The Dems will pay a big-time price for this in 2006.

Why do you keep bringing up liberals, when the only people openly politicizing this turn out to be Republicans? That memo circulating in Congress, Peggy Noonan, and now you. Why do politics enter into it at all?

Your position is, apparently, that Republicans such as the nine in Florida who voted against the bill should allow political expediency to guide them? That's positively disgusting. You can't mean it.

To give them credit, the Florida legislative leaders explicitly told everyone to vote their conscience. Would that others would do the same.

I don't know exactly what motivates liberals in this case.

Choice. They believe that a life which is inconvenient to another can be extinguished so long as cognitive ability (in particular, the ability to feel pain) is sufficiently impaired. It's completely consistent with their position on abortion. Filet o' Fish is pretty candid about this in aiming his latest tantrum at the GOP's "filthy" willingness to invade the sacred precincts of the marital bedroom and interfere with Michael Schiavo's choice to starve his wife to death.

Sullivan's a little cagier, though. He alluded to the case on his blog and in his latest Sunday Times column, and I can't tell if he's making the same argument as Willis or if he's simply saying that personal matters are an issue for the state legislature, not for Congress. If the latter, I wonder how he'd feel about a Congressional statute that legalized gay marriage. Probably pretty bummed about the implications for federalism, huh?

"Your position is, apparently, that Republicans such as the nine in Florida who voted against the bill should allow political expediency to guide them? That's positively disgusting. You can't mean it."

Well, Ace doesn't need me to defend him but he never said any such thing. Nor did anybody else here. At most what you heard was disappointment at people who purport to share your values and ideas and then don't stand up for them precisely because its politcally expedient not to.

BTW Cal, you flamed me yesterday for something I didn't write. What's up with that? Are you just a troll now?

Why do you keep bringing up liberals, when the only people openly politicizing this turn out to be Republicans?

Uh-hu, Cal.

Why do politics enter into it at all?

I'm sorry to have injected politics into a political argument.

Your position is, apparently, that Republicans such as the nine in Florida who voted against the bill should allow political expediency to guide them? That's positively disgusting. You can't mean it.

I think expediency guides them now. I think they're from moderate districts and just want this issue to go away, for fear of alienating moderates.

They're motivated by crass political consideration in any case; why not be motivated by such considerations to do the proper thing?

Cal, you're pro-euthanasia. That's fine, and that's a perfectly defenisble position.

But you cannot show that Terri was also pro-euthanasia. You are substituting your judgment for hers, which cannot be known.

You support abortion rights. Surely you don't support a man's ability COMPEL a woman to have an abortion.

And that's what this case is about. I concede that Terri has a right to die-- were she to express it, or had she made it clear in a Living Will or by informing multiple disinterested parties about it.

I don't concede that her husband has the right to a corpse.

I'm not writing a comment yet until I see if this dies on me like the last time I tried...

Kool!

Ok, Cal, you've got to be kidding. An article from Peggy Noonan is the best you've got? (An article I flamed her for, at that.) And the "memo" in Congress? BIPARTISAN.

You're delusional if you think liberals haven't politicized this. Ask Megan how her own side has treated her for not following The Party Line.

Ace, you so fuckin' rock for doing all this!

For their disgusting cowardice, for their Eurodecadence, for their pro-death stance, may the Democrats be treated to the same fate as Terri.

"I'm sorry to have injected politics into a political argument."

Who made it political? The Republican-controlled Florida legislature and the Republican controlled U.S. Congress. That's not an accusation; it's a fact. This was not a political process until politicians made it so.

And once they did so, you joined in enthusiastically by urging politicians to ignore their legal or moral opinion to vote expedience.

"Cal, you're pro-euthanasia. "

What the hell are you talking about? If anything, I'm less pro-right to die than you are.

"But you cannot show that Terri was also pro-euthanasia. You are substituting your judgment for hers, which cannot be known."

You're drinking from Brew's cup. Don't invent opinions for me. I have never once tried to show that Terri was pro-euthanasia, and I've never once substituted my judgment for hers.

I've done nothing on this site other than point out your considerable errors of fact. Observing that you, a National Review piece, and a few pro-Terri sites are not as reliable as the Florida judicial process does not equate to support for removal of a feeding tube.

The law expressly allows other people to substitute their judgement for Terri's. That law has been followed. To the extent that I "support" anything, I support the fact that Florida law has been followed and if that means Terri Schiavo dies, then that's what it means.

Four other Florida residents were starved to death via the same process in March alone. Their deaths occurred in compliance with Florida law. Does that statement of fact express any support or enthusiasm for euthanasia?

