Schiavo Legislation Blocked by: Guess Who.

[TSawyer2112]

From the AP story entitled
"Schiavo Kin Wants Feeding Tube Reinserted"
Mar 20, 2:37 PM (ET)
By MITCH STACY

"...Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., issued a statement late Saturday saying he will make an objection that would stop the vote Sunday. Any member can demand that a majority of members be present to do business. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said he was trying to gather enough votes to defeat the bill Monday..."
Read Entire Article (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050320/D88UT24O0.html)


The same party that is filled with protectors of the "rights" of terrorists and other murderers stands in the way, yet again, of protecting the truely innocent. In the spiritual and political battle for the soul of this country, the battle lines could not be any more clearly drawn.

[Rink]

Not only that but oregon's own Earl Blumenaur is working hard AGAINST this bill to save Terry Schiavo, he thinks saving her life is immoral.

[Warlady]

Then Bush should sign an executive order.

[Rink]

I most certainly hope he signs an executive order AND send in the National Guard to protect that helpless woman.

[Melz]

How sad that this poor defensless woman would need protection from the National Guard, but I do believe you are right Rink. I have avoided saying too much on this subject because, once I start, the feelings I have on this would be more overwhelming than I could put into words anyway. Some effed up bottom dweller (you guessed it) liberal just called Terri a "human cadaver" on another site. I don't normally get to cussing but I couldn't stop myself. Which is why I am keeping my calm while reading the hateful bile these death advocates are spewing. Believe me, I am praying for Terri all the way though.

[Naturalized-Texan]

That Bob Wexler is the same Bob Wexler who, before the FL polls even closed on Election Day 2000, hired a telemarketing firm to call all registered Democrats in Palm Beach Co. to tell them that they were so confused by the "butterfly ballot" that they probably voted for Buchanan rather than AlGore.

[Beowulf]

I heard Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, a Liberal, commenting on it and why he voted against the bill. He feels that it's wrong to go against the will of the husband. I guess Terri and her parents don't matter to them.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I support the efforts to keep Terri alive, but I do have a concern:

Aren't we as conservatives opening the door to further federal government interference in state matters? The 10th Amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Are we setting a precedent of greater government control that we might regret some time in the future?

[RuffhouseFarm]

I heard Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, a Liberal, commenting on it and why he voted against the bill. He feels that it's wrong to go against the will of the husband. I guess Terri and her parents don't matter to them.

LMAO, I heard it, too. For a flaming queer like Barney Frank who supports homosexual marriage to be barking about the sanctity of marriage is the height of leftwing hypocrisy. Add to that the WAY he talks and it's just too funny.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

NT --

I actually have the same concern . . . but, I keep coming back to the DoI and the "right to life." In my opinion that is one of the three fundamental rights guaranteed to Americans from even BEFORE this country was solidly founded by the Constitution. To me the "right to life" supersedes state's-rights, and even federal rights. It is an unalienable right . . .

un·al·ien·a·ble http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dunalienable) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ubreve.gifn-http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.giflhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifyhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-nhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-bhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifl, -http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.giflhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif-http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-)
adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable

see inalienable

inalienable adj 1: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; 2: not subject to forfeiture;

I do not believe that just "anyone" can use this case as a precedent to bring just "anything" before the Congress, as in this case or in this manner. This was a unique case in and of itself and dealt with a very specific right, the right to life.

[jag]

I heard Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, a Liberal, commenting on it and why he voted against the bill. He feels that it's wrong to go against the will of the husband. I guess Terri and her parents don't matter to them.

In an good marrage, that is the law. But this man has been playing house with another woman for years now. The conflict of interests is loud and clear. He wants to get on with his life, but refuses to allow Terri to get on with hers.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Are we setting a precedent of greater government control that we might regret some time in


I don't know. In this case though it appears that regulations already in the FL law have been sidestepped leading to a state sanctioned murder. In such a case shouldn't congress get involved?

[RuffhouseFarm]

The whole claim about him being her husband so it's his decision how she be treated and if she should have her tubes pulled is a diversionary argument. It's his performance as her guardian that is in question. Sure, he can get to be made the guardian easily under the law because he is her husband, no question and no problem. There's no challenge to the sanctity of marriage going on in the objection to Schiavo's actions. The objections is to his conduct as her guardian. Would the law allow him to go in there and beat her to death because he's her guardian instead of her husband? No. Would he be allowed to beat her to death in his role as her husband? No.

