Last Minute Maneuvers in Schiavo Case & Santorum

RE: Last Minute Maneuvers in Schiavo Case & Santorum

>If that's the case, then why are you so deafeningly silent

>about the Bush Administration policies that support the use of

>torture, locking people up without benefit of legal counsel,

>and a host of other activities that the civilized world

>characterizes as "cruel, inhumane, and immoral"?

I´m against, and have criticized many times, the Bush Administration´s incarceration of American citizens without formally charging them with a crime and without giving them access to legal counsel. I am also against and have criticized the use of torture.

When have you ever complimented the Bush Administration? Other than to say that they weren´t liberal enough, what criticisms did you make of the Clinton Administration?

The problem with hard-core ideologues like you is that because you never deviate from your partisan script, you are simply incapable of believing that there´s anyone else on the planet who doesn´t suffer from the same affliction.

That´s why I have pointed out probably 1,000 times here things like the fact that I think Bill Clinton was a good President, that I thought the best candidate for President in 2004 was Howard Dean, that there are numerous things that the Bush Administration has done that are indefenisble -- and yet, people like you will never process this, because you can´t imagine that someone could be capable of actual independent thought, since you are incapable of it.

>Why all the moral outrage in support of "rights for the

>unborn" and utter silence about poverty and the need to give

>such children a fighting chance once they are born?

Some people think that by getting people hooked onto welfare and government social programs, you´re destroying the chances those children have to succeed in the world. Check out how the families who were forced BY BILL CLINTON to work instead of sitting on welfare have done to see proof of the truth of that belief.

Are there really still people silly enough to believe that if you oppose a governmental handout for someone, it means that you don´t care about their welfare? How 1970s.

RE: Last Minute Maneuvers

People starve to death all of the time and the Republican Congress can do a lot to stop it. Famines in Africa, malnutrition in Indonesia, poverty everywhere. So why don't they show their bona fides and pass some more funds to these needy people...and save lives!

Why not ban starvation entirely rather than with a law that only applies to one person?

>Several people, including me, have posted about the agony

>they went through in deciding not to take extraordinary

>measures to keep a parent alive.

FOOD and WATER are "extraordinary measures"???

Must be a very slow time for "real" news for this to get so much play.

RE: Last Minute Maneuvers in Schiavo Case & Santorum

>As for the bit about making assertions about the husband

>lying, I´ll tell you what I told Bucky:

>

>I don´t claim to know whether or not the husband is lying. He

>may very well be telling the truth. But he does have motives

>to lie. Saying someone has a motive to lie isn´t the same as

>saying that they´re lying, just like saying that someone has a

>motive to murder someone isn´t the same as saying they

>murdered that person<<

From a legal standpoint, I couldn't agree more. A blanket spousal authority invites many avenues of deceit. Should a "SUSPECTED" wife abuser be allowed the same authority over the medical care of his wife as say, a car accident victim? Absent of tangible or strong circumstantial evidence pointing towards the abuser, this would be the case. Congress, in my opinion, is attempting to defer these questions to a Living Will. Without "knowing" the patient's actual wishes, we must advocate for the incapacitated patient each time. Legislators will always advocate having a law in place, rather than a case by case oversight by the courts.

>The whole point is that we DON´T know what this woman would

>have wanted in this situation. The only way to have known for

>sure is if she executed a written document.

Game. Set. Match!

Doug,

I appreciate your last posting, especially your concerns about congress getting involved. I agree that you have shown sensitivity to

those with different opinions.

You also made me think about withholding food and water as a humane way of dying. Much has been written to the effect that it is painless and easy way to day. I believed that I had seen proof of that.

As I recall my mother's death --- she had almost completely lost the ability to swollow food or water --- it did seem very humane. But, she was able to eat a very small amount of food and drink a bit of water until the night before she died, thus staying alive much longer than the 7-10 days forecast for Terri. Whatever the truth, painless or quite painful, I do not have the first hand experience that I believed I did when starting this thread. My mom's death may have been very different from Terri's (if she does die in the manner decided by the Florida courts).

