[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPASSE

I was referring to the three judge panel that ruled today, I don’t recall the circuit number, but two of the three judges were identified as Clinton appointees.

All three judges in the panel decision were Clinton appointees, including the dissenter. The full court later ruled en banc 10-2. One of the dissenters was the same Clinton appointee and the other was a Ford appointee.

[almostdiva]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Jeb Bush is trying to "take custody" of Terri Schiavo: http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=607930 I guess it's going to take a judge to order the state police to ignore any orders from the governor to kidnap her.

That's apparently exactly what happened -- A Fl. state judge has issued an order that every sherrif in EVERY county in FL is barred from intervening and assisting Jeb until the judge issues his next/latest ruling as to whether there is any merit for the state to take custody.

Also similarly borderline silly are the protesters who were arrested yesterday "trying to bring Terri Shciavo a cup of water" SHE CAN'T SWALLOW, FOLKS!!!!

As of 9 eastern this am, it sounds like the Supreme Court is meeting to determine whether or not to take on the case.

[SCETT316]

I am sure it was more of a symbolic gesture on their part.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by almostdiva

Also similarly borderline silly are the protesters who were arrested yesterday "trying to bring Terri Shciavo a cup of water" SHE CAN'T SWALLOW, FOLKS!!!!

Rebecca,

That's because they believe that she can swallow thanks to testimony that was deemed "incredible" by the judge. The same "nurses" who testified that Michael Schiavo wanted her to die also testified that they were feeding her and that she swallowed with no problems. These "incredible" statements have been touted by Fox News repeatedly. One of them is a CNA (certified nursing assistant) named Heidi Law and the other is Carla Sauer Iyer.

These are the two "nurses" that Fox News has used to persuade their viewers that the activist judges are trying to murder Terri. Or, as Pat Buchanan, put it, they are the same as the Nazi war criminals who were prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Pat is the GOP's resident expert on Naziism. Fox News is not the only network that is ignoring the facts to sensationalize this story. This is what happens when the news anchors become personalities with personal opinions to promote instead of just news reporters.

Here is what the judge in the case had to say about the testimony of both of the nurses:


The remaining affidavits deal exclusively with events which allegedly occurred in the 1995-1997 time frame. The court feels constrained to discuss them. They are incredible to say the least. Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. Her affidavit clearly states that she would "call them (Mr. and Mrs. Schindler) anyway because I thought they should know about their daughter." The affidavit of Ms. Law speaks of Terri responding on a constant basis. Neither in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo. It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had she contacted them as her affidavit alleges.

This is NOT about Terri Schiavo. It should be, but it's not. It's all about exciting the pro-life base and putting the Democrats in a difficult situation. It's all about getting people's minds off the multiple ethical and legal problems facing that slithering little Tom DeLay, who told an audience of the faithful that Terri Schiavo is a gift from God that will bring the issue of their (i.e., his) persecution front and center. DeLay asked them to pray for him and to stand with him against those who would bring down their conservative movement by personal attacks on him.

It's all politics as usual. As Barney Frank said the other day, if you don't want a political decision, you don't ask 535 politicians to make it.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SCETT316

I am sure it was more of a symbolic gesture on their part.

Which is true of this entire ordeal.

[Ninong]

The President strongly supports the passage of a Patients' Bill of Rights that leaves medical decisions in the hands of physicians... -- from his official campaign website

I’m absolutely opposed to a national health care plan. I don’t want the federal government making decisions for consumers or for providers. I remember what the administration tried to do in 1993. They tried to have a national health care plan, and fortunately it failed. I trust people; I don’t trust the federal government. I don’t want the federal government making decisions on behalf of everybody. -- George W. Bush, St. Louis debate, Oct. 17, 2000

[almostdiva]

The supreme court declined to take the case. Issued a "terse one page statement" . They didn't immediately provide legal reasons for the decision and no Justice issued a written dissent.

The only thing left if for the Florida judge to grant custody to Jeb and the Florida social services agency, which, given his order about the sheriffs this am, seems highly unlikely.

What will the news media find to go on about now???

Hopefully this has taught Congress that they can't politicize personal, private family matters.

[zhenya]

Hopefully this has taught Congress that they can't politicize personal, private family matters.

Or make legislative decissions influenced by religious beliefs. I think that this part should be kept out of the politics, that way all religios beliefs could be observed and preserved with respect to all.
Nothing wrong with being deeply religious person, I admire that fact in all people that believe, however, making law's and policies should not be influenced by it.
In this case, Congress had overstepped their place in this country, I think, it interfered with the Courts that ruled in a private matter...making all the judges and doctors in this case look like a band of crooks... what's next?

