fact that the Red Lakes shooting happened on a reservation certainly plays into the lack of coverage it's getting. The national spotlight blinked toward ot for a moment, then swung back to focus on Florida/Atlanta/DC again. Part of the reason is because there's not much play for a news story that occurs on a reservation (I'm sure many people would say something like "we still have those?"). But it's not all just the media...the Red Lake members don't really want the national spotlight. Unlike Columbine, where there was dramatic video of kids running from school, and that shot of the wounded kid falling from the window, and also dozens of kids and parents willing to be interviewed, the Red Lake band doesn't have any video, that we know of. They don't want to be interviewed. They don't want to appear on GMA. They want to get on with grieving, with figuring out what happened, and with staying out of the national spotlight.

As to not giving the tsunami much play if we hadn't had video...I find that hard to believe. As many as 500,000 people died that day. While I'd agree that what stories news stations carry is somewhat based on getting people to watch, how can you not make a story that kills 6% of the population of the Chicago area in one day?

Yo Bladdy, who is praising the guy? My statement was made about respect for convictions. Nothing to do with any other person's actions, nor his really. Whether one is talking of someone that they agree with or will fight to the end, conviction of this calibur is not often found. Take a moment to think of a belief that you have regarding something that does not directly effect you. Would you be willing to fly across the country and risk arrest or worse to support your belief?

There's a very fine line between admiring someone's conviction...and admiring a crazy person. When Muhammad Ali lost his boxing title because of his opposition to the war, that was conviction to admire. You could argue with him on his position, but you couldn't say he was wrong.

Anyone trying to sneak into the hospice with water for Terri might not be said to be wrong, IF they knew that she can't swallow, and the best they could do is put small drops on her tounge or her lips. Those trying to break in to give her food? Just plain wrong. Any solid food given to her now would probably kill her, if she didn't choke on it first.

I don't think you can be said to have conviction when the action you're taking in support of your beliefs does nothing to further those beliefs. Rather, it's just grandstanding, making a statement for the statement's sake. Much as this whole national fascination with the case is. Thousands of families deal with this same situation every day, yet manage to get by without court intervention, media spotlights, or action by the Federal government just for them.

Tallest,

I heard about it and was chilled by the thought that a school shooting is no longer newsworthy. Lack of video aside, something this horrific is news; that it's on a reservation makes it more newsworthy, I'd think, since motives might have a darker twist and a comment on our treatment of native Americans.

Robbnn, NPR has carried a lot of stories about Red Lake. I don't think most Americans want to be reminded that we've got what amounts to conquored sovereign nations still inside American territory.

I'm still trying to understand how someone, as it appears this shooter was, could be a Native American Nazi.

Speaking of political bloodsuckers, Michigan has passed a law allowing doctors to refuse to treat patients in non-emergency situations if the doctor has moral, ethical, or religious objections.

I wonder how long it will be before this law of bigotry is struck down by the courts.

Too bad we can't just jail every Michigan legislature that voted in favor of this.

As to not giving the tsunami much play if we hadn't had video...I find that hard to believe. As many as 500,000 people died that day. While I'd agree that what stories news stations carry is somewhat based on getting people to watch, how can you not make a story that kills 6% of the population of the Chicago area in one day?

How much play did the Tangshan Earthquake of 1976 get? over 600,000 died but without the videos to back it up how long can the story run? You can only have an anchor saying "600,000 Chinese are still dead." before people lose interest.

One new wrinkle in the Red Lake story is that they just arrested the son of one of the trible leaders as an accomplice. There may be others involved. So there may be a high level of nervousness and uncertainty among the tribal members which could explain why they are reluctant to go on TV.

Ironically, the father of the just arrested kid, Floyd Jourdain Jr, HAd been on TV commenting on the trgedy, which he probably regrets now.

I'm still trying to understand how someone, as it appears this shooter was, could be a Native American Nazi.

