posted March 24, 2005 09:00 PM            

The Terri Schiavo case is hard to write about, hard to think about. Those films are hard to look at. I see that face, maybe smiling, maybe not, and I am reminded of a young woman I knew as a child, lying on a couch, brain-damaged, apparently unresponsive, and deeply beloved—freakishly perhaps but genuinely so—living proof of one family's no-matter-what commitment. I watch nourishment flowing into a slim tube that runs through a neat, round, surgically created orifice in Ms. Schiavo's abdomen, and I'm almost envious. What effortless intake! Due to a congenital neuromuscular disease, I am having trouble swallowing, and it's a constant struggle to get by mouth the calories my skinny body needs. For whatever reason, I'm still trying, but I know a tube is in my future. So, possibly, is speechlessness. That's a scary thought. If I couldn't speak for myself, would I want to die? If I become uncommunicative, a passive object of other people's care, should I hope my brain goes soft and leaves me in peace?

My emotional response is powerful, but at bottom it's not important. It's no more important than anyone else's, not what matters. The things that ought to matter have become obscured in our communal clash of gut reactions. Here are 10 of them:

1. Ms. Schiavo is not terminally ill. She has lived in her current condition for 15 years. This is not about end-of-life decision-making. The question is whether she should be killed by starvation and dehydration.

2. Ms. Schiavo is not dependent on life support. Her lungs, kidneys, heart, and digestive systems work fine. Just as she uses a wheelchair for mobility, she uses a tube for eating and drinking. Feeding Ms. Schiavo is not difficult, painful, or in any way heroic. Feeding tubes are a very simple piece of adaptive equipment, and the fact that Ms. Schiavo eats through a tube should have nothing to do with whether she should live or die.

3. This is not a case about a patient's right to refuse treatment. I don't see eating and drinking as "treatment," but even if they are, everyone agrees that Ms. Schiavo is presently incapable of articulating a decision to refuse treatment. The question is who should make the decision for her, and whether that substitute decision-maker should be authorized to kill her by starvation and dehydration.

4. There is a genuine dispute as to Ms. Schiavo's awareness and consciousness. But if we assume that those who would authorize her death are correct, Ms. Schiavo is completely unaware of her situation and therefore incapable of suffering physically or emotionally. Her death thus can't be justified for relieving her suffering.

5. There is a genuine dispute as to what Ms. Schiavo believed and expressed about life with severe disability before she herself became incapacitated; certainly, she never stated her preferences in an advance directive like a living will. If we assume that Ms. Schiavo is aware and conscious, it is possible that, like most people who live with severe disability for as long as she has, she has abandoned her preconceived fears of the life she is now living. We have no idea whether she wishes to be bound by things she might have said when she was living a very different life. If we assume she is unaware and unconscious, we can't justify her death as her preference. She has no preference.

6. Ms. Schiavo, like all people, incapacitated or not, has a federal constitutional right not to be deprived of her life without due process of law.

7. In addition to the rights all people enjoy, Ms. Schiavo has a statutory right under the Americans With Disabilities Act not to be treated differently because of her disability. Obviously, Florida law would not allow a husband to kill a nondisabled wife by starvation and dehydration; killing is not ordinarily considered a private family concern or a matter of choice. It is Ms. Schiavo's disability that makes her killing different in the eyes of the Florida courts. Because the state is overtly drawing lines based on disability, it has the burden under the ADA of justifying those lines.

8. In other contexts, federal courts are available to make sure state courts respect federally protected rights. This review is critical not only to the parties directly involved, but to the integrity of our legal system. Although review will very often be a futile last-ditch effort—as with most death-penalty habeas petitions—federalism requires that the federal government, not the states, have the last word. When the issue is the scope of a guardian's authority, it is necessary to allow other people, in this case other family members, standing to file a legal challenge.

9. The whole society has a stake in making sure state courts are not tainted by prejudices, myths, and unfounded fears—like the unthinking horror in mainstream society that transforms feeding tubes into fetish objects, emblematic of broader, deeper fears of disability that sometimes slide from fear to disgust and from disgust to hatred. While we should not assume that disability prejudice tainted the Florida courts, we cannot reasonably assume that it did not.

10. Despite the unseemly Palm Sunday pontificating in Congress, the legislation enabling Ms. Schiavo's parents to sue did not take sides in the so-called culture wars. It did not dictate that Ms. Schiavo be fed. It simply created a procedure whereby the federal courts could decide whether Ms. Schiavo's federally protected rights have been violated.

In the Senate, a key supporter of a federal remedy was Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, a progressive Democrat and longtime friend of labor and civil rights, including disability rights. Harkin told reporters, "There are a lot of people in the shadows, all over this country, who are incapacitated because of a disability, and many times there is no one to speak for them, and it is hard to determine what their wishes really are or were. So I think there ought to be a broader type of a proceeding that would apply to people in similar circumstances who are incapacitated."

I hope against hope that I will never be one of those people in the shadows, that I will always, one way or another, be able to make my wishes known. I hope that I will not outlive my usefulness or my capacity (at least occasionally) to amuse the people around me. But if it happens otherwise, I hope whoever is appointed to speak for me will be subject to legal constraints. Even if my guardian thinks I'd be better off dead—even if I think so myself—I hope to live and die in a world that recognizes that killing, even of people with the most severe disabilities, is a matter of more than private concern.

Clearly, Congress's Palm Sunday legislation was not the "broader type of proceeding" Harkin and I want. It does not define when and how federal court review will be available to all of those in the shadows, but rather provides a procedure for one case only. To create a general system of review, applicable whenever life-and-death decisions intersect with disability rights, will require a reasoned, informed debate unlike what we've had until now. It will take time. But in the Schiavo case, time is running out.