RE: Last Minute Maneuvers in Schiavo Case & Santorum

>I agree that you have shown

>sensitivity to

>those with different opinions.

That's not actually true. I never expressed an opinion about this case; I asked him the simple question, "What motives are those?" re: the husband, and he freaked out and went off on tangents about abortion and dictators. That's sensitivity? That's nuts. Funny, though. :+

RE: Terry Schiavo Must Die:

Well, I for one, thought JeffOH's post was the most logical, most compassionate one posted in this thread!

Anyone with a shred of human compassion and decency would let the poor woman go! and not use her as some kind of pawn to advance their political views, which is just what the Republicans in Florida and the Congress are doing, all the while taking advantage of the fact that her parents are in a state of grief driven denial. Front page of today's Washington Post: 2 preachers of the conservative Christian right, shedding crocodile tears, as if they really gave a damn about loss of life of the human who is this woman, rather than the loss of everyone unquestioningly following their "only path to religious glory".

What bs to deflect the real issue, with accusations against the husband, who could have extricated himself anytime during the last 15 years by simply divorcing her! Even if he had some "mythical" motives for wishing her dead, then what the hell did he have to lose by taking the millions offered him while she lingers for all eternity in a vegetative state? Perhaps, as her husband, she expressed her wishes to him many times, and just perhaps, as her husband he loved her and is willing to take all kinds of unfounded abuse to honor her wishes?

All of that aside, the state governments, and especially the federal government, have no business or legal rights to being involved in this case. WTF? is that all about??

Never mind! We all know what this repressive society, masquerading as America is all about under the current administration.

RE: Terri Schiavo Must Die:

>Well, I for one, thought JeffOH's post was the most logical,

>most compassionate one posted in this thread!

Thanks VaHawk! :-)

The article I posted "Terri Schiavo Must Die" was written by RudeOne @

http://www.rudepundit.blogspot.com RudeOne's known for frequently using HYPERBOLE to illlustrate a point. In this article, the point being that it's HIGH TIME to end the sad saga of Terri Schiavo, who's been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years and whose brain has turned to mush. (LITERALLY not hyperbolically!)

I support her right to die.

I support her husband's spousal rights to see that her expressed wishes are carried out. >>Wishes that she'd mentioned to two other witnesses: Michael's brother and also Terri's sister-in-law, who came forward as well and said that they had conversations with Terri under different circumstances and at different times in which Terri said, you know, "I'd rather die than be dependent on the care of others. No tubes for me. I don't want to be hooked up on machines. I don't want to be kept alive artificially."<<

I also support the numerous court decisions that have consistently upheld that this was indeed her wish.

ROUGH TIMELINE AND DECISIONS

I encourage anyone interested in this case to read the judicial decisions that have been entered. Most informative, from a factual point of view, are Judge Greer's orders and the Second District's decisions. The December 2003 guardian ad litem report to Governor Bush provides perhaps the most detailed factual chronology available.

December 1963… Terri's birth date

November 1984… Terri & Michael marry

February 1990… Terri suffers cardiac arrest and a severe loss of oxygen to her brain

May 1990… Terri leaves hospital and is brought to a rehabiliation center for aggressive therapy

July 1990… Terri is brought to the home where her husband and parents live; after a few weeks, she is brought back to the rehabilitation center

November 1990… Terri is taken to California for experimental therapies

January 1991… Terri is returned to Florida and placed at a rehabilitation center in Brandon

July 1991… Terri is transfered to a skilled nursing facility where she receives aggressive physical therapy and speech therapy

May 1992… Michael and the Schindlers stop living together

January 1993… Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical malpractice claim involving Terri's care; jury had ruled in Michael's favor on allegations Terri's doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to her heart failure; case settled while on appeal

March 1994… Terri is transferred to a Largo nursing home

May 1998… Michael files petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed; Michael takes position that Terri would chose to remove the tube; Terri's parents take position that Terri would chose not to remove the tube