Oh, that's easy. He apparently hated blacks, or, more accurately, Native Americans who "acted black". He seems to have advocated the same solution that the modern nazis claim is theirs; not extermination but "everyone in their own place". Blacks back to Africa, Hispanics to South America, even the Indians get some land back (though not all).

And here is the added point that you are trying to understand the mindset of someone who was cleary insane.

Sorry about getting back with this info so late. Got a last minute idiot that kept my up half the night waiting for a breath tech and the other half of the night at lock up.
In ref to my above post:
Bush picked Bill Donaldson as his golden boy to be the SEC head. The SEC (for anybody who doesn't know) is supposed to be a watchdog against fraud by Wall Street firms. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, that Bill was the CEO of, was under investigation by the SEC for fraud and has history of doing things that got it fined as for back as the early 90's. Cases against them and details of fines can be found through the Wall Street Journal, Forbes fine tracker & the findlaw websites case histories.

I was 5 in 1976, so I've got no memory of what was and wasn't played on the news then. Then again, it was 30 years ago. We didn't have worldwide news like we do today. And if China was anything then like it is today, I'm betting that all they would say about the matter was "we had an earthquake." The toll and scope of the devastation would have leaked out over the weeks following the event.

If that scale of an event were to occur today, whether there was video or not, it'd get more than a day's coverage.

The conspiracy aspect of the Red Lakes shootings is getting some play, but nothing near what Columbine did. I think, in some respects, part of that is because school shooting aren't as shocking as there were when Columbine occurred. While the Red Lake shootings are sad and tragic, what's even more tragic is that our news agencies don't consider it worthy of the full multiple-day spotlight such an event once would have generated.

I think the thing hanging me up on the Native American Nazi is that I'm thinking in terms of traditional Nazi. Such a combination would result in a good deal of self-hatred, I'd imagine. I do know that there's a concern among the tribal elders that the young are embracing a modern mindset, rather than a traditional tribal mindset, but that's really nothing new. Reservations have almost always faced this issue. But, in large part thanks to the BIA forcing kids on reservations to attend public schools, the middle generation no longer has a tie to the traditional ways of the tribe.

Bush picked Bill Donaldson as his golden boy to be the SEC head.

So Bush continues his track record of appointing the unqualified, the ethically challenged, and outright criminals into the highest ranks of our government.

I was exaggerrating when I said just a day's coverage...but probably not by much.

There are many factors that go into what makes a story hot or not and a simple calculation of how many people were affected doesn't do the trick. Bangaldesh lost more than 130,000 in April 1991 from a cyclone but I'll bet the fire that killed 100 at a Great White concert got more airplay--can't resist a video that shows before, after and during.

And yes, if it affects people in this country it means more to the average viewer. Hell, if the far greater numbers of those killed in the various wars we are not involved with got equal attention to the number of American dead and wounded in Iraq, I suspectmembers of Democratunderground would claim it was a nefarious plot to draw attention away from the Iraq war (some of the crazies there think taht the latest earthquake was designed to draw attention away from Schiavo, which, by the way, was all trmped up to draw attention away from social security. Or something.

Politics can play a role in what gets reported and what does not. Some of us were discussing the late Bob Casey a few threads back...or maybe it was this one, hard to keep track. Anyway, one of the stories I came across was that, after being denied a chance to give a speech at the Democrat convention, the Village Voice set up a debate between Casey and others at a public forum. The debate never took place because a group of left wing activists shouted him down and refused to let him speak.

This got little national attention. I'm guessing...just guessing mind you...that if the governor of a major state found himself unable to exercise his free speech because of a group of fanatical right wingers it might make national news.

Of course, this was before the web, Fox news, bloga and all the other new sources. It's become harder to spike stories, at least for those with enough ambition to type letters into google.

I think I'm with you on the "local angle" playing into how much play a story gets. I don't know the number of Americans killed by the tsunami...was it even in the hundreds? I sort of think it was a couple hundred, but that seems high to me. Point being, if it were just 300,000 non-American dead, it wouldn't have gotten the weeks and weeks of coverage it has. And even then, many of the news stories were of the "tens of thousands dead, but we'll focus on this one American couple because they're American" vein.

