I would encourage you to have an open mind and check out the facts of this case. Please see this affidavid filed in court by one of Terri Schiavo's nurses - it should change your view of Michael Schiavo. This nurse testified that he prevented his wife from recieving therapy, that he sought to discourage any indications of possitive progress and that he stated repeatedly that he wanted his wife to die. Anyway, before you criticise the Congress you need to read this affidavid so that you can be informed.

http://www.hospicepatients.org/iyer-carla-12-15-03-affidavit-re-terri-schiavo-michael.pdf

ahem...

whatEVER any testimony by anyone in the various court cases...in this instance Al is completely correct..

congress has NO business interfereing in this case..they have NO legal juristiction

it is merely a matter of political strategy attempting to co-opt the plight of these people in order to bolster their standing with certain segments of their political base..

Al's use of the word "whore" here is spot on

Daniel here is raising a valid point...but i put it to you that the Courts have been looking over all evidence and testimony for a few years now....and have made a Ruling

so let's have a look at the record of the so-called "conservatives" running our Government

fiscal conservatism..balancing the budget - nope, not here..from record surplus to record defecit in 5 years..and don't hand me any crap about the "war"..THE WAR EFFORT IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN IS NOT EVEN IN THE BUDGET...but on seperate spending bills

state's rights - nope again..this case is a perfect example of Congress trampling on the Rights of a State for their own purposes

smaller government - fraid not..say what ya will about tree hugging Al Gore, his job was to reduce the size of government, and during the 8 years he was in office, it was shrunk by approximately 40%

and on and on...so will the real Conservatives please stand up in Congress and stop some of this Madness...or do the political genius' pimping you out (ie: Karl Rove and Tom Delay) have that much on you that you dare not speak your Minds and vote your Conscience?

Excelsior!

OMG, an Al posting I completely agree with!

The poor woman has a liquified cortex. Any response if from the medulla, where instint not consiousness is at work.

Daniel, 15 court cases have already been run on this case all of them support the husband's right to make the health care decisions for his wife. It's sad, very sad for the entire family. There's no decision that leads to a happy ending for anyone.

And it's none of our damn business let alone having Delay trying to score political points (a la the GOP talking points memo leaked yesterday).

I'd like to know how Bush is reconcilling that with his TX gov days of signing a law there that lets hospitals pull the tubes over the objection of the families if the doc's think the case is hopeless.

I have to agree with you on this as well. I don't believe that the Government, Congress or the President should determine the future of this woman.

However, I am not sure who really does. This is a really touchy subject and really begs the question, Who gets to decide if this woman lives or dies? The parents who brought her in to this world, or the spouse who has been at her side and is joined through marriage. Without a piece of paper signed by her to give either party the permission to decide her fate, it is a sad and very difficult decision.

One more question though. Why is this only being fleshed out now to the media and the country (and not regional to Florida)? Hasn't this woman been in this state of being for almost 15 years?

I agree, Al, that Congress and the president are way out of line. Hopefully, their special law for one person will not pass the constitutional sniff test once Michael Schiavo's lawyers start filing suits.

However, I don't look at the Schindlers with such a disdainful eye. The way I see it, they're just fighting to try to save their daughter's life, which is basically what parents are supposed to do. They're probably in a state of deep denial, but I don't hold it against them.

There's no wrong side here when it comes to the parents or the husband; both love her, both want what they think is best for her.

But reading the parents statements and such - well, clearly they are in denial and if they haven't already I think they be starting to believe the hype the case has gathered - from Congress no less.

And ...

>>I'm particularly sickened by the ghoulishness of your gimmick of subpoenaing Terri Schiavo.

... I didn't know they did that. That is !@#$% sick.

I don't think this Schiavo-is-a-football to-kick-around political play (because that is all it is) is going to turn out as well as they may think. All someone has to do is remind people thousands of families face these decisions each year.

And they are extremely hard decsions for families to make..

(You - or Lisa - may want to fix the Schiavoz typo and the maintenance misspelling.)

Al,

This doesn't change my stance regarding the Government getting involved in these types of cases (at this point) but maybe there is a reason why they need to get involved. Something to consider is a little thing not mentioned that often in the media and that is the insurance fraud apparantly committed by Michael Schiavo and the mystery surrounding her accident and her questionable medical history of care under her husband's guidance.

As usual, the media decides what you are to hear and not hear on TV and radio. If you peel away the skin off of this apple, there is a lot more to the story and it seems as if Michael Schiavo is not the angelic, compassionate, humane and loyal husband the media makes him out to be.

Check out this article by the Empire Journal.