Harriet McBryde Johnson is a disability-rights lawyer in Charleston, S.C. Her memoir in stories, Too Late to Die Young: Nearly True Tales from a Life, will be released in April.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2115208/

posted March 25, 2005 07:34 AM            

Terri Schiavo has not received any nourishment since the tube was pulled Friday afternoon, and relatives who visited her said her deterioration is continuing. Her eyes were sunken, skin parched and flaking and her lips and tongue were dry, said Barbara Weller, an attorney for the Schindlers."
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGBENOP1O6E.html

posted March 25, 2005 09:43 AM              

Terri with her mom and dad...

posted March 25, 2005 12:12 PM            

I see this as a clear cut case that has a family that seems to have a problem with either barring loss of their daughter and letting go or the loss of the money that they can possible can recieve from Terri's eventual death and detest that fact that Terri was legally married to her husband Michael Schiavo. And in spite to also the fact that the republican dominated Congress can seize a chance to make themselves look good to the eyes of the people stating that "We saved Terri from the evil clutches of the judical system!"(should be "via the law!"), I feel that this is nothing but a far cry from what could be at stake upon the fact of what would become more for the people of America that can bare to sacrifice! Not me!

The question lies, "Is this an attempt for Christian conservatives, shrewd politicians, and corperate lobbyists to "Trojan horse" the U.S Constitution in order to exempt the right to a fair trial by law against the people of the United States?"

Guess what? They got better chances of piercing through a brick wall with a paper airplane!

Schindler v. Schiavo II
By Rich Galen
CNSNews.com Commentary
March 25, 2005

* According to a few Members of the US House of Representatives, I was incorrect in my assertion on Wednesday that the bill signed into law early Monday morning (Public Law 109-3) simply gave Terri Schiavo's parents access to the Federal Courts and did not require the reinsertion of her feeding tube.

* The "few Members" of the House of Reps include Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Majority Whip Roy Blount, and Judiciary Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner as well as Florida Congressman Dave Weldon (who is an M.D.) submitted a "friend of the court" brief asserting the legislative intent of the law.

* Their brief stated that Public Law 109-3, requires US District Court Judge James Whittemore to have Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted pending the outcome of the federal court reviews.

* The section of the brief in question reads, "Clearly, the Middle District of Florida is required by Public Law 109-3 to keep Theresa Marie Schiavo alive until such time as a de novo review of her claims occur."

* According to the Findlaw.com legal dictionary, "de novo" means, "over again; as if for the first time."

* When the Supreme Court, in a 33-word order, ruled unanimously that Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube should not be reinserted, it rendered PL 109-3 moot, whatever the intention of the Congress was and whatever its Constitutionality.

* But let's track back over this anyway.

* Either PL 109-3 is Unconstitutional, meaning the Congress, under the doctrine of separation of powers, cannot require a Federal judge to issue a specific order in a specific case; OR Judge Whittemore chose to ignore a Constitutionally acceptable law, which might well qualify as bad behavior on his part.

* Let's go to the rule book:

* Article I, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

* Article I, section 3 states "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

* Article III, section 1 states that Federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior," which is the basis of the lifetime appointment for Federal judges.

* There is a concept in US Constitutional law of "Judicial Review" which has been in force since 1803 when Chief Justice John Marshall first asserted it in Marbury v Madison.

* Judicial Review grants Federal courts the right -- and responsibility -- to (according to findlaw.com) "strike down an act of Congress as inconsistent with the Constitution."

* My excellent memory of Dr. Robert Hill's Con Law class at Marietta College does not include in that doctrine, the Judiciary's authority to simply ignore a law which is otherwise Constitutional.

* So,

If PL 109-3 is Constitutional; and

If the House was serious about the passage of PL 109-3; and

If the intent of the legislation was to have Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted; and

If U.S. District Judge Whittemore willfully ignored PL 109-3; and

If a Federal judge can only continue to serve "during good behavior;" and

If defying a lawful statute is bad behavior; and

If the House of Representatives has "the sole power of impeachment;" then,

* The House Judiciary Committee should immediately being impeachment proceedings against Judge Whittemore.

* Whew!

* I do not expect that the House will impeach Judge Whittemore and if they did, I would not expect that the US Senate would convict.

* Articles of Impeachment have only been adopted by the House 62 times since 1789. Of the cases which went to a Senate trial only seven resulted in convictions. All seven, interestingly, were Federal judges.

* The appalling case of Terri Schiavo and her family is coming to an end. It may not have lasting significance from a political standpoint, but its impact on the legislative/judicial relationship may echo for years to come.

* On the Secret Decoder Ring page today: The text of the Supreme Court's order; the text of the House Leadership's friend of the court brief; a eye-wiper of a Mullfoto, and an extremely clever Catchy Caption of the Day.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C20 0503%5CCOM20050325a.html

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

In other words, to reinsert Terri's feeding tube can possibly prolong the inevitable of her untimely fate, but also embarks as a direct violation of the Bill of Rights by Congress!

That's why Judge Greer or anybody else in the Judical system refuses to budge from they're stance by law!

Jeb Bush and anybody else in the political scene can be faced with charges against them if they proceed any further with they're legal(or illegal pleas) that is solely responsible for all these rebuttals of the "Terri Schiavo case"!

posted March 25, 2005 12:54 PM            

Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader

I know you in the Congress think the Terri Schiavo issue is over. I have a hot flash for all Congressional Republicans...it isn't over. It will be over when each and every one of you have been defeated in a coming election.

To think you testosterone challenged girlie men allowed a bunch of judicial tyrants to issue orders from the bench to put a totally innocent woman to death by a method no court in America would approve for a convicted serial murderer is simply outrageous.

To think, hearsay evidence was permitted as the basis for an order to kill Terri Schiavo, hearsay evidence that wouldn't be permitted in small claims court is utterly disgusting.

More disgusting is the fact you girlie men haven't started impeachment proceedings against every federal judge involved in the review process and particularly against the judge who defied the legislation enacted to ensure a "new" look at the evidence by a federal court before Terri Schiavo was put to death by dehydration and starvation.

You think it's over but it's just started. You have shown us all that we are not safe from judicial tyranny and that our own lives are at risk by permitting you to stay in power in Congress.

What's next? A judicial decree that death is a duty when a judicial tyrant decides our quality of life doesn't meet a judge's standards?

You think it's over but it won't be over until we get some Congressional representation in Congress by elected members who can come to the conclusion that a federal judge who ignores the Constitution, ignores legislation and writes their own from the bench is not serving with "good behavior".