"I support the fact that Florida law has been followed and if that means Terri Schiavo dies, then that's what it means."

Sometimes a retort just isn't necessary. But I would like to remind Mr. Football Fan for Truth that Florida law was followed when black people were not allowed to vote.

cal's a racist.

WHAT TERRI SAID:

To everyone who insists on pointing out that Michael Schiavo is simply "carrying out Terri's wishes", and all the bloggers and commenters that keep saying they "don't know if this is what she really wanted", here's what Terri told Michael (transcript of Michael Schiavo's September 2004 appearance on Larry King):

KING: How old was she [Terri] when this happened?

SCHIAVO: Twenty-five.

KING: A 25-year-old said that to you, if I die, if I'm in this state -- most 25-year-olds wouldn't think of something like that.

SCHIAVO: It was a comment from watching certain programs. She said -- we were watching some programs, and she said, I don't want to -- I don't want anything artificial like that. I don't want any tubes. Don't let me live like that. I don't want to be a burden to anybody. She's also made comments to other people about different stories.

WTF? Sorry, but when I hear 'tubes', I think of ventilators. I think of machines that are breathing for me, keeping my vital organs functioning because my brain is unable to do so. I don't think of a tube that's used to give me vital nutrition and hydration.

And let's be clear on one thing - Terri might have the ability to swallow on her own, had Michael not forbid therapy of any kind for nearly 10 years now.

Has anyone ever had a friend or loved one say "I don't want to be a burden"? Did you say "OK" and walk away? Of course not. Unless you're a total asshole, I'm sure you said something like "It's not a burden" and did whatever you could to help that person.

That statement is not sufficient evidence to impose a death sentence on someone, in my opinion.

Democrats are intent on killing Terri Schiavo because it's their new strategy to retake Florida. After all, dead people are an increasingly important Democratic voting block. She's the key to their new "Dead voter drive." Is it true they are planning a combination "democratic party registration/organ donor" form?

Their stand also doubles the appeal of their abortion platform to include men who wish to abort their wives. They are even using the same "insensate clump of tissue" arguments, even though the tissue in question is 40 years old, recognizes her parents and most important, is inconveniently wearing away quite a substantial financial settlement.

Funny how Mike S. didn't remember Terri didn't want to live until AFTER he won a substantial settlement that was supposed to pay for her care.

Actually, I think it was federal law that was followed when black people weren't allowed to vote. Likewise women and non-property owners at one time or another. But in any event, the point is the same: change the law. I wouldn't oppose your attempts to do so.

To the extent that I have an opinion, I would rather public funds not be used to support people who have no brain function. But I don't feel strongly enough about it to oppose changing the law. I don't like the starvation option and never have--and unlike most of the people yammering on about it, I've thought about it for years before this case. If a majority of people felt that removing feeding tubes was unconscionable, then I wouldn't oppose the law put in place to ban it.

However, the majority of society feels more strongly about it than I do, and it's been common practice for the past 10-12 years in many states. So why the sudden furor?

Eh. I'm done with this here for a while.

Go HERE and vote.

It's rich to sit and listen to some of the Democratic congresspeople justifying and actively politicizing this situation. Today, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a rep from Florida, was ragging on the Republicans as "the party that defends the sanctity of marriage" chosing to get involved in this case. Of course, she didn't point out that the sanctity of marriage didn't mean a lot to Michael Schiavo and his girlfriend. Jebus save us all.

Cal, you're pro-euthanasia. "

What the hell are you talking about? If anything, I'm less pro-right to die than you are.

Cf.

To the extent that I have an opinion, I would rather public funds not be used to support people who have no brain function

...

That's pro-euthanasia. And, whatever, fine.

Cal, would you trust me to be your guardian and decide your fate in such a situation?

We are closer at this point than Michael is to Terri.

I'm rapidly boiling over about this case, but I'd just like to know how any human being can sit there and say "kill her" when there is NOTHING outside of hearsay from a very interested party to indicate she would wish that, and there IS another course of action. There should not be a damn thing political about that.

I am for letting Terri live and very pro-life before and after birth, but I am a bit queesy about a bill targeting a single case and a single individual. If this is accepted practice, I fear for my own safety and well being.

If congress is suddenly able to write a bill that says "[your name here] will take the following actions:..." it is cause for alarm.

On the other hand, what's one more Vegetard really worth?

but I am a bit queesy about a bill targeting a single case and a single individual. If this is accepted practice, I fear for my own safety and well being.

It is common and has always been. Acts of congress are divided into "Public Law" -- what you usually think of as law -- and "private law," which are acts that affect one or two people.

There are actually quite a few private laws passed every year; no one talks about them