February 2000… Following trial, Judge Greer rules that clear and convincing evidence shows Terri would chose not to receive life-prolonging medical care under her current circumstances (i.e., that she would chose to have the tube removed) [READ]

March 2000… Judge Greer denies petition for more swallowing tests, finds it uncontested Terri cannot swallow sufficiently to live [READ]

April 2000… Terri is transferred to a Hospice facility

January 2001… Second District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's decision regarding Terri's wishes [READ]

April 23, 2001… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision [READ]

April 23 or 24, 2001… Trial court orders feeding tube removed

April 24, 2001… Terri's feeding tube is removed for the first time

April 26, 2001… Terri's parents file motion asserting they have new evidence regarding Terri's wishes

April 26, 2001… Trial court denies Terri's parents' motion as untimely

April 26, 2001… Terri's parents file new legal action against Michael Schiavo and request that the removal of Terri's feeding tube be enjoined; the case is randomly assigned to Judge Quesada

April 26, 2001… Judge Quesada grants the temporary injunction, orders Terri's feeding tube restored

July 2001… Second District rules that Judge Greer erred in denying the motion alleging new evidence and, in essence, orders the trial court to consider whether new circumstances make enforcement of the original order inequitable; Second District also reverses the temporary injunction and orders dismissal of much of the new action filed before Judge Quesada [READ]

(uncertain)… Terri's parents detail their reasons why enforcement is inequitable: (1) new witnesses have new information regarding Terri's wishes, and (2) new medical treatment could sufficiently restore Terri's cognitive functioning such that Terri would decide that, under those circumstances, she would continue life-prolonging measures; Terri's parents also move to disqualify Judge Greer

(uncertain)… Trial court denies both motions as insufficient

October 2001… Second District affirms the denial of the motion to disqualify and the motion regarding the new witnesses; the appellate court reverses the order with regard to potential new medical treatments and orders a trial on that question with doctors testifying for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor [READ]

March 2002… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision [READ]

October 2002… Judge Greer holds a trial on the new medical treatment issue, hearing from doctors for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor; Terri's parents also assert that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state

Schindlers file emergency motion for relief from judgment based on a 1991 bone scan report indicating Terri's body had previously been subjected to trauma

November 22, 2002… Following trial, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion for relief (new medical evidence motion), rules that no new treatment offers sufficient promise of improving Terri's cognitive functioning and that Terri is, in fact, in a persistent vegetative state [READ]

November 22, 2002… On this same day, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' emergency motion related to the 1991 bone scan [READ]

June 2003… Second District affirms the trial court's decision denying Schindlers' motion for relief from judgment [READ]

August 22, 2003… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision [READ]

August 30, 2003… Terri's parents file federal action challenging Florida's laws on life-prolonging procedures as unconstitutional

September 17, 2003… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion to provide additional therapy, finding it an effort to retry the issues that were previously tried [READ]

October 10, 2003… Federal court dismisses Schindlers' case

October 15, 2003… Terri's feeding tube is removed for the second time

October 20, 2003… Florida House passes a bill to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube

October 21, 2003… Federal court rejects injunction request

October 21, 2003… Florida House and Senate pass a bill known informally as "Terri's Law" to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube [READ]; Governor signs the bill into law and immediately orders a stay; Terri is briefly hospitalized while her feeding tube is restored

October 21, 2003… Michael brings suit against the Governor, asking to enjoin the Governor's stay on grounds "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional; Judge Baird rejects Michael's request for an immediate injunction, allowing the tube to be restored, and requests briefs on the constitutional arguments involving the new law

November 7, 2003… Judge Baird rejects Governor's motion to dismiss Michael's suit and have case litigated in Tallahassee

November 20, 2003… Judge Baird rejects Governor's request for the judge to recuse himself

December 1, 2003… Guardian ad litem appointed under "Terri's Law" to advise Governor submits report to Governor [READ]

December 10, 2003… Second District rejects Governor's effort to have Judge Baird disqualified