My conclusion is that's going to take a change of Congress.

You have it all wrong. You think your job is to get along. It isn't.

Subj: RE: Your recent message.
Date: 3/24/2005 5:07:16 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: HastertReply@mail.house.gov (Speaker J. Dennis Hastert)
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thank you very much for contacting my office about an issue that I know
concerns you greatly. Please note that this is an auto-reply to acknowledge that your email message has been received.

Subj: Thank you for contacting Senator Frist
Date: 3/24/2005 4:49:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Senator_Frist@frist.senate.gov
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Mr. xxxxxx

Thank you for your e-mail, and I look forward to reviewing and responding as soon as I can. Unfortunately, due to the high volume of mail I receive daily and the press of Senate business, your response may be regrettably delayed. In the meanwhile, you may find my website at http://frist.senate.gov to be helpful, as I endeavor to post my positions on most major policy issues there regularly along with other information of interest.

posted March 25, 2005 01:05 PM            

Friday, March 25, 2005 12:08 p.m. EST
Prior Greer Ruling Led to Wife's Death

If Terri Schiavo dies in the next two weeks, it won't be the first time a ruling by Florida Circuit Court Judge George Greer has cost a woman her life.

"She did not appear . . . [to] be in imminent and reasonable fear of danger," Judge Greer explained, after he denied Helene McGee an order of protection against her husband in March 1998.

A few days later, Mrs. McGee's body was discovered in her Dunedin home, stabbed to death by the same man Greer said she had no need to fear.

After the murder, the Schiavo case judge explained that if he'd only known her husband had access to a weapon, he would have granted Mrs. McGee's request for protection.

When McGee applied for an injunction at the Pinellas County Courthouse a few weeks before her death, Deputy Clerk Judy Wong asked her whether she had suffered physical violence, such as hitting or kicking, in her marriage.

"She said, "No, he hasn't ever hit me,' " Wong told the St. Petersberg Times.

McGee did note, however, that her husband had raped her, burned her belongings and threatened to kill her.

But that wasn't enough to persuade Judge Greer, who also failed to consider the fact that Mr. McGee had a prior history of domestic violence.

After Helene McGee's death, the court discovered that her husband was fined after pleading no contest to misdemeanor domestic battery on his fifth wife in Hernando County in 1993.

"This case apparently had a lot of the red flags which are pretty standard," Robin Hassler, director of Gov. Jeb Bush's task force on domestic violence, said at the time. "And that's disturbing."

Linda Osmundson, executive director of the Center Against Spouse Abuse in St. Petersburg, said Greer missed a lot of evidence that indicated Helene McGee was in danger.

posted March 25, 2005 03:16 PM              

All I'm concerned about is, Terri and the fact that there ought to be somebody out there who can save her life.....BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!

But as each hour goes by, she draws closer to death!

***

OZONE.....of course the Schindler's don't want to lose their daughter! Would you?

....and they shouldn't have to!

All they asked was for her "husband"(who is living with another woman now, having had two children with her)....to turn Terri over to them so they could take care of her...

.....and his so called "devotion" to Terri and determination to carry our what she supposedly wanted (should she ever be in a situation like she is now in), is obviously a bunch of BS.......since his committment and devotion has now turned to ANOTHER WOMAN.......

.....so why is he "clinging so damned hard" to Terri?? Is it control....just to SHOW her parents that HE IS THE ONE IN CHARGE? (never mind the fact that he has another woman now)......and maybe it's much, much more than control......maybe it's determination to keep quiet forever, some dirty, horrible, little secret that he doesn't want anyone to ever find out.

What ever the reason....it's rotton....

posted March 25, 2005 09:51 PM            

quote:

---

her "husband"(who is living with another woman now, having had two childtren with her).

---

This is something else that I am completely appalled by. The man is an adulterer. He is blatantly and shamelessly cheating on his wife and has been doing so for YEARS. But that's ok because his wife is disabled? We all have the right to cheat on our spouses if they're disabled? That's news to me. How can people possibly think that he has her best interests in mind? She left no written anything about her desires. All we have to go on is his word that he knows what she would want ... the word of a man who could not even keep his marriage vows! "'Till death do you part." Does anyone remember that? We could throw in, "or until a divorce is granted" nowadays but oh no ... in this case, it was "we'll kill your disabled wife so you can 'part' and be with your mistress and illegitimate children."
But wait! You can't just cheat on your wife because she's disabled, you can kill her, too! Because her disability is the reason she is being starved to death. Someone has decided that a disabled person's life is not worth living. They have decided that death by starvation and dehydration is better than being disabled.
Quality of life ... an assumed quality of life based on standards set by an arbitrary human being ... that is what is killing Terri Schiavo.
Newsflash ... if she is not conscious, then she can't be miserable. Does anyone understand this? If she is not conscious, then she is unaware of her condition, she is not suffering. So there goes that pathetic excuse. If she is conscious, then she and only she should be able to decide whether or not she wants to die, especially when there are people willing to care for her in her current condition, especially when there are people who, unlike her adulterous husband are willing to provide her with the therapy she needs and has a strong chance to make improvements with.
But apparantly, in America, disabled people no longer have the basic rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I wonder how far that will be taken if changes aren't made now. There are thousands, possibly millions of people in America who can be described as having a miserable existence. The wretchedly poor, the incurably ill, the children who suffer abuse at the hands of their parents, the people who are depressed beyond functionality and despise their dead-end jobs which they must keep to get along in this world and provide a home for a family they don't even know ... the list is endless and misery is something that touches us all at one point or another. Who is going to decide what is a good enough life that is worth living? I'm sorry but I was under the apparantly mistaken impression that all lives are worth living ... that until your body gives up the will to live you have the basic inalienable right to live. Apparantly, I haven't been living in the same country as these people who feel that murdering an innocent woman through starvation and dehydration is "humane" because she is disabled and "can't" have a life "like the rest of us can". Apparantly, these people are completely ignorant in regards to our Constitutional rights and have been living in some communistic, Hitlerian world where your life can be seen as unworthy based on discrimination. Because murdering someone just for being disabled is, at heart, an issue of discrimination ... tyrranical and heinous, deadly discrimination.
People who are unhappy with their lives do not have the right to end their own lives ... but we can starve a disabled person to death. People who's bodies have ceased to be able to support their own lives stir up controversy when someone decides to unplug them from this life ... but we can starve a disabled person to death. A serial killer or a terrorist can complain that his treatment in prison is "inhumane" because he's not getting adequate food or water and cause and uproar about basic human rights ... but we can starve a disabled person to death.
When the hell did I wake up in Hell?

posted March 26, 2005 01:18 AM            

Reclaiming America, an organization backed by Rev. D. James Kennedy, reported that a serious conflict of interest may exist for the Fla. State Judge who is ruling on the Terri Schiavo case.