Which I think is yet another reason why the Red Lake story isn't sticking out...it didn't happen to (what many would consider) "real" Americans. And understand, I say that from the perspective of being of Native blood. Native Americans are possible even MORE Americans than those of European descent, but I think the general view of them is as an outsider class. The general TV viewer can sympathize, on some level, with the American tourist caught up in a tsunami. They have a sense of commonality. I don't think many general Americans have an understanding of what it means to be Native. There's a disconnect there, a sense of foreign-ness.

Bush picked Bill Donaldson as his golden boy to be the SEC head. The SEC (for anybody who doesn't know) is supposed to be a watchdog against fraud by Wall Street firms. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, that Bill was the CEO of, was under investigation by the SEC for fraud and has history of doing things that got it fined as for back as the early 90's. Cases against them and details of fines can be found through the Wall Street Journal, Forbes fine tracker & the findlaw websites case histories.

Interesting...but it's not clear from what you write whether or not Donaldson was CEO of the company when it was fined or even investigated. My understanding is that he was CEO only until 1973, though Molly Ivans, puzzlingly, referred to him as the current CEO in one of her critiques.

Of course, to those who see a Bush under every bed, that won't matter, but I'm just puzzled why this ther was so little mention of these supposed acts of malfeasance when he was chosen.

While this may or may not be true, you have no clue of the man or his character, only his actions as reported in 1 instance.

His actions prove that he's an idiot.

You forgot to follo-up on the part about grandstanding. My original point was focused only on conviction, by the way.

I didn't forget it. I just don't care. Idiots can have conviction.

What this moron and other like him did by running in front of the police and all but shouting "arrest me!" is cause disruption at the hospice. Lest we forget, Terri Shiavo is not the only patient at this place. Other patients have family members that might want to visit them, too. There's been at least report of a woman who couldn't get into the hospice before her father died because of idiots creating a circus by their grandstanding. I have no respect for these people. They may lie to themselves that they're doing something out of some great conviction, but all they're really doing is making a pathetic plea for attention.

Idiots.

Don't read Molly.

Donaldson was CEO and Co-founder. Once he left the CEO spot he continued an association with them for years afterward. That howerver is not really the point.
Bush hand picked this guy (who was a Skull & Bones brother to pummle a dead horse)to head the SEC while the firm he cofounded and that still used his name and employed old friends was under investigation and had pending court cases that would go before the SEC. Now, basic 101 tells you that you don't put someone in charge of something like that when they have a vested interest or a personal connection. I can work a case for weeks and have a personal connection pop up and.... poof.... I'm off the case. Conflict of interest. Will I do my job or play CYA for my buddies? You don't take the chance because it could taint the case and damage the outcome no matter how it turns out. Same basic concept here.
I will give Donaldson credit though. He has done a bit better then I would have thought. He even came up with some ideas that might have been good but the Business Roundtable (the lobbying front for CEOs of America's largest corporations)went nuts and Bush backed them against the SEC to keep many regs weaker.
As for when he was appointed... There was public debate. I want to say that it was Jennings on the national news that was the first I saw of it. But if you look at the time frame (late 2002 to early 2003) you'll see that there was some stuff going on in the Middle East that was eating up most the prime time coverage and debate. Easy to miss it I guess if you weren't into the pain created by almost 14 hour a day news watching.

Did anyone else catch South Park??? My God, they must be able to punch the script into a computer and have it spit out animation in a few hours...amazing. Also, funny as all hell.

Den:What this moron and other like him did by running in front of the police and all but shouting "arrest me!" is cause disruption at the hospice. Lest we forget, Terri Shiavo is not the only patient at this place. Other patients have family members that might want to visit them, too. There's been at least report of a woman who couldn't get into the hospice before her father died because of idiots creating a circus by their grandstanding. I have no respect for these people. They may lie to themselves that they're doing something out of some great conviction, but all they're really doing is making a pathetic plea for attention.