April 2004… Second District affirms Judge Baird's decision denying Governor's motion to dismiss and have case litigated in Tallahassee [READ]

May 2004… Judge Baird declares "Terri's Law" unconstitutional on numerous grounds [READ]

June 2004… Second District certifies "Terri's Law" case directly to the Florida Supreme Court

July 2004… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment based on Pope John Paul II speech

September 2004… Florida Supreme Court affirms Judge Baird's ruling that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional [READ]

October 2004… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment (motion based on Pope John Paul II speech) [READ]

December 1, 2004… Governor asks U.S. Supreme Court to review Florida Supreme Court's decision declaring "Terri's Law" unconstitutional

December 29, 2004… Second District affirms (without written opinion) Judge Greer's ruling denying Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment

January 6, 2005… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment, alleging Terri never had her own attorney, that the trial court impermissibly applied the law retroactively, and that the original trial on Terri's wishes violated separation of powers principles

January 24, 2005… U.S. Supreme Court declines review in "Terri's Law" case

February 11, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' latest motion for relief from judgment (motion raising various due process challenges) [READ]

February 23, 2005… Florida's Department of Children and Families asks to intervene and for 60-day stay to permit investigation of alleged abuse [READ]

February 23, 2005… Schindlers file motion requesting new tests to determine Terri's status [READ]

February 25, 2005… Judge Greer rules motions appear endless, he will grant no further stays; sets March 18 date for removal of feeding tube [READ]

February 28, 2005… Schindlers file motion requesting that Terri be fed orally [READ]

March 2, 2005… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment, arguing factual error in original judgment [READ]

March 8, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion to feed Terri orally [READ]

March 9, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion requesting new tests [READ]

March 9, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment (motion based on factual error) [READ]

March 10, 2005… Judge Greer denies Department of Children and Families request to intervene and for stay, finds agency is free to investigate [READ]

March 16, 2005… Second District affirms Judge Greer's denial of Schindlers' motion raising various due process challenges, emphasizes law has been followed in this case [READ]

March 18, 2005… Schindlers file new federal action arguing due process violations in original trial; case assigned to Judge Moody [READ]

March 18, 2005… Judge Moody denies new federal claim, citing lack of jurisdiction [READ]

March 18, 2005… Congressional committee issues subpoenas for Michael, Terri, and Terri's caregivers to appear at hearing to be held at the hospice where Terri has stayed [READ]

March 18, 2005… Congressional committee files motion to intervene and modify order requiring the removal of Terri's feeding tube

March 18, 2005… Judge Greer denies congressional committee motion, ruling no grounds exist for intervention

March 18, 2005… Congressional committee requests Florida Supreme Court and Second District stay the feeding tube's removal [READ]

March 18, 2005… Terri's feeding tube removed for the third time

March 18, 2005… Florida Supreme Court denies congressional committee request, citing lack of jurisdiction [READ]

For more info on Terri Schiavo's case history, here's a link to an excellent summary: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

RE: Terry Schiavo Must Die:

Sometimes I really don't know, in the long run, what some people believe. But then maybe my brain isn't really working that well. As a long time conservative (and still am) I have no respect for what is going on here with Terry Schiavo. What happened to quality of life versus quantity. How in the hell is congress getting into this mess?

Sorry to confuse people by my statement in the first paragraph, but I guess I wanted people to realise that there are some Bush supporters that can't believe this "shit". But then I guess there are liberals here that are in support.

I suppose the reason I brought this up is that I was told I would be lucky if I had two years. And yes, the first thing I did was update my will! There is NO WAY anyone, and I mean ANYONE can keep me around. Now I just to take care of my two cats!

RE: Terry Schiavo Must Die:

VaHawk:

You hit the nail on the head. The Republicans are utterly shameless in their efforts to exploit any situation to foster their agenda. It is the ultimate in arrogance to subpoena a woman to testify before Congress who they know full well is incapable of doing so. I'm glad the judge in this case is just ignoring them.