The report from Reclaiming America follows:

As if the circumstances surrounding Terri Schiavo could not get any more suspicious, the Center for Reclaiming America has uncovered evidence that Pinellas-Pasco County Circuit Judge George W. Greer accepted a campaign contribution from the law firm of Michael Schiavo’s attorney only one day after "Terri’s Law” was declared unconstitutional by a Pinellas county court.
This appears to establish a clear conflict of interest between Judge Greer and the best interests of Terri Schiavo.

Judge Greer has been responsible for establishing "the facts” in the case of Terri Schiavo. Sadly, he has dismissed or ignored testimony from 33 physicians (15 neurologists) who are willing to testify that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state and can improve, he has refused to allow the Florida Department of Children and Families to conduct a criminal investigation of Michael Schiavo, he has refused to honor a subpoena from the U.S. Congress, and he has blocked virtually all efforts from the Schindler family to save the life of their daughter.

According to public records available from the Florida Department of State: Division of Elections, Judge George W. Greer received a campaign contribution from the law firm of Felos & Felos during his re-election efforts in the spring of 2004.

Of course, no direct evidence suggests collusion between the two parties, but the timing of the campaign contribution is highly suspect.

On May 6, 2004, a Pinellas county court struck down legislation ("Terri’s Law”) passed by the Florida legislature and signed by Governor Jeb Bush, which was designed to halt a previous attempt to starve Terri Schiavo to death.

On May 7, 2004 — only one day after the ruling — Judge Greer received a campaign gift from the law firm of Michael Schiavo’s attorney.

posted March 26, 2005 01:29 AM            

Terri Schiavo had a bad fight with her husband the night before she was discovered unconscious in the hallway of her St. Petersberg, Fla., home 15 years ago, and intended to seek a divorce, a close friend said Friday.

"They were talking about divorce at the time that Terri collapsed," Jackie Rhodes told Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends." Rhodes became a friend of Ms. Schiavo's when they worked together at an insurance company.

On the night of their marital blow-up, Rhodes said, Terri called her about the fight.
"I said, do you want me to come over?" Schiavo said no, saying that she'd just spoken to her brother and was going to go see him.

"If you want me to come over later - if you want to come over to my house, just call," Rhodes remembers saying. "I'll do whatever you need."

Rhodes said the fight came as Terri and Michael considered splitting up.

"They were talking about a divorce at the time that Terri collapsed, and I do feel they were headed for divorce," Rhodes said.

Apparently Rhodes wasn't the only one who knew the Schiavos' marriage was unraveling.

When Michael filed a malpractice suit after Terri's accident, Rhodes said:

"The malpractice attorney followed me down the hall at the courthouse and told me that it was important that I did not mention that they were discussing divorce during this trial, because it would impact the court's decision."

She said the attorney didn't get the divorce info from her.

"Someone else told the malpractice attorney about that because I had not talked to him prior to that," Rhodes said.

posted March 26, 2005 08:12 AM              

The following documents have been collected from case evidence, testimony and other sources in the public record.

These items give significant illustration that the circumstances surrounding Terri's collapse may be suspect and that the following actions by the guardian should be investigated."

"...On March 5, 1991, just 53 weeks after Terri’s collapse, a bone scan taken of Terri revealed a healed broken Right Femur Bone and healed bone fractures in Terri’s Ribs, Pelvis, Spine and Ankle. The radiologist, Dr. Walker (document No. 3), concluded that “Terri has a history of trauma” and presumed “that the other multiple areas of abnormal activity also relate to previous trauma.”
An orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Hamilton (document No. 10), initially saw Terri a few months after she collapsed. Michael Schiavo never disclosed this information to any of Terri’s family."

Go to the link...there'a a LOT more....

posted March 26, 2005 08:34 AM              

Linda believed in it....

....and I believe in it.....

For all those who had a hand in Terri's murder..(and there are going to be many)

............there will be.....

posted March 26, 2005 11:13 AM            

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 26, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Diana Lynne
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

As Terri Schiavo enters what are thought to be her last hours of life, allegations of political corruption and obstruction of justice on the part of state officials raise questions as to whether the brain-injured woman's court-ordered death by starvation might serve to cover up crimes committed against her.

Criminal probes launched by two Florida agencies looking into allegations the incapacitated woman was abused, neglected and exploited were shut down, despite investigators' concerns.

One investigation took place at the Department of Children and Families, or DCF, in late 2001. The other was conducted by agents with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, or FDLE, in August 2003.

Both agencies are mandated by Florida Statutes 415 and 825 to detect and correct the abuse, neglect, and exploitation of the elderly or disabled adults.

The individual whose 700-page anonymous complaint prompted the DCF to conduct a 60-day investigation into numerous alleged violations of state statutes protecting disabled and incapacitated people tells WND the DCF investigator gave him the impression he thought the allegations were credible and he was sorry the probe got aborted by his superiors.

The complainant, who wishes to remain unnamed, tells WND he spent numerous hours over a period of several weeks working with the DCF adult protective services investigator after filing his complaint in November 2001.

"It was clear to me that he found credibility in most, if not all, the charges," the complainant said of the investigator.

But when the investigator turned his report in to his superiors, he reportedly hit a brick wall.

"It went up the ladder. It crashed. The report findings were marked 'Unfounded but With Recommendations,'" the complainant recalls the investigator telling him.

When the complainant expressed disbelief at the outcome and asked what "with recommendations" meant, he says the investigator became tight-lipped.