The article goes into great detail about his former girlfriend, the $2 million dollars he received in medical malpractice suits to be used on his wife and the hospice he placed her in without a doctor's written certificate (mandatory and legal) which also resulted in placing her in the Medicaid system ($2 million dollars, remember?).

Again, something to think about with regard to the parents' side and against a husband who may not be how he is portrayed by the media. Surprised? I'm not.

So Richard, you are in favor, I gather, of whenever a spouse dies, we look over the relationship with a fine tooth comb to make sure that the other spouse 'deserves' his/her rightful place to make decisions?

Somebody earlier said that this has had 15 court cases related to it. But I've seen on the news that there have been over 40 court cases involving Schiavo's right to die. In each time, the judges ruled in favor of the husband.

If you can't trust 40 judges to make a good ruling, each independently of the other and each coming to the SAME decision, why bother with a judicial system at all?

Congress, the President and ANY American who feels that they have the right to supercede the wishes of a spouse just be cause they don't like those wishes have completely overstepped bounds in this case. This is a blatant abuse of power and shows far more sinister intent than ANYTHING the husband has done publicly in his life.

Steve

You know Steve, the more I read on this story, the more I lean towards allowing the parents of the person to decide the fate of this woman (not necessarily by the Government, though this would actually be the Government indirectly making this choice).

Believe me, I do not suggest giving a background check on each person and their spouse's right to die (which legally he does not have), but in this case you cannot deny what is out there for the public to read. Or should I say what is out there for the public to search for since the media will not speak so loudly on this and would rather "ride the Million Dollar Baby train" down the public's throat.

And that would be the skeptical medical guidance by the husband, the mystery surrounding her accident, the girlfriend (getting together only one year after the accident) and of course the whereabouts of the money given to him through malpractice suits to use for his wife's medical care. Why is she on Medicaid? Why didn't he get the written permission of a doctor to enter her legally into a hospice?

As always, the Government is forced to get involved where they normally do not belong. I am sure when the dust settles on this case, all the facts will point to wrongdoing, ill advisement on medical issues and financial crimes by her husband.

I have a 44 year old son, the victim of
a crime who is in the same state as Terry Schiavo. As a parent, my heart goes out to her parents. As a person, I think her husband has the right to let
her go with God. It is not life. If they actually had her best interests at
heart they would let her leave this world. Being a parent it will be the
hardest, most painful act they have ever
done. But let it be done.

Virginia

I agree that it would seem to be the most honorable and humane way to pass on and my heart goes out to you.

Richard...before ya fall into the ditto-head bit here woudl ya be so kind as to riddle me this?

if money was the motivation for the husband, would ha not have been better served to have taken the 1 million he was offered last week to walk away from the whole thing?

then there woudl have been no harm, no foul...sign power-of-attorney over to the parents, get the 1 mill and walk away clean

he decided not to do so...leading me to believe that money is NOT the issue here

your milage may vary..

Excelsior!

The Congress has the responsibility to find justice in such a case as this. The so-called Schaivo "family" cannot be left to make a judgment on its estranged member. The critics of the Schindlers accuse them of imposing their morality onto Terri. However, that is exactly what Michael Schiavo and anyone who has an opinion about this situation is doing. You either impose a right-to-die value judgment or a pro-life judgment. The debate is about who is right... that is a tough question; and if it can be taken to the Supreme Court, all the better.

Mr. Schiavo's supporters lament the long drama and sympathize with Terri whose life is hanging by a thread. As a pro-lifer, I find that disgusting as well. The ideal decision, however, to me is obvious... let Terri live and rellinquish her estranged husband's horrifying dominion over her statef of affairs. Unfortunately, because of the difference in the two opinions, the coutrroom drama must be played out- that is how right decisions have been made historically.

Besides, the real "pain" is with those sincere right-to-die opiners who cannot take the weight of a situation such as this. They should not be allowed to make a decision here, because it is not their fight, it is Terri's.

And that would be the skeptical medical guidance by the husband, the mystery surrounding her accident, the girlfriend (getting together only one year after the accident) and of course the whereabouts of the money given to him through malpractice suits to use for his wife's medical care. Why is she on Medicaid? Why didn't he get the written permission of a doctor to enter her legally into a hospice?

Why isn't this info brought up in the court trials. Oh, wait, it is. It's been looked over by over 40 judges who looked at the whole situation and still decided with the husband.

The Congress has the responsibility to find justice in such a case as this.

wow, so now they have a new function. Too bad they have the responsibility to find justice for conservatives and part of their job is to dish out injustice to people like me.

"wow, so now they have a new function. Too bad they have the responsibility to find justice for conservatives and part of their job is to dish out injustice to people like me."