And mind you, I respect all peoples feelings about this case, I'm deeply sadened by all this as well, it is the politics that left a bad taste in the mouth and not the actions of the parents or the husband.

I laso have to say that I am pleased that all participants in this discussion kept a cool head and allow this thread to be a positive form of communication...

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by almostdiva

Hopefully this has taught Congress that they can't politicize personal, private family matters.

I doubt it. The religious zealots who run the GOP are immune to calls for restraint or moderation or limits on their power. God is on their side. Now that they have "excited" their "pro-life base," I'm sure there will be a lot of people encouraged by the response they got from "Washington" (trying to sound like a Republican here) and eager to push for more federal government interference in other areas that are near and dear to their hearts.

If you don't agree with a final court ruling, no problem. Just get Congress to legislate a "different ending." Senator Frist and House Majority Leader DeLay obviously see nothing wrong with Congress passing statutes on an ad hoc basis to reverse court decisions that they consider wrong. If you have a problem with activist judges, call up your activist Congresspastor and ask him to err on the side of life in your behalf. After all, if it's something that you feel passionately about, something that is very emotionally disturbing to your sense of good and evil, they should do something. Right? I mean, isn't that why we elected them? To smite the evildoers.

Who needs three separate branches of government when one political party controls all of them? Well, they control two of them so far but they might control all three within a few years if things go according to plan. Then we can get rid of Roe v. Wade and require public schools to teach the Biblical version of evolution as an equal alternative to "Darwinism" -- something near and dear to little Tom DeLay's heart. In geology class, the professors would be required to agree that the Earth might very well be only 6,000 years old. And if they don't, you could sue them for disrespecting your beliefs thanks to Florida's new anti-free speech law.

On the other hand, since gun ownership will probably be mandatory by then, you would be able to shoot any of those pesky pro-life demonstrators if they should trespass on your front lawn thanks to Florida's new "shoot first, ask questions later" law.

If you live in Texas, you won't have to worry about deciding whether to pull the plug on a dying relative unless you can afford to pay the hospital bill thanks to the "futile case" law signed by compassionate conservative Governor George W. Bush. It would seem that the Republican committment to life depends on how much life you can afford to pay for. However, the hospital is required to give you 10-days for legal recourse before pulling the plug. Ten days should be more than enough time to resolve such matters. We don't want to make a federal case out of it, do we?

[almostdiva]

Unfortunately, this case doesn't allow for much else other than cynicism about how government functions, who gets influence, and how the congressional and executive branches "legislate"

I thought these people were supposed to represent the intersts of us, the public. Guess I was wrong....

And mind you, I respect all peoples feelings about this case, I'm deeply sadened by all this as well, it is the politics that left a bad taste in the mouth and not the actions of the parents or the husband.

Gene, I TOTALLY agree... I don't agree with the parent's particular religious beliefs, and despite the impression you might get from my posts in this thread, I AM a religous person -- I am even Presbyterian! And we don't exactly have a "liberal" rep.... . I think the parent's situation was totally exploited and taken advantage of by special interests. Of course these people want to have hope, regardless of how far-fetched it may seem. This woman is their child..

The whole thing has been very sad and I'm glad it is finally resolved!

[Ninong]

Interesting article about living wills and whether they help or not in end-of-live situations.

I believe everyone should have one. It should be as specific as possible. A copy should be given to the hospital whenever you are hospitalized for any reason. Your primary care physician and all of your nearest relatives should have a copy of it and be aware of your wishes.

Do NOT rely on the doctors and the hospital staff to make recommendations that are in your best interest. There is a serious conflict of interest there. The hospital will recommend that any and all measures be taken to sustain life (assuming you have good insurance coverage) for as long as possible. And then when you question them after the fact (after the death), they will tell you things like, "Well, you really didn't want to hear the truth. We would have told you if you had insisted but you really wanted us to do everything possible if there was any chance at all and we don't play God. So if there is any hope at all, we prefer to be encouraging and do everything possible. Maybe a miracle will happen. Who are we to decide."

Those were the exact responses (verbatim!) my mother got AFTER my stepfather passed away following six weeks of chemo-induced agony. His condition was "hopeless" and they knew that when they did exploratory surgery but they continued to treat him aggressively (very aggressively) for another four weeks because they asked my mother if she wanted them to do everything possible to save his life and she said yes. Then, after he died, they had the nerve to tell her that they would have told her the truth if she was ready for it, but she wasn't. That six-week hospital stay added up to $186,000 (most of it covered by medical insurance) and that was 15 years ago.