"I've said too much. All I can say is keep up the fight," the investigator said.

At the time, DCF attorney Frank Nagatani publicly declared: "DCF is not going to get involved [in the Terri Schiavo case] until this is out of the court."

Florida Department of State Election records show Nagatani contributed to the 1998 election campaign of 6th Judicial Circuit Court Judge George Greer, the primary adjudicator in the Terri Schiavo case. While no records exist detailing the amount of Nagatani's total contribution, according to Greer's reported campaign expenditures, Nagatani was paid $18.75 on Aug. 11, 1998 for a "partial contribution refund."

WorldNetDaily reported Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, also donated to Greer's re-election campaign. The $250 contribution was made by Felos' law firm, Felos & Felos, on May 7, 2004 – one day after Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge Douglas Baird ruled "Terri's Law" unconstitutional.

Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have been locked in a 7-year court battle with her estranged husband, Michael Schiavo, over her fate.

Terri responds to her mother.

Michael Schiavo maintains he's carrying out Terri's wishes not to be kept alive artificially.

"My aim is to carry out Terri's wishes," Schiavo told WND. "If Terri would even know that I had somebody taking care of her bodily functions, she'd kill us all in a heartbeat. She'd be so angry."

Terri is not hooked up to any life-support machines, but requires the feeding tube for nourishment. Doctors removed it March 18 per Greer's court order, after a flurry of eleventh-hour appeals by the Schindlers failed.

In February 2000, Greer ruled that statements Terri allegedly made to Michael Schiavo, his brother and his brother's wife a year before her injury that she didn't want to be kept alive artificially were "clear and confincing evidence" of her wishes.

The Schindlers reject their daughter, a devout Roman Catholic, would have made such statements.

After eight days of dehydration and starvation, Terri Schiavo is "still responsive" but is "weakening," according to Bob Schindler.

"She's down to her last hours. Something has to be done and has to be done quick," he told reporters outside the hospice where Terri resides.

Michael Schiavo's brother, Brian Schiavo, told CNN Terri Schiavo "does look a little withdrawn," but said she was not in pain, calling starvation "part of the death process."

Shortly after the complainant was informed the DCF investigation was scrubbed, Pat Anderson, the attorney representing the Schindlers at the time issued a subpoena to the investigator to find out what went on at DCF.

During a hearing held by Greer on Jan. 23, 2002 over Felos' counter-motion to quash the subpoena, Greer is said to have indicated he knew about the DCF report. He ruled in favor of quashing the subpoena and nothing came of the DCF investigation.

Curiously, an anonymous person at DCF mailed a box, presumably containing the hefty complaint, back to the complainant in September 2003. The outside of the box was marked: "You may need this. It was scheduled for destruction."

The complainant was instructed by Schindler attorneys not to open the box for fear of damaging any fingerprints, and to keep it in a secure place for possible use as evidence later.

Off again, on again DCF

The DCF complainant suspects Nagatani's departure from the social services agency explains the recent attempted intervention in the ongoing court battle, contrary to his pledge to stay on the sidelines until its conclusion.

WND reported the DCF launched a new investigation late last month into 30 new complaints of "abuse, neglect or exploitation" the agency said came through its anonymous abuse hot line on Feb. 18 and Feb. 21.

DCF filed a petition to intervene in the case and requested a 60-day stay of Greer's ordered removal of the feeding tube while it conducts an investigation.

Among the allegations of abuse or neglect on the part of Michael Schiavo are:

Failure to file proper guardianship plan or report

Denial of access to legal counsel on different occasions

Failure to educate using certain therapies in violation of guardianship

Experimental procedures performed without proper medical and legal procedures observed

Current confinement issues at ward's residence

Lack of manipulation of the ward's arms, causing severe contractures

Lack of communication/visitation
The 11-page confidential document supplied to attorneys references the earlier investigation.

"There are allegations that DCF has investigated that have been closed as unfounded. While the DCF stands by its past decisions, it nevertheless reserves its rights to review any updated or relevant information in the full fair and final determination of this matter given the totality of the circumstances," reads the court petition.

Anticipating Greer's repeated rulings since 2001 dismissing the allegations as old news, the petition states: "The court's determination that it has reviewed some or all of these facts does not relieve DCF from discharging its [statutory] investigative duties."

The motion is signed by Adult Protective Investigations Supervisor Michael Will and and DCF attorney Kelly McKibben.

Felos blasted the DCF's attempt to intervene in the case, saying it "reeks of political arm-twisting."

On Wednesday, Greer dismissed the DCF's motion for a 60-day stay of his court order to remove the feeding tube.

FDLE's open-and-shut case

As first reported by the Empire Journal, two FDLE agents looked into accusations Terri Schiavo was battered by her husband prior to her mysterious collapse, and has been the victim of abuse and neglect at nursing homes and hospice ever since.

WorldNetDaily has obtained a heavily redacted copy of the FDLE report filed by special agent Terrell Rhodes that indicates an investigation was launched Aug. 10, 2003 after special agent Mark Dubina received information regarding a criminal complaint from Anderson.

The basis of Anderson's request, according to the report, was the discovery of a nuclear imaging bone scan performed on Terri Schiavo by Dr. W. Campbell Walker at Manatee Memorial Hospital on March 3, 1991 – 13 months after her collapse.

In February of 1990 at the age of 26, Terri Schiavo collapsed at home and oxygen was cut off to her brain for several minutes. The cause of the collapse is disputed. Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband, blames a cardiac arrest induced by a potassium imbalance associated with bulimia. The Schindlers suspect he tried to strangle her, based on court testimony by a neurologist that Terri had suffered a neck injury when she was admitted to the hospital.

WorldNetDaily reported the bone scan describes what are known as "hot spots" suggestive of multiple fractures in her ribs, first lumbar vertebra, several thoracic vertebrae, both sacroiliac joints, and both knees and ankles, all deemed "presumably traumatic" by Walker.

"The patient has a history of trauma," writes Walker in the report. "The presumption is that the other multiple areas of abnormal activity ["hot spots"] also relate to previous trauma."