Does this comment mean:

(a) the Congress dished out injustice to Steve and should do the same to Terri

(b) Seeking out justice is not a Congressman's responsibility

(c) They should not seek justice for Conservatices (because, as your post seems to imply, they do not apparently seek justice for liberals).

Some footnotes would be nice.

The 40 judges' decisions have to be respected; however, if an individual or a body of individuals believe that their decision does not reflect justice, they have the authority to seek retrial within the same system. That is not disrespecting a judicial system, only affirming it.

The question should be, Who are the judges and why did they overlook it? These are all credible facts, read it yourself.

Answer B.

they have the authority to seek retrial within the same system. That is not disrespecting a judicial system, only affirming it.

Yes, but after 40 times, it's pretty obvious that they are no longer looking for someone to say what is right, but someone to say what they want to hear. 40 freaking times. Even if it is closer to the 15 court cases mentioned previously, it's still a pathetic case of people living in denial and screwing up this country because of it.

The question should be, Who are the judges and why did they overlook it? These are all credible facts, read it yourself.

Yes, I know, many people on the right believe there is this mass conspiracy by activist judges to overthrow this country. But what you all don't know is that we've given Jon Stewart complete control over them.

The latest developments surrounding conservatives prove to me that conservatives really didn't mean it all those times they complained about activist judges, since that's exactly what they want now.

Al is right.

And the biggest hypocracy of this whole sad issue is GWB and his sanctimonious position that "It is better to err on the side of life". Him! Ex-Gov that signed Texas legislation into law that allows a hospital to disconnect any patient from life support "If the prognosis is not promising, and the paitient is unable to pay the bills" No matter WHAT the family members think.

Not to mention the number of executions in Texas whaile he was Gov.

What can I do but laugh?

This is sick.

Bennett:

As a guy on a blog it's easy for me to say - I'm all for death. I like executions, I want Terry Schiavo to be flatlined as quickly as possible, and I'd rather see an abortion than an unwanted baby anytime. For that matter I'm not nearly as broken up by Iraqi civilian casualties and people think I should be.

Death is good, it's part of the natural process. As a culture we're WAY too touchy about it.

And that's the problem. I can be honest about it. Politicians can't. There are too many people who are too sensitive about who we kill and why we kill them. A blanket pro-death policy doesn't sell terribly well in the political marketplace. It's bound to offend someone. And being selectively pro-death is also difficult to do.

Ultimately politicians discover that being pro-life on most issues seems to serve their ambitions better. The death penalty is sort of an exception, because a lot of people see being pro-death for criminals as being pro-life for victims.

So don't expect too much sense from politicians on issues of life and death.

Dave

Yeah Dave, You're right too. Life is far from precious. In fact it's one of the cheapest resources we have. All one can do is adopt Calvell's Shogun era Japanese philosophy. I live, I die, I get reborn, what's the big deal?

Anything less is an imeasurable tragedy.

As I get older I expect less and less from politicians. Sense on most things? Rare!

cop outs!!

i expect only the BEST from our Politicians

am i disappointed in them...almost always

does that stop me from wanting them to be Ethical Representatives of their respective Constituancies?

nope

does that mean i will ever cease and desist from my ranting, pointing out their Hypocrisy?

ahhh...no

scroll back up and read my Post (#2 in this Thread)...i'll wait...

bring back Checks and Balances!!

Excelsior!

COP OUT?

Well... mebe. But as I watched this thrilling subdrama unfold last night, with my dem reps not showing up to be tossed on the fire of burning separation of powers, it occured to me...

Why stick your head in the fire for nothing? This congressional forray is unconstitutional, you know it I know it, and the judge in Florida knows it. The report of the testimony today made that pretty clear. Leeway for Mr. Shivo's lawyer, short snide words for the "right to lifers".

This trumped up spin job is SOP for the republicans. Delay is really really looking for something, ANYTHING, to keep the focus on, well, anything but how he's about to indicted.

Am I dissapointed? I'll tell you tomorrow.

heh..Bennet...i'm with ya on the demlicans bit...but i am also speaking about the republicrats too!!

see comment #2 above for how i feel the so-called "conservatives" have copped out on their avowed "principles" for the sake of political expediancy...

and i am soOOOoooOOOOooo with ya on Tom "al capone" Delay

i Respect the few folks on BOTH sides of the aisle that stand on Principle ...and i detest the craven whores out to not Represent the Citizens interests...but to further the special Interests that pay the $1000 dollars a plate, and heed their Masters on K street...no matter what Party they spawn from

thas one of the reasons i stay an Independant...BOTH party structures make me ill

besides..i live to jeer and point out when the Emperor is nekkid

Excelsior!