RE: A Battle of Wills

There are ways. Where do you keep your papers, for one instance. Will they be found before or after your need? Are your wishes in the will or a power of attorney for health care or a living will? Because usually a will only becomes effective after you are dead...

Rhetorical questions for you in particular, but I never believe anything is fail-safe. Ask Congress about that!

RE: Terry Schiavo Must Die:

John,

I hope your doctors are wrong and that you can defy their expectations, as always with respect to the quality of your life.

Secondly, if you want to know why Congress is involved, here's the reason:

>>ABC News obtained talking points circulated among Senate Republicans explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them, that it is an important moral issue and the "pro-life base will be excited," and that it is a "great political issue — this is a tough issue for Democrats."<<

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Schiavo/story?id=595905&page=2

I respect those people who don't just blindly follow the Party line.

I get the impression you have never been in a position where you have seen a loved one dying and decisions had to be made by you about their care. If you had you would be a little more compassionate and understanding of these situations and you would not paint everything in such black and white or inflamatory terms such as "wouldn't treat a dog like that".

In the case of my mother, she had multiple organ failure and was given less than 2 weeks to live. Before lapsing into semi-unconsciousness, she made it clear she wanted to die and wanted no further efforts to prolong her life. In the final days no efforts were made to feed her or to give her water. Her mouth and lips were treated to that she didn't experience thirst. She was given pain killers to ease her suffering. She finally drifted away. I would assume the withholding of nutrition and administration of pain killers hastened her end. This is not an abnormal procedure.

In the case of Schiavo, the fact that a feeding tube has been in place so long complicates the issue. It is keeping her alive even though her brain is virtually dead (the thinking parts, not the parts which regulate her breathing and other vital functions). If the tube were to be removed and the other steps taken to alleviate any distress, she would not suffer any more than my mother did.

What I find disgusting is how the politicians have jumped on this case to advance their own agendas. To hear Senator McCain say today on television that all Mr. Schiavo has to do is divorse his wife and return her to her parents was the most repugnant thing I have heard a politician say in some time, and this from a conservative Republican who supposedly places great value in the sanctity of marriage and the family. IMO Mrs. Schiavo's parents "gave " her away on her wedding day and they have no further say in her care as long as she has a loving husband to look out for her. And from what I can see, he is doing just that.

Parents never "give you away." This remark exhibits little regard for their feelings. Suppose that you lapse into a coma 3 days after a drunken marriage in Vegas? The law would still afford the husband "standing" in a court of law. This is the issue that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, the Congressmen are performing as usual.

Execute a living will.

And the drama continues.

xecute a living will.

Joel:

I agree that living wills have become essential, but the fact that you have one isn't really enough. Where does that living will get stored? With your attorney? If you're poorly organized, as lots of folks are, you might have a living will and the pertinent parties would have no way of finding it. They might not know who your attorney is. So having one is simply not enough. You need to have it placed with a trusted friend or family member who would be ready to produce it should the need arise.

HURRAH,

Congress to the rescue, not this soap opera drama can continue.

Fiction can't come close to reality for entertainment.

What has changed for Bush?

The following legal provisions do I think cover exactly the circumstances in Florida.

"PROCEDURE WHEN PERSON HAS NOT EXECUTED OR

ISSUED A DIRECTIVE AND IS INCOMPETENT OR INCAPABLE OF

COMMUNICATION. (a) If an adult qualified patient has not

executed or issued a directive and is incompetent or otherwise

mentally or physically incapable of communication, the attending

physician and the patient's legal guardian or an agent under a

medical power of attorney may make a treatment decision that may

include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining

treatment from the patient.

(b) If the patient does not have a legal guardian or an agent

under a medical power of attorney, the attending physician and one

person, if available, from one of the following categories, in the

following priority, may make a treatment decision that may include

a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment:

(1) the patient's spouse;

(2) the patient's reasonably available adult children;

(3) the patient's parents; or

(4) the patient's nearest living relative."