WND reported Felos called the implication of abuse "garbage." Citing medical records, he told WND a follow-up X-ray done to verify the cause of the "hot spots" showed "degenerative bone disease, not multiple fractures ... and only showed a minor fracture in the femur."

The Empire Journal, quoting anonymous sources, reports that when Dubina opened a file into the case, he was called into his supervisor's office and told to shut down the investigation not once, but twice.

Dubina and another agent have reportedly contacted the current attorneys representing the Schindlers and given statements detailing the "cover up" by FDLE superiors, which they suspect, according to Empire Journal, was ordered by Bernie McCabe, state attorney for Pinellas and Pasco County.

Calls to Dubina and the Clearwater office of FDLE where the investigation was initiated were not returned.

The report indicates the findings of the investigation were reviewed by Regional Director Lance Newman, Investigative Chief Moses Jordan and Special Agent Supervisor Troy Walker.

A final decision was made that FDLE would not continue the investigation primarily because "any criminal violation that might have occurred would have been within the city of St. Petersburg" and therefore out of FDLE's jurisdiction.

The other reasons cited were:

"No indisputable evidence was identified that could justify a case for charging Michael Schiavo with physical, domestic abuse"

"It would not be possible to prosecute Michael Schiavo of a crime if the allegation could be proven due to the statute of limitations of criminal proceedings under Florida State Statute 775.15."

Sources told the Empire Journal indictments have come out of cases with less evidence than was presented in this probe.

The Bradenton Herald reports McCabe reviewed some of Terri Schiavo's medical records but found no evidence of abuse. He also noted that even if there was abuse, the statute of limitations had expired.

The Tallahassee-based Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, the state-appointed group that monitors the treatment of disabled adults also attempted to investigate the abuse allegations but said it was blocked by Michael Schiavo when he denied permission to examine his wife.

The allegations probed by DCF, FDLE and McCabe mirror those raised repeatedly – and unsuccessfully – in motions filed by the Schindlers seeking the removal of Michael Schiavo as their daughter's legal guardian.

Among the Schindlers neglect and abuse complaints is that Michael Schiavo:

Has not allowed therapy or rehabilitation since late 1992.

Has prevented swallowing tests or swallowing therapy since 1993.

Ordered caretakers not to clean Terri's teeth since 1995, resulting in removal of five teeth in April 2004.

Placed Terri in hospice in 2000, despite the fact she is not terminally ill.

Refuses to allow Terri to leave her room. She has not been outside since 2000.

Ordered doctors not to treat Terri when she had a life threatening infection in 1993 and 1995.
Former caregivers filed affidavits with the court claiming Michael Schiavo withheld medical care and rehabilitative therapy from his wife and indicated he wanted her to die.

In her sworn deposition, certified nursing assistant Heidi Law said she and a co-worker secretly disobeyed Michael Schiavo's orders and gave Terri range of motion therapy behind closed doors.

"We knew we were endangering our jobs by doing so," Law wrote. "We usually did this behind closed doors, we were so fearful of being caught. Our hearts would race and we were always looking out for Michael, because we knew that, not only would Michael take his anger out on us, but he would take it out more on Terri. We spoke of this many times."

Law, who cared for Terri Schiavo at the nursing home where she resided from March to mid- 1997, also detailed instances when Terri swallowed liquids and Jello.

"At least three times during any shift where I took care of Terri, I made sure to give Terri a wet washcloth filled with ice chips, to keep her mouth moistened. I personally saw her swallow the ice water and never saw her gag," Law wrote. "On three or four occasions I personally fed Terri small mouthfuls of Jello, which she was able to swallow and enjoyed immensely. I did not do it more often only because I was so afraid of being caught by Michael."

The caregivers reported hearing Terri Schiavo say "mommy," "pain," and "help me," and say the notes they kept of her progress were consistently deleted from her file.

Michael Schiavo says Terri Schiavo has not said a word since 1990.

He has repeatedly and strenously denied allegations of abuse and neglect.

posted March 26, 2005 02:36 PM            

This woman, Terri, is not "dying" from a terminal illness..she is being killed. The fact that the judge has not allowed for her to be evaluated in the sense of having outside doctors / nurses..etc..neurologists - is against her civil rights.

He is, in effect, killing her - just as much so as her husband. I don't see how our laws can allow this to happen. If we are allowed to remove a child from the abuse or neglect of their parents, and the same is true for an elderly person who is being abused by their children / agency. Why can't we do the same for Terri.

Why can't she be taken away from that husband (who really should have filed for a divorce if he needed to be with another woman). Custody should be given to her parents (since she cannot make decisions on her own according to the definition set forth by the court, why can't her parents be appointed guardianship?)

It stinks of corruption on the basic level...as in what does Mr. Shaivo have on the judge or others? Does this judge and others want so much to make this political that they believe it will reinforce the anti-pro life movement?

I don't see this as being pro-life or even a right to die issue. This is not a Kevorkian style of ending life- she is not saying "please help me die".

There is a lesson to be learned about all of this. Everyone needs to take time to decide what they want at the end of their life. The living will, guardianship..etc... I know that I will have something written up..and speak to both my parents as well as my Sig other -Terri was robbed by a horrible eating disorder and subsequent heart attack, and now she is being killed slowly by the justice system and her husband.

Eating disorders don't just happen..there is always a reason..I wonder what her husband was like before she had the heart attack?

posted March 26, 2005 03:19 PM            

The implications of what's happening to Terri Shiavo are enormous. The courts have ignored the no hearsay rules, ignored the fact there are conflicting stories about Terri's wishes, ignored the fact she's Roman Catholic and ending her life voluntarily would be a mortal sin...under her religion, ignored the fact there are conflicting diagnosis's and conflicting prognosis's. In short, it appears the courts are desperate to get a case of record on the books approving court ordered euthanasia and have pulled out all the stops to make that happen. The court also ignored the fact that her so called husband didn't come forward with his story until AFTER he got the settlement from the insurance company....about 7 years after the initial incident and has been trying to get her killed ever since.

What's more troubling....if anything could be more troubling than the court ordered killing of a woman innocent of any wrongdoing...is the fact the Florida Legislature, the Governor, the US Congress and the President are letting the courts get away with it.

posted March 27, 2005 12:37 AM            

Confounding all conventional wisdom and human experience, many liberal groups and even some medical experts have argued for Terri Schiavo’s death.