As her guardian, he has denied her all necessary medical treatment as well as the therapy she was entitled to under the malpractice settlement and the resulting trust fund. As her husband, he has cheated on her and fathered two children with a woman he presents as his fiance. That means they have marriage plans. That means he has to divorce or kill Terri. He can't kill Terri in his role as husband but he can kill her through the courts in his role as her guardian. The reason she needs a guardian is because she can't talk and take care of herself. If she got better and could talk, she wouldn't need a guardian, so Schiavo would be back the more limiting role as husband.

If he wants to marry his girlfriend, then he would have to divorce Terri. But if he divorces her, he doesn't get her trust fund. He has probably paid himself guardian fees from the trust fund so who knows how much is there. Greer doesn't make Schiavo file the statutorily required guardian reports on medical care and financial accountings.

It's also unknown what happened to Terri that night, even after fifteen years. Doesn't that seem odd to anybody? But Schiavo hasn't allowed the investigations to go on and proper investigative agencies have failed to follow through except for Florida DCF at the direction of Jeb Bush. But Greer judicially denied DCF acess to the records. This country's most esteemed forensic pathologist, Dr. Michael Baden, has reviewed Terri's bone scans and determined there were old traumatic injuries potentially from abuse and that this should have been investigated by the local authorities. The person responsible to undertake that investigation was Sheriff Rice, whom I've discussed elsewhere on this forum. Sheriff Rice refused to investigate Schiavo. In fact, he hired him to manage the jail nursing staff four days before he left office as a new memeber of the state legislature. Rice is a very close friend of Greer's and assisted in his re-election.

Whichever way you look at it, either from Schiavo's role as husband or his role as guardian, he can't afford for her to wake up and neither can those who have aided and abetted this travesty and who also stand to profit handsomely from the establishment of this precedent.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Home: You addressed my first question, and I certainly understand your answer. However, you didn't address my second question which is an even greater concern to me:

"Are we setting a precedent of greater government control that we might regret some time in the future?"

[RuffhouseFarm]

Let me take a stab at it. If abortion is addrssed by the federal government, and not just in the courts but also by congress in various legislation up to and including the the ban on PBA, then it logically follows that this life or death issue can be addressed. It may be that abortion should never have reached the federal court level, but it did. Now the left is all hot and bothered about this case getting federal action. If I supported euthanasia (and abortion), I'd probably be pissed off, too, no matter how hypocritical that would clearly be.

I happen to be one who thinks abortion is a federal issue because of the Fourteenth Amendment protections, which is the same application here.

No pregnant woman, no greedy husband, has the right, given our Fourteenth Amendment protections, to put words concerning the desire to live or die into the mouths of those who can't speak for themselves and have had no due process, be they unborn or a helpless, captive, disabled person unable to speak. Whether it's a pregnant woman who serves her own interests by aborting, or a man who serves his own interests by making self-serving claims about his silent, disabled wife's wishes, due process is lacking.

Also, the fact that the gastro tube, which has been around since the Nineteenth Century, was deemed "medical equipment" under FL law long AFTER Terri allegedly made her statement about not wanting to be kept alive by machines, and which obviously had to have occurred before the event leading to her brain injury, has to be taken into account when considering how in the world anybody can know what she wants.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Home: You addressed my first question, and I certainly understand your answer. However, you didn't address my second question which is an even greater concern to me:

"Are we setting a precedent of greater government control that we might regret some time in the future?"

I'm sorry, NT, I thought I did :crazy: . Does this not answer it?
Previously posted by HomeschoolrsRUs: I do not believe that just "anyone" can use this case as a precedent to bring just "anything" before the Congress, as in this case or in this manner. This was a unique case in and of itself and dealt with a very specific right, the right to life.

I can see an attempt, or even many, to use this case as a precedent, I just don't see it as being allowed. I believe, in my own opinion, it was very wise to limit this particular legislation to one specific unique case. I do not believe the "right-to-life" would extend to any other cases, other than "right-to-life" cases. There are only three unalienable rights - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The last two have specific limitations that are inherent . . . your liberty cannot infringe upon my liberty, and your pursuit of happiness cannot infringe upon my pursuit of happiness. The "right-to-life", however, has no such limitation. No one's "right-to-life" could infringe upon another's, because they co-exist. In otherwords, you don't have to die for my right to life, we can both exsist at the same time -- it's not an end-sum game.

Anyway, that's just how I see it. :D

[Bluemoon_Rising]

I appreciate both HomeSchool's and NT's concerns. In my opinion, HomeSchool is right, the inalienable right to life takes precedence, and this is a special case, one into which the legislation did intervene at the state level. The courts had no business declaring the legislative action unconstitutional and if I were Governor Bush I would have declared its decision effectively null and void, ordered that her care continue and defy the courts to enforce their decision.

At the same time, I appreciate NT's concerns. But the problem as I see it goes to the way in which the courts handled this matter in the first place. Because it is a special case arguably involving a concern to err on the side of life, the court could simply have chosen to lay aside legal precedent -- which is not uncommon in special cases wherein the finding is narrowly defined -- allowed the marriage to be legally dissolved and turned Schiavo's care over to her immediate family. That is the way Solomon would have resolved it, and there is no reason that it could not have been handled in just this way. The husband has moved on anyway; what possible reason could he have to object to such an arrangement? This never had to be a big deal; the lefties on the bench made it into one.

[american kid]

I support the efforts to keep Terri alive, but I do have a concern:

Aren't we as conservatives opening the door to further federal government interference in state matters? The 10th Amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Are we setting a precedent of greater government control that we might regret some time in the future?

NT, I respect you very much but I must disagree with you here. We are intervening because an innocent woman would have been murdered. Liberals intervene only to increase their personal power.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

On the other hand, I'm no legal scholar and have not followed this case all that closely. Is there a living will in Terri's name? Thomas? I understand the claim goes to a supposed private conversation between Terri and here husband. If that all there is to it, it seems to me that the court's out of line.

[american kid]

No, Terri does not have a living will.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Home, Ruff, Blue:

Your thoughtful posts and Rush's analyses have allayed my concerns. Thanks to all of you. The bill that Congress passed is specifically narrow enough that it's highly unlikely that it could be used as a precedent.

Rush made an excellent point, that Blue also touched on, that the bill that came out of Congress only asked the federal courts to review the case. The bill did NOT order the tube to be re-inserted. That was the clincher for me because under Articles I and III of the Constitution, Congress defines the scope of the federal judiciary.

[Naturalized-Texan]

On the other hand, I'm no legal scholar and have not followed this case all that closely. Is there a living will in Terri's name? Thomas? I understand the claim goes to a supposed private conversation between Terri and here husband. If that all there is to it, it seems to me that the court's out of line.
The conversation in question was with Michael and 3 others who all testified in court about Terri's wishes. There was no Living Will.

My wife and I have both signed Living Wills and Health Care Powers of Attorney to cover such an eventuality. We both have named our 3 sons as alternates.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Well, now of course we're undergoing a similar fight between the legislature and the courts at the federal level, as has already been played out at the state level. In the absence of a living will, it strikes me that the issue is one in which the state court took the word of Terri’s husband over that of her immediate family. That being the case and since the family is willing to care for her and the husband is not: dissolve the marriage and turn her care over to the family. 2 + 2 = 4. I smell leftist ideology, not common sense.

Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this case once, howbeit in response to a different sort of question. Here we go again. If I were the president, in keeping with the requirement put down by the legislative branch that in the absence of a living will we should error on the side of life, I’d ignore the federal courts as well if they went against the opinion of the legislative branch.

I want a constitutional crises, not political posturing. I’m fed up with leftist jurists favoring their bankrupt ideology over life and common sense.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

The conversation in question was with Michael and 3 others who all testified in court about Terri's wishes. There was no Living Will.

My wife and I have both signed Living Wills and Health Care Powers of Attorney to cover such an eventuality. We both have named our 3 sons as alternates.


Well, that makes the case even more complex. Unfortunately, I haven't followed this case as closely as I should have. I never imagined it would become this big. I'm playing catch up as we speak. Now we've got the president and the federal legislation involved, and a judge reviewing the matter for the second time at the federal level. In any event, I still would have ruled that in the absence of a living will, the opinion allegedly attributed to Terri in a passing conversation be disregarded since in this instance the immediate family is willing to care for her. Obviously the marriage is effectively over and about to end one way or the other very soon . . . unless. Why not allow it to be legally dissolved and allow Terri to live, and let the two parties go their own way accordingly?

As I see it, the courts created this mess, not the respective legislatures . . . and certainly not Terri’s family.

You're right to be concerned about the federal governement getting involved. It's a mess. Friggin' stupid judges.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Rush made an excellent point, that Blue also touched on, that the bill that came out of Congress only asked the federal courts to review the case. The bill did NOT order the tube to be re-inserted. That was the clincher for me because under Articles I and III of the Constitution, Congress defines the scope of the federal judiciary.

Agree, it is on this point where are concerns converge.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Agree, it is on this point where are concerns converge.
Congress controlling the judiciary is a precedent that we definitely want to set as long as the Republicans control Congress.