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm

That is from chapter 166.035 of the Health and Safety Code enacted in Texas in 1999 when. if memory serves correctly, a certain George W Bush was Governor of the State who signed the provision into law. Now he has broken a holiday (the first time he has done that since 9/11?) to return to Washington to sign a special Bill to force physicians to do an act that is contrary to Texas state law.

How do those who support the aaaactions of the Christian right in Florida justify Bush's policy flip-flop?

>Parents never "give you away."

Every wedding I have been to (well over 50) has involved the Minister asking "who gives this bride in marriage" with usually the father but sometimes both the father and mother saying "we do". Now this is the religious part but under the state's jurisdiction over marriage, at that moment the new husband acquires from her parents the right of consent over questions dealing with his wife's welfare when she is not in a position to speak for herself, and this is the case for every state in the US (and every province in Canada).

What is disturbing is that the Congress is over-riding the whole concept of the sanctity of marriage and the notion that a man and wife (or where it is permitted a man and other man) become one. President Bush likes to say how much he wants to support the institution of marriage but by signing this law, he has done more to undermine it than any gay marriage has.

Furthermore, now that Congress has been stampeded into acting on this matter with so little consideration of all the ramifications of their action, it will be up to the courts to decide what to do. I hope the federal judges are as wise and as consistent as the state judges were in denying the application of the parents to intervene.

You are right that a living will would clarify the wife's intentions but these are not always available. Especially younger people, who think they will live forever, don't seem to see the need for them. I myself, only signed one in my early fifties when I was updating my will. My lawyer persuaded me it was a good idea. And when you see the problems that can arise, I now see the wisdom of having one.

>>Parents never "give you away."

>

>Every wedding I have been to (well over 50) has involved the

>Minister asking "who gives this bride in marriage" with

>usually the father but sometimes both the father and mother

>saying "we do". Now this is the religious part but under the

>state's jurisdiction over marriage, at that moment the new

>husband acquires from her parents the right of consent over

>questions dealing with his wife's welfare when she is not in a

>position to speak for herself, and this is the case for every

>state in the US (and every province in Canada).

The phrase "who giveth this woman to be married to this man" may be a part of traditional Christian marriage liturgy, but it is has fallen into disrepute and is used less and less by clergy in the more mainstream denominations for one simple reason: women are no longer considered "chattel" in American society. The more fundamentalist Christian denominations probably still use it, along with the crap about "wives obeying their husbands", but with the advent of the movement for equality between the sexes, this stuff is pretty much had a fork stuck in it.

>

>What is disturbing is that the Congress is over-riding the

>whole concept of the sanctity of marriage and the notion that

>a man and wife (or where it is permitted a man and other man)

>become one. President Bush likes to say how much he wants to

>support the institution of marriage but by signing this law,

>he has done more to undermine it than any gay marriage has.

I agree, but remember the real agenda here is to deflect attention from Tom "Orkin Man" Delay's ethical problems. God forbid that we should consider the notion of ethics in government important these days.

>

>Furthermore, now that Congress has been stampeded into acting

>on this matter with so little consideration of all the

>ramifications of their action, it will be up to the courts to

>decide what to do. I hope the federal judges are as wise and

>as consistent as the state judges were in denying the

>application of the parents to intervene.

I guess it will all come down to which judge gets the case. If it falls to one of Bush's ideological soulmates, you can pretty much predict the outcome. It is my understanding that the case will be assigned by computer, so it is a crap shoot. The Republican demagogues know their best shot is to get this into the hands of sympathetic federal judge/s they appointed, after all, it worked for them in the election aftermath of 2000.

RE: What has changed for Bush?

In another thread on the Schiavo case, it has been revealed that Bush, as Governor of Texas, signed into law a provision allowing hospitals to withdraw life support for patients who had little prospect of recovery and could not pay for their hospital care. The man, who is President, is truly VILE!!!