They claim that starvation and dehydration are not painful or discomforting for her or anyone undergoing the experience.

Story Continues Below

In fact, they allege that such victims begin to experience "euphoria" as the victims draw close to death.
If such claims are true, we may have to rewrite the history of such notorious events as the Holocaust – where starvation was the key process by which millions died and were later placed in crematoriums.

The internationally accepted Geneva Convention – which identifies starvation as a war crime – also will have to be rewritten. Ditto for many statements made by reputable organizations, many of them liberal, that have condemned the practice for decades.

Strange Bedfellows

Remember that statement about politics making strange bedfellows? Perhaps such is the case with liberal activists who want Terri to die from starvation and the Nazis who killed 13 million people.

As it turns out, starvation was the primary means of killing unwanted peoples.

Shortly after World War II, a U.S. congressional committee investigated the Nazi Holocaust and found that starvation was the main instrument of torture in the concentration camps.

The Committee notes the prisoners' daily diet "consisted generally of about one-half of a pound of black bread per day and a bowl of watery soup for noon and night, and not always that."

The report continued: "Notwithstanding the deliberate starvation program inflicted upon these prisoners by lack of adequate food, we found no evidence that the people of Germany as a whole were suffering from any lack of sufficient food or clothing. The contrast was so striking that the only conclusion which we could reach was that the starvation of the inmates of these camps was deliberate."

If we believe the New York Times, what’s so bad about the Nazis' starvation tactic?

A Times article relating to Schiavo’s death cited several "experts” who offered the new view on starvation.

"From the data that is available, it is not a horrific thing at all," Dr. Linda Emanuel, the founder of the Education for Physicians in End-of-Life Care Project at Northwestern University, told the New York Times.

The Times also cites Dr. Sean Morrison, a professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, who insists that starvation victims "generally slip into a peaceful coma."

"It's very quiet, it's very dignified – it's very gentle," he adds.

Despite the Times' desire to turn the truth upside down, the facts speak for themselves:

To begin with, there is the long-standing and internationally accepted Geneva Convention: "The prohibition to starve civilians as a ‘method of warfare’ is included in Article 54 of Protocol I and Article 14 of Protocol II."

According to the International Criminal Court, starvation as a means of killing is a war crime. The Court noted: "Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions' is a serious violation of the laws and customs of war [52]."

The liberal human rights organization Amnesty International has long cited starvation as inhumane. For example, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the group claimed that "scores of civilian deaths, predominantly among children, from starvation and injuries [were] sustained during the conflict."
Amnesty International stated at the time that it "condemns in the strongest terms the use of starvation as a weapon of war against civilians as a clear and serious violation of Geneva Conventions that Laos has ratified."

Amnesty International also blasted North Korea after the U.N. reported that some 2 million North Koreans have died from starvation, adding that in total, 50 percent of the population doesn't have enough to eat.

Work And Progress, a liberal Web site, was critical of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan in 2001, and even claimed the U.S. military action there had caused up to 7.5 million Afghans to be threatened with starvation. The site went on to note: "Starvation is, quite literally, torturous. And the equation will seem just about right to many people: the atrocity that the U.S. government is willing to subject a handful of people to on U.S. soil, it is willing to subject millions to in some far off land."

In 2001, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., a member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, offered up House Resolution 102, backed by three other lawmakers, noting that during World War II, many of the 18,745 American soldiers captured during the war "were subjected to barbaric prison conditions and endured torture, starvation, and disease" by the Axis powers, Germany, Italy and Japan. The treatment of American POWs "violated international human rights principles," said the resolution.

In a report by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, regarding the "Definition of the Right to Food," the commission recommended "the right to food and nutrition was a human right." The commission also advocated "the right to food in emergency situations" should "be taken into account," to "include the obligation of states to grant access to impartial humanitarian organizations to provide food aid and other humanitarian assistance."

The New York Times may well be remembered as the newspaper that was most outraged over photos of Iraqi terrorist suspects being mistreated by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison – but claimed that starvation was a benevolent way to die.

Of course, if the Times is right – and starvation causes "little discomfort" – the paper may have uncovered a valuable new tool in the war on terror.

posted March 27, 2005 10:27 AM            

According to the Associated Press, Michael Schiavo sued medical professionals who he said failed to recognize symptoms that caused his wife's heart to stop beating, causing her brain damage. As a result, he won a $1.2 million settlement. At the time, Michael sought the funds with the promise to use the money for Terri Schiavo's care and rehabilitation. As part of the settlement, Michael Schiavo received $300,000, the rest being earmarked for Terri's care and rehabilitation. His attorneys say today most of the money designated for Terri is gone, spent on her care and legal bills. One of his lawyers, Deborah Bushnell, told the AP that more than half of the $700,000 designated from the malpractice award for Terri's care has been spent for that purpose, with the rest going toward litigation. But that statement is at odds with records that show that lawyers - not medical care - ate up most of the expenditures and have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer: Here’s where most of the money went:

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

These funds, the result of a malpractice suit, were meant solely to provide for Terri Schiavo’s care and rehabilitation, not to pay lawyers to help Michael Schiavo kill his wife. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, a professional advocate of mercy killing, 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.

posted March 27, 2005 10:34 AM            

After going more than eight days without food and water, starving Terri Schiavo looks "beautiful," the attorney for her husband, who appears to have won the battle to force her death, told reporters on Saturday.

"She looked beautiful," attorney George Felos said, emerging from a visit to her room. He claimed that Terri was "resting comfortably."

"In all the years I've seen Mrs. Schiavo, I have never seen such a look of peace and beauty upon her," he insisted.
Felos's comments were sharply at odds with accounts from her family and their lawyers, who say her eyes are sunken, her skin is flaking and that she's bleeding from the eyes and mouth.

"It's like someone who is coming out of a bunker in Auschwitz," Terri's sister, Suzanne Vitadamo, told reporters Saturday.

"This is heinous what's happening, absolutely heinous - this is absolutely barbaric," her brother Bobby Schindler complained. "If she is in fact dying so peacefully and easily, why not allow a camera in there to videotape it?" he said.