Because of that experience, my mother had her lawyer draw up a living will for herself. It was very specific but it didn't cover one situation that came up in the final days. We agreed that our youngest sister would have to make that particular decision because the rest of us couldn't deal with it. We were faced with a situation where our mother was obviously dying and had been for several days -- following four months in hospice care. She was borderline comatose and uncommunicative. Her blood pressure had dropped to life-threatening levels and the doctors recommended an immediate blood transfusion to counteract the low blood pressure.

Now what? The living will specified DNR and it specified no feeding tubes but it didn't say anything about blood transfusions when the patient was obviously very near death. This was an 85-yr-old patient who had been in hospice for four months and who was obviously dying. We authorized a blood transfusion. Two days later they said she needed another blood transfusion. We authorized that only on condition that they not ask for any more transfusions. Her life was prolonged for approximately four days by the tranfusions. She didn't regain consciousness and she passed away peacefully. In retrospect, the transfusions made no difference. We knew at the time that they would probably make no difference but we felt obligated to agree to them simply because the doctors said they were necessary to counteract the falling blood pressure. We have no regrets either way but we are VERY thankful that there was a living will that prevented them from recommending other extraordinary measures that were mentioned in the living will as being unwanted.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Ninong

I doubt it. Now that they have "excited" their "pro-life base," I'm sure there will be a lot of people encouraged by the response they got from "Washington" (trying to sound like a Republican here) and eager to push for more federal government interference in other areas that are near and dear to their hearts.

If you don't agree with a final court ruling, no problem. Just get Congress to legislate a "different ending." Senator Frist and House Majority Leader DeLay obviously see nothing wrong with Congress passing statutes on an ad hoc basis to reverse court decisions that they consider wrong. If you have a problem with activist judges, call up your activist Congresspastor and ask him to err on the side of life in your behalf. After all, if it's something that you feel passionately about, something that is very emotionally disturbing to your sense of good and evil, they should do something. Right? I mean, isn't that why we elected them? To smite the evildoers.

Who needs three separate branches of government when one political party controls all of them? Well, they control two of them so far but they might control all three within a few years if things go according to plan. Then we can get rid of Roe v. Wade and require public schools to teach the Biblical version of evolution as an equal alternative to "Darwinism" -- something near and dear to little Tom DeLay's heart. In geology class, the professors would be required to agree that the Earth might very well be only 6,000 years old. And if they don't, you could sue them for disrespecting your beliefs thanks to Florida's new anti-free speech law.

On the other hand, since gun ownership will probably be mandatory by then, you would be able to shoot any of those pesky pro-life demonstrators if they should trespass on your front lawn thanks to Florida's new "shoot first, ask questions later" law.

If you live in Texas, you won't have to worry about deciding whether to pull the plug on a dying relative unless you can afford to pay the hospital bill thanks to the "futile case" law signed by compassionate conservative Governor George W. Bush. However, the hospital is required to give you 10-days for legal recourse before pulling the plug. Ten days should be more than enough time to resolve such matters. We don't want to make a federal case out of it, do we?

You are scaring me,George. If things go according to "plan" I fear this will be a very similar to the country that I run away from years ago.
From totally "godless" government to totally "God talks to me" government.
Again, it's all good to be religious person, but it seems like only one religion is being aproved by government, at this point ...

I think if we all believed in one God and did what he said we must do, we all would be hearding sheep and eat goat cheese today, very much at peace with one another. But, people being what they are, threw a wrench in God's plan, didn't they?....

[Ninong]

Having been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, members of Congress are now writing letters to the editor. I would hate to have been one of Dr. Weldon's patients before he found his true calling in politics. Here is a medical doctor who is repeating stuff that he knows to be false. If he actually believes some of this stuff, then he needs a mental health exam himself.

Some politicians will say or do absolutely anything to further their political agenda.



The fate of Terri Schiavo

FLORIDA TODAY Readers

Sworn court testimony disputes editorial's stance

We only have to go to the opening paragraphs of FLORIDA TODAY's Tuesday editorial "An outrageous act" about Congress's involvement in the Terri Schiavo case to see that even basic assertions of fact are at best disputable.

It states that Terri is in "a persistent vegetative state for 15 years since her heart attack" and "medical evidence showed Terri has no chance of recovery."

Did the editors interview registered nurse Carla Iyer, who personally treated Terri for a year and a half?

She said in a sworn court affidavit that Terri "was alert and oriented. Terri spoke on a regular basis saying things like 'mommy' and 'help me" and 'hi' when I came into her room."