RE: A Quorum of Savages: Notes from the Debate of the Deluded:

3/21/2005

A Quorum of Savages: Notes from the Debate of the Deluded:

You haven't lived until you've heard Tom DeLay, choked with emotion, trying to erase his image as a vile, unethical sleazebag from the national view, talking about Terry Schiavo: "Mr. Speaker, after 4 days of words, the best of them uttered in prayer, now comes the time for action. I say again, the legal and political issues may be complicated, but the moral ones are not. A young woman in Florida is being dehydrated and starved to death. For 58 long hours, her mouth has been parched and her hunger pangs have been throbbing. If we do not act, she will die of thirst. However helpless, Mr. Speaker, she is alive. She is still one of us. And this cannot stand. . . .Terri Schiavo has survived her Passion weekend, and she has not been forsaken. No more words, Mr. Speaker. She is waiting. The Members are here. The hour has come."

Yes, sweet tender mercies, it wasn't lost on the gathered House members that it happened to be Palm Sunday when they flew in from around the world to make fine, fine speeches on the "sanctity" of "life." Said Representative Jeff Miller of Florida, "Mr. Speaker, 2,000 years ago Jesus Christ entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, marking the beginning of a week that throughout history and the world over has signified the sanctity of human life. Tonight we are here on Palm Sunday to afford the greatest presumption of life possible under our United States Constitution to a woman who has never truly been afforded representation and whose wishes are truly unknown." So, like Schiavo is Jesus? Are they saying that Jesus was a non-responsive grinning vegetable?

Meanwhile, the bashing of Michael Schiavo as some kind of slimeball continued. Despite the fact that in 1998 he offered to give his wife's portion of a lawsuit settlement to charity if she would be allowed to die. Despite the fact that he could have given up guardianship, divorced her at any time and moved on. Despite declining the craven attempts to pay him off by outsiders. Here's Miller, continuing on Michael Schiavo: "This is not about the sanctity of the Schiavo marriage. That is a matter between Terri and Michael. Mr. Schiavo has got some answering to do himself. Any insinuation otherwise is clear hypocrisy and nothing more."

Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey said, "We meet here tonight because there are serious questions whether Terri Schiavo's estranged husband, Michael, who has abandoned Terri for another woman and has had two kids with the other woman, could be trusted as a legal guardian for a woman for whom he has sought death for many years." Fuck, Smith makes it sound like Michael Schiavo wants to drag his rutabaga of a wife out of the hospice and into the streets of Pinellas County and beat her to death in front of her parents. Not that Theresa Schiavo would notice. Chances are that she'd "smile" that reflex smile while she was being beaten.

But this isn't really about Terri Schiavo today. As the Rude Pundit said last week, she must die, for her sake, for the sake of her family, and to demonstrate that God, Jesus, Allah, whoever, doesn't want her to live. (There you go, stupid fuckers praying outside the hospice, traveling from all over the country to screech and murmur to a negligent deity: if "God" wants her to live so fuckin' badly, why doesn't "He" heal her?)

No, this is about the Congress, primarily the Republicans, who are practicing Fallujah politics - the barbarous belief that you need to destroy something in order to re-create it according to your ideological whim. Whatever gets in your way must be wrecked, bombed to the ground, and shat upon. In this case, it's the Constitution, the judiciary, the bond of marriage. Look at this chilling statment from DeLay, whose very stare makes children want to kill baby animals: "The sanctity of life overshadows the sanctity of marriage. I don’t know what transpired between Terri and her husband. All I know is Terri is alive . . . Unless she has specifically written instructions in her hand, with her signature, I don’t care what her husband says."

And there's everything you need to know about contemporary conservatism and its evangelical remoras. Nothing matters - not medicine, not courts, not even the word of a spouse. All that matters is what DeLay says. Or Bush. Or Frist. The Congress and the President said fuck you to the husband; said fuck you to the following courts: the Pinellas County Circuit Court, the Second District Court of Appeal, the Florida Supreme Court, the Second District Court of Appeal (again), the Florida Supreme Court (again), the Pinellas Country Circuit Court (again and repeatedly), the Second District Court of Appeal (yet again and repeatedly), the Florida Supreme Court (yet again and repeatedly), and the U.S. Supreme Court; said fuck you to doctors; and said fuck you to any notions of the liberty of the living. Will they do something to say "fuck you" to the federal court that's considering the case now if it rules against the Republicans (and Schiavo's parents)? They have no idea. They're making it up on the fly, the Republicans. They pretend to a belief system and a plan, but ultimately they are merely tools, beholden to their polls, their politics, their re-election pocketbooks.