Further belying Mr. Felos' claims that Terri is "resting comfortably," lawyers for her family say nurses have begun to administer morphine to ease the intense pain.

posted March 29, 2005 11:49 AM            

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: (1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard); (2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms); and (3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.

In two of the three cases mentioned above, the Democrats' use of force was in direct contravention of court rulings. Admittedly, this was a very long time ago — back in U.S. history when the judiciary was only one of the three branches of our government. Democratic Gov. Orval Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard expressly for purposes of defying rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts.

The decadent buffoon Bill Clinton sent armed agents from the INS to seize a small boy from an American family — despite rulings by the majestic and infallible Florida courts granting custody of the boy to that very family.

None of these exercises of military force has gone down in history as a noble moment, but that's because of the underlying purpose of the force, not the fact that force was used.

To the contrary, what has gone down in history as a glorious moment for the republic was when President Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) called out military force of his own. In response to Gov. Faubus' abuse of the National Guard, Eisenhower simultaneously revoked Faubus' control of the National Guard and ordered the 101st Airborne Division to escort black students to school. (Minutes later, Democrats pronounced the Arkansas public schools a "hopeless quagmire" and demanded to know what Ike's exit strategy was.)

As important as it was to enforce the constitutional right to desegregated schools, isn't it also important to enforce Terri Schiavo's right to due process before she is killed by starvation?

Liberals' newfound respect for "federalism" is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are prohibited from ever using the word "federalism."

I note that whenever liberals talk about "federalism" or "states' rights," they are never talking about a state referendum or a law passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature — or anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. What liberals mean by "federalism" is: a state court ruling. Just as "choice" refers to only one choice, "the rule of law" refers only to "the law as determined by a court."

As a practical matter, courts will generally have the last word in interpreting the law because courts decide cases. But that's a pragmatic point. There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too.

It would be chaotic if public officials made a habit of disregarding court rulings simply because they disagreed with them. But a practice borne of practicality has led the courts to greater and greater flights of arrogance. Sublimely confident that no one will ever call their bluff, courts are now regularly discovering secret legal provisions requiring abortion and gay marriage and prohibiting public prayer and Ten Commandments displays.

Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. Any incorrect ruling will do, but my vote is for a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband.

Florida state court judge George Greer –- last heard from when he denied an order of protection to a woman weeks before her husband stabbed her to death — determined that Terri would have wanted to be starved to death based on the testimony of her husband, who was then living with another woman. (The judge also took judicial notice of the positions of O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and Robert Blake.) The husband also happened to be the only person present when the oxygen was cut off to Terri's brain in the first place. He now has two children with another woman.

Greer has refused to order the most basic medical tests for brain damage before condemning a woman to death. Despite all those years of important, searching litigation we keep hearing about, Terri has yet to receive either an MRI or a PET scan — although she may be allowed to join a support group for women whose husbands are trying to kill them.

Greer has cut off the legal rights of Terri's real family and made her husband (now with a different family) her sole guardian, citing as precedent the landmark "Fox v. Henhouse" ruling of 1893. Throughout the process that would result in her death sentence, Terri was never permitted her own legal counsel. Evidently, they were all tied up defending the right to life of child-molesting murderers.

Given the country's fetishism about court rulings, this may be a rash assumption, but I presume if Greer had ordered that Terri Schiavo be shot at her husband's request — a more humane death, by the way — the whole country would not sit idly by, claiming to be bound by the court's ruling because of the "rule of law" and "federalism." President Bush would order the FBI to protect her and Gov. Bush would send in the state police.

What was supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch has become the most dangerous — literally to the point of ordering an innocent American woman to die, and willfully disregarding congressional subpoenas. They can't be stopped — solely because the entire country has agreed to treat the pronouncements of former ambulance-chasers as the word of God. The only power courts have is that everyone jumps when they say "jump." (Also, people seem a little intimidated by the black robes. From now on we should make all judges wear lime-green leisure suits.)

President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.

posted March 29, 2005 12:40 PM            

Oh, but now they're crying over the fact that Demorcrats have something to do with this?!

I don't think so! Basically, what all this boils down to is the fact that Republicans want Demorcrats to bleed for them at this point and blaming Liberals would be the hope for the day to provide them to SHAKE the Left into some kind of action, so the Right have something to b*tch about! Too bad!

Nah! This is all to the fact that this is all just a clear cut case that the Republicans not only can't seem to see eye to eye with anybody outside of they're party, but they are as bad as the fact that they can't even agree with eachother, at least not anymore!

This is the classic "Spy vs. Spy" strip and all the Demorcrats doing right now at this point is being entertained through pure observation! Granted, most of the religious group lean to the right, but also is that fact that law enforcement is enchanted by Conservative values as well! The workers and providers of The Law is doing they're job and the religious-right don't like it, so what do they do, just through the spotlight on the Left just to make this all a liberal thing! Sorry, we've already had our Woodstock days and now it's your turn!

The problem with Republicans is the fact that there's too many chiefs and not enough of tribe, too many conservative parties with all they're individual colors and flavors all in the same cellophane bag!

This all comes down to the question that we all must ask:

How does the Republicans like the way that indifference is working for the Demorcrats so far?

Here's an even better question:

How does it feel to want?

posted March 29, 2005 12:46 PM              

If I was in Michael Schiavo's shoes, I would give custody of Terry to her parents and move on. Obviously, I'm not, and I wonder: Why would any man be so intent on letting a woman he once loved die? Does he hate her? Does he want 'the money'?

Neither explanantion seems plausible to me- we know of no reason for Michael to hate Terry, in fact he cared for her lovingly for many years. As for the money, he has acknowledged that nearly all of it is gone for lawyers' fees. This kind of thing doesn't come cheap.

There is only one reason I can think of that Michael Schiavo would go to these lengths to let Terry die: He must genuinely believe that she would not want to be kept alive in the state that she's in.

No matter what you think of Terry's decision through Michael, you have to admit that this is a personal decision, and that Michael is her legal gaurdian. It's not something that the entire country should be opining on.