So you reply to my original statment without actually addressing its core point and follow -up with an inaccurate statement. Did you actually see news footage of the event that you are describing?

Fred

Fred: "Yo Bladdy, who is praising the guy? My statement was made about respect for convictions. "

THen you are stupider than I thought.

Does that mean you respect the 9/11 hijackers who had even more conviction (they dies for their convictions)?

DOes that mean you admire these fucking morons who kill doctors that perform abortions and blow up clinics that perform abortions?

I suppose you admire and respect the fine members of the Nazi party and the KKK who hold their convictions so dear as well?

Stupid covictions aren't to be respected, they're to be admonished, ostracized and punished.

Fred: "Yo Bladdy, who is praising the guy? My statement was made about respect for convictions. "

Bladstar :

>THen you are stupider than I thought.

uh huh. Yet you are the one who constantly throws out insults to posters here and others who don't agree with your way of seeing the world rather than discuss an issue using logic and sticking to the point.

>Does that mean you respect the 9/11 hijackers who had even more conviction (they dies for their convictions)?

I don't admire the people. I don't admire the motivation nor the action. Respect for a level of conviction is just that.

>DOes that mean you admire these fucking morons who kill doctors that perform abortions and blow up clinics that perform abortions?

Oh yeah.

>I suppose you admire and respect the fine members of the Nazi party and the KKK who hold their convictions so dear as well?

Uh huh. Perhaps having someone nearby read my previous statements to you would be helpful.

>Stupid covictions aren't to be respected, they're to be admonished, ostracized and punished.

You appear to be confusing conviction with action. Conviction can be defined as an unshakable belief in something. Someone with strong convictions on a subject may do what they feel is the "right" thing to do, regardless of consequence to themselves.... including the ones you've just listed.

I'll repeat it, any beliefs that strong in influence should be respected. If not only so that one is prepared to identify and respond to actions if and when they occur. We are seeing the mistake of not respecting strong convictions over in Iraq. Our government thought that these rebels would fold.... they are willing to fight to the death to keep the U.S. out of power there. The issue of whether they are "right" or "wrong" is really moot when looking at the level of commitment there.

Fred, I think part of the issue is your use of the word "respect." It can be used, and is used by many, as a synonym for "admire." So when you say you respect the convictions of certain people, some would interpret your statement as saying you admire them. And to be honest, when I first read your statement, the whole "do you also respect the convictions of Nazis?" thought passed through my mind as well.

I think your further explanations show that you're using the word more like "one should respect the power of nature." As in, be aware of it's power, be wary of the danger it can pose, and don't do things (like build homes on hills with no root structure to prevent mud slides) that will eventually lead to nature demonstrating why it deserves to be respected. Or, respect the mother bear and her cubs, because if you don't, and you get too close, she'll show you why you should have.

It's more a sense of be aware of the potential harm something could cause.

Although, your original phrase was contains none of that. Looking it over again just now, I can see how it could be read either way. It's either "wow, I admire a guy that's willing to get arrested for something he believes in," or "wow, you really have to be wary of guys crazy enough to get arrested for something this stupid."

Common usage of "respect" doesn't make it clear which one you intended.

Well, it just hit the news--the poor woman finally died.

Sad story all around. The AP is reporting thatthe parents were denied the chance to be there at the moment of her death. I don't know, I've been more on the husbands side than not butthat seems pretty shitty, even given the amount of acrimony.

Anyway, onto happier news, one must hope.

Bobb:

>Although, your original phrase was contains none of that. Looking it over again just now, I can see how it could be read either way. It's either "wow, I admire a guy that's willing to get arrested for something he believes in," or "wow, you really have to be wary of guys crazy enough to get arrested for something this stupid."

>Common usage of "respect" doesn't make it clear which one you intended.

Bobb, I appreciate your observation and can see your point. I apologize for any ambiguity. I still have to wonder about the jump that some have made between respect for a conviction being misinterpreted for agreement and support of actions taken. The only way that this occurred was in changing the content of my actual post.