This entire debacle is about nothing more than changing the national argument, from Social Security, Iraq, and Tom DeLay, to their bullshit "culture of life." But as it sinks in, as it becomes apparent that all that's going on is pandering to the evangelical right, as the rest of us are galled by the actions of a destructive legislative branch, this will backfire.

The right wants to control your behavior and your interaction with others. In the bedroom, the classroom, the doctor's office, the hospital room. Now we know what the enemy believes - that they and only they know what is medically sound. Now we know why the enemy so absurdly "protects" the "rights" of those "who have no voice": the brain-damaged, the fetuses: because those can't tell the enemy that they're just fucking wrong.

Correction: Last week, the Rude Pundit referred to Terri Schiavo's brain as a "rock." More properly, it should be called a "puddle" or a "soup."

// posted by Rude One @ 11:24 AM

RE: A Quorum of Savages: Notes from the Debate of the Deluded:

I saw on CNN that the federal judge has taken the case under advisement, now that each sides has made its pleas. He hasn't rendered a decision so far. Do you think he'll just keep it under advisement until Terri Schiavo dies to keep the meddlers from interfering further with her?

As for the moaners and groaners about the cruelty of starving a patient to death: the general consensus is that withdrawing nutrition and hydration leads to a painless death. This is a last resort measure, in any case, and people in this situation are usually so sick that even if they're conscious they wouldn't want to eat or drink, anyway. Patients can be kept comfortable during this process, so it isn't painful or horrible. Within a short period of time patients usually weaken further and end up sleeping most of the time or are no longer fully conscious. In they end they just drift away. In this case, that's what will inevitably happen to the artificially maintained body that once belonged to the person who was Terri Schiavo. Terri Schiavo herself has long been gone.

Also, some posters as usual have started ranting about modern euthanasia being equivalent to what the Nazis did. The Nazis killed disabled people who, by modern standards, were often only mildly disabled. None of the Nazis victims, to my knowledge, WANTED to die. There is a big difference between gassing truckloads of disabled kids and allowing a person in extreme suffering with no hope of cure to choose not to prolong their suffering by extraordinary means.

One of the things we all prize most is our ability to control our environments and lives. Nothing is more devastating than losing that through illness or age. It's easy for Doug69 to spout his screeds, but I'd be willing to bet that if he found himself bedridden, paralyzed, and in excruciating pain with no hope of recovery, he'd be asking someone to pull the plug for him, too. Unfortunately, as in the case of Terri Schiavo, not everyone maintains their mental capacity to make such a request when catastrophe strikes. Someone else must make that decision for them. I can't imagine a more difficult position to find oneself in, but millions of people find themselves in this predicament every year. And many will decide to "pull the plug." Not everyone believes that life is always worth living, no matter how wretched it is. People like Dougie and the Catholic hierarchy, attempt to impose their views (which they may sincerely believe) on people who just as sincerely believe otherwise. That's a kind of totalitarianism that should be intolerable in a free society. These kinds of excruciating decisions should be left between the affected people, those who have the right to make decisions for them (if that's the case) and G-d, as they understand Him. And the U.S. Congress and President Bush, much as they may think they are, aren't G-d. They urgently need to stop acting like they are. The fundamentalist among them, especially, should go back to their Bibles to re-read what happens to people who start to think they're G-d. For those not familiar with the Bible stories, let's just say they don't come to good ends.

RE: Terry Schiavo Must Die:

>Perhaps, as her husband, she expressed her wishes to him many

>times, and just perhaps, as her husband he loved her and is

>willing to take all kinds of unfounded abuse to honor her

>wishes?

With all that husbandly love, one wonders why he's been living & having children with another woman for years.