Just so you know, the Tom Delay 'indictment' looks a bit different if you're here in Texas. It's so blatantly a partisan witch-hunt here that it's difficult for anyone to take it seriously. This is the one way they can find to strike back at Delay for outmaneuvering them so completely on the redistricting issue. Of course, they slit their own throats when they walked out and fled to New Mexico - that lost them at least a couple of seats in the legislature thye could have held on to.

People don't so much mind conniving, scheming and underhanded politicians, so long as they are working for them. What they can't stand are sniveling, obstructionist, childish politicians.

Dave

pont taken Dave...not being a texican..i have no informed Opinion...

but i DO know that far more rests on the Washington bits involved...the money for trips...K street connections...his own changing of the Republican caucus' Ethics rules..

on top of that..i highly doubt anythign being done to him can be half as "partisan" as what he has done to those that oppose his viewpoints...

one can only hope his Karma will run over his Dogma...i don't care what Party this particular cretin is a part of...slime is slime

Excelsior!

We'll see how far the Washington ethics issues go. I'm betting not very far, since if they take him down for junketing then they have to take down everyone else, on both sides of the aisle - well, everyone except Ron Paul, of course. Not a bad idea really, clean house and start over again.

Dave

heh..i'm with ya there

Shakespeare said "hang the lawyers first"

over 80% of the legislature are lawyers

Shakespeare for President!!

i can Dream, can't i?

Excelsior!

Actually, Shakespeare was just quoting Wat Tyler who led the Peasants Revolt into London with that chant -as true today as it was then.

But if you did kill all the lawyers I believe by my count you'd leave both the house and the senate almost completely dominated by Republicans.

And btw, Ron Paul isn't a lawyer - he's an OBGYN.

Dave

Interesting, I'm noting tonight the first public surveys on the Schiavo situation I've seen, suggesting that actually the public was against Congressional intervention nearly 2 to 1. Also, the surveys would suggest a similarly large majority would favor the removal of the feeding tube.

Yet the Democrats have been oddly reticent to pitch a bitch about this Republican nonsense. Damn, just when we really NEED Robert Byrd to start waving the Constitution around and pontificating, where is the old Kluxer?

Any links for the surveys?

(Last comment was skewing the page somehow)

Aaman check ABC's and CNN's websites for the surveys...

the ABC one had it at 3 to 1 against Federal intervention...others were closer to the 2 to 1 mark quoted..at least that was the case a few hours ago when i had the news on the TV in the background...

hope that helps

Excelsior!

the big things missed, especially by conservatives here is this.

1. It is terri's right to to not be kept alive with tubes under the law and this is what was found in the courts.

if you dont like it or want to ignore this fact go join roy moore and pray somewhere.

2. congress cannot overrule courts

no matter how much you would like a tom delay run doctatorship, he is impotent to violate a court order because we have a constitution.

if federal law, isn't above states rights,then how did it come to be,that a lot of states fought against the civil rights movement,but the federal government,jumped in and got everything approved???and threw out each state's decisions and rights???? hm,let me think(those appointed for life,no financial worries ever,federal judges)huh???

DOCTATORSHIP !!!

what a pertinent Freudian slip (corset) --
we DO live in a Doctatorship formulated and expostulated in excess by the medical doctors and the AMA and the pharmaceutical groups .........

and I think Tom Delay has more than enough of his own problems to worry about just at the moment--perhaps he better quit trying to ram GW's puny cock up his ass and get back to business...........

especially his OWN!

i wonder how much time,michael's attorney,would have spent on this case,if no money was available for his high priced time?but of course, michael, had terri's trust fund,which was to go toward her care ,but instead,went to legal costs,to help her to die ,for his convenience,and the life style ,he was in a hurry to get....but i think what puzzles me is,if he had taken terri home,to care for her,he would have been under tighter rules.had someone found her in a abused state,(witholding food and hydration)being an example he surely, would have faced charges, of somekind.

All I can say is that her condition was caused by her not wanting the nurishment of food, she was bulemic. So to me it seems fitting to remove the tube, she wouldn't have wanted to be force fed while alive. Keep politics out of trying to interfere in a specific case, which is Unconstitutional. Tom Delay {Texas} and Bush {Texas) killed how many people with the death penalty? Non of these people got no where near the consideration from these two individuals, as this case has. Wonder how it would have been, if the parents were athiest?

To quote the author who started this discussion:

"I'm particularly sickened by the ghoulishness of your gimmick of subpoenaing Terri Schiavo. On what topic in particular do they expect Ms Schiavo to testify? It's as if life has turned into a particularly gruesome episode of South Park."

Guess what? As of tonight, this prophecy has borne itself out in tonight's episode of South Park. I guess art really imitates life.