Fred

I think it's an extension of the verb form of respect, "1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM b : to refrain from interfering with". Using 1a, worthy of high regard/esteem goes hand-in-hand with admire.

Besides, if it had come from Democratic Senate staffers, I have no doubt they'd be able to get the correct letterhead.

The problem with the supposed memo is that there is NO identifying marks. There is no letterhead, no signature, no nothing. What is true is that there were typos and it noted the wrong bill number. What is true is that someone was giving these memos to some Republicans, but there is absolutley no one who is identifying the source.

Yet even today I read stories where people attack the Rebpublicans because of the contents of this supposed memo. Even though Republicans have clearly indicated that they do not agree with large portions of the memo. The media has done such a poor job of accurately reporting this information that it is assumed as fact by many that these memos are true.

Which leads us to this whole case. The fact that something is repeated doesn't make it true. Yes, this goes for both sides, but forgive me if the example above causes me to doubt the ability of the general media to get things right. There is far more bias towards the left than towards the right.

Here is a decent article about the whole memo situation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11250-2005Mar29.html

Terri is now dead, but this is not over. This may well be a watershed event that will have ramifications for years to come.

Iowa Jim

Jim's right, we have no idea what ripple effect this event will cause.

I hear that there are bills being talked about, both state and federal, that would criminalize the act of removing a feeding tube from a PVS patiend. If such a law is passed and does not contain an exception for a living will, this could totally remove the traditional power of a guardian to make such choices on behalf of their ward. I see all kinds of bad laws being passed as a reactionary measure to this, despite the fact that the public has expressed overwhelming support for such matters to remain private family issues.

We could also see an impact in the next elections. If current reports out saying that evangelicals provided 1 out of every 3 votes for Bush, and that support now vanishes because of the perceived "failure" of the government to oppose Terri's death, we could see a significant shift in the composition of the congress in 18 months.

I hear that there are bills being talked about, both state and federal, that would criminalize the act of removing a feeding tube from a PVS patiend.

The point has always been that there was NOT a living will in this case. The point has also been that there is divided opinion about her actual state and that the husband refused to allow her to have treatment for at least the last 3 years.

Even conservatives want to keep this primarily a private issue, but there has to be a standard that still protects the rights and health of the patient when the patient cannot do so. In this particular case, there was reason to question whether that line was crossed.

Iowa Jim

The point has also been that there is divided opinion about her actual state and that the husband refused to allow her to have treatment for at least the last 3 years.

That's not a point; that's an assertion (which has not been sufficiently supported in my opinion; I'll take the seven or eight people who actually examined her AND the CAT scan over the people who haven't).

The point has always been that there was NOT a living will in this case.

No, that's NOT the point. The point is in establishing the wishes of Terry Schiavo. The best way to do so, of course, is a living will, but that is not the only way.

Actually, a living will is only one way, and not always the best. Just like a regular will, they can be challenged, and not all states will recognize them. It's just one more piece of evidence to put before a court in situations that are contested.

My impression from the Schiavo case was that the husband presented a statement as Terri's guardian that her desire was to not be sustained in a PVS condition through a feeding tube. He made that statement as her husband, based on conversations he had with her from before the accident. While this would normally be hearsay evidence, it is allowed because of the guardian and husband status. I believe there were also other people allowed to make statements that they had had similar conversations with Terri, supporting this claim.

As far as I can tell, the only evidence Terri's parents could offer was "we raised her not to believe in suicide, and we just *know* she wouldn't want to die this way." They may also have had some witnesses, but I'm not sure.

Point being, the court pretty much made the only decision it could: In the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, and also absent any "funny business" motive on the part of the guardian, significant deference is given to the decisions of the guardian.

And the fact that the husband allowed no treatment for the past 3 years totally ignores the extensive treatment efforts he did allow and in fact demand over the suggestions of his doctors for the first 7 years. In Texas, after a patient fails to show signs of improving after 7 years of treatment, most likely the hospital would have discontinued treatment OVER the objections of the family.

Just imagine how damning this case could have been had Terri been a resident of Texas. Bush's own law would have dictated the removal of life support years ago.

Jim, there was a record of 8 years of Florida state court, including appeals to the state supreme court, that decided that very issue. And at every turn, the court was satisfied that Terri's wishes were in fact fairly represented by her legal guardian. That's all the protection we need...it took 8 years from the time the husband decided to end treatment until today, when she can fully go to God. How much longer is appropriate before we can be as assured as we're going to be that her rights aren't being abrogated?

If such a law is passed, here's what I can guarantee you will happen within 10 years of it's passage: there will be another case like this, where the family disagrees on the termination of treatment. There WILL be a living will involved, saying the patient would want treatment terminated. Tubes will be removed, and the opposing family will call the police and have the doctors, nurses, and guardian arrested, claiming that the living will is fraudulent.

After that, no doctor will remove life support short of receiving a court order to do so. In "erring on the side of life," we will have created a system where even those that actually DO want to pass on are prevented from doing so.

So you reply to my original statment without actually addressing its core point

I addressed your core point. It's funny that you think if you keep repeating the word "convictions" it will change my mind. It won't. The guy's convictions do not impress me. He's an idiot. Period.

and follow -up with an inaccurate statement.

So, you're an expert on what reports are accurate and what aren't?

Did you actually see news footage of the event that you are describing?

Not everyone gets their news from the idiot box. I read it on the wire service. Since you obviously didn't see the report, you're in no position to judge its accuracy.

I'll repeat it, any beliefs that strong in influence should be respected.

I disagree. The beliefs of idiots, no matter how strong they are to them, should always me mocked and ridiculed.

It's the only way they'll learn.

Den, I think you should make a public exception to those idiots with strong convictions that also carry large weapons, and exhibit the capacity to use them. Secretly mock those folks.

Ugh. Damn typos.

That should read "should always BE mocked and ridiculed."

Even though Republicans have clearly indicated that they do not agree with large portions of the memo. The media has done such a poor job of accurately reporting this information that it is assumed as fact by many that these memos are true.

The memo to me is a nonissue. I don't care who wrote it or why. I'm more dismayed in the way that members of Congress (and I'll include the Democrats who voted for the measure as well as the Republicans) and the President have grandstanded and used this issue to engage in naked pandering.

And it's not over:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3111348

Now DeLay wants to use this as an excuse to attack judges who don't rule to his liking. No doubt this will add fuel to the "nuclear option" argument of destroying the filibuster in the Senate.

The Founding Fathers created an idependent judiciary for a reason: To shield justice from political pandering. Too bad our current regime in Washington only believes in political pandering.

nd it's not over:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3111348

Now DeLay wants to use this as an excuse to attack judges who don't rule to his liking.

What a hypocrite.

Bobb,
"We could also see an impact in the next elections. If current reports out saying that evengelicals provides 1 out of every 3 votes for Bush"

You mean TWO out of every 3 Bush voters actually voted on something other than being "fanatically evengelical" instead of the 100% some on this board make it out to be...yowzers! That means Bush voters - including, undeniably, some 'evengelicals', voted for him on other issues! What, oh what, will the Democrats do?!

"and that support now vanishes because of the perceived "failure" of the government to oppose Terri's death, we could see a significant shift in the composition of the Congress in 18 months."

Right. Because Terri's plight was such a forefront issue in 2004. And because evangelicals will ignore issues like abortion, gay marriage, the makeup of the Supreme Court, stem cell research, human cloning and stay obsessed with Terri. And because the vast majority of those who would let this issue decide their vote won't give their ele3cted rep credit for trying. And because a majority of Congressmen in the Congressional Black Caucus actually VOTED WITH THE REPUBLICANS. And because Iowa kingmaker Senator Tom Harkin will use the issue against Republican opponents, even though he strongly supported letting her live.

well, if one third of Bush voters decide to not vote next election, the democrats will win by about 28 Meeelion votes.