Iyer says Terri would sit up in the nurse's station from time to time and laugh at stories they told. She felt pain and would indicate so. Carla fed her by mouth and not by tube. Does this sound like a woman in persistent vegetative state for the past 15 years?

Hardly.

Or are the editors aware of Dr. William Hammesfahr, Nobel Prize nominee neurologist, who examined Terri for 10 hours and said, "Terri does not require a feeding tube to be fed" and that "with proper therapy she would be able to regain some speech and mobility."

This is a story about a woman neglected proper care and therapy by those now wishing to see her expire. It's a story about disguising a right-to-kill edict in right-to-die clothes.

I only pray that our judicial system won't continue to be party to it.

U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon
District 15

[almostdiva]

OK --

Terri Shciavo's parents have now RE-appealed to federal Judge James Whittemore in Tampa (so I guess he's the original Federal Judge -- not on the 11th Curcuit) for a temporary injunction, and a hearing was set for Thursday evening at 6 p.m. ET.

What makes these folks think that a man who said no to them two days ago is now going to change his opinion???

Jeb Bush is also appealing Pinnellas Curcuit Judge George Greer's request to transfer custody to the state, although he's said he won't try to force his way into her hospice and take custody.

Apparently these folks refuse to acknowledge they are out of options.

[Ninong]

Too bad all of these deeply religious people are not as understanding as Terri's bishop: http://www.dioceseofstpete.org/news.php?NID=9

[Ninong]

My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. "This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility."

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy," Mr. Shays said. "There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."

[Ninong]

What are we going to do about all these activist conservative Republican judges? You know, like the one Pat Buchanan said was guilty of crimes comparable to the Nazi crimes against humanity.


"And Greer, vilified by many religious protesters, is a church regular. He also is a conservative Republican in a state whose conservative Republican governor tried to overturn one of Greer's orders."

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/06/Ta...ersists_.shtml

[Ninong]

Pat Buchanan, spokesman for that wing of the Republican Party, now wants the President to send federal marshalls to Florida to reinsert Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. http://mediamatters.org/items/200503240005

Mr. Buchanan, former speechwriter for Richard Nixon who is now the GOP's resident expert on all things Nazi, has accused a conservative Republican judge of being comparable to a Nazi war criminal. http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220003


P.S. -- When Janet Reno ordered federal marshalls to take custody of Elian Gonzales to enforce the order of a federal court, Pat Buchanan said it was tyranny and something one would expect of a communist dictatorship, not a democracy. Now Buchanan is urging that the President send in federal marshalls to take custody of Terri Schiavo to flout a federal court order. That would be tyranny and something one might expect from a dictatorship, not a democracy.

[NoSump]

Many of you appear to be so pleased that a woman will starve to death over the next few days.

It seems as though you can barely contain your enthusiasm, and of course, the opportunity to take pot shots at political leaders that have convictions contrary to your own. I can accept the verdicts of the courts, but I also have an appreciation for the fact that this is a about a human life coming to an end. To turn this sad event into a cheerleading session of 'Republican bashing" is unseemly.

Does prolonged exposure to reef lighting lead to clouded judgement and terminal cynicsm?

[Ninong]

The fact that a woman's life is at the center of this tragedy seems to have been lost on the leadership of the Republican Party as evidenced by their own words and deeds. Drawing attention to this hypocrisy is not at all unseemly.

The real issue is the control of the Republican Party by right-wing religious zealots who seem to think that the constitution doesn't apply to them.

Their head cheerleader, Randall Terry (lovely person), is now threatening to take down both the governor of Florida and his brother unless they act immediately to overturn the action of the courts by force.

P.S. -- In case you don't remember Randall Terry, he's the founder of the often violent anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, which later merged with Operation Save America. He's also the reason the Republican leadership has previously refused to allow a bankruptcy reform bill to be passed because the Democrats insisted on attaching a provision that would prohibit someone from including court ordered fines and cash settlements resulting from criminal acts involved in protest demonstrations. You see the problem is that Randall Terry has been ordered by the courts on several different occasions to pay large sums of cash to abortion clinics as restitution for damages. He has never paid a penny. He filed for bankruptcy six or seven years ago and included all of those court ordered cash fines and restitution payments. That was perfectly legal. Now that the Republicans have more control of the Senate, they were finally able to pass reasonable bankruptcy reform recently but it doesn't mention anything about prohibiting one from including court ordered payments resulting from illegal protest activities. The Republicans could not allow that language to get in there because it would infuriate their "pro-life base." The Democrats knew that and they were really bringing this up as a symbolic gesture more than anything else. I'm glad to see the bankruptcy reform bill finally passed. It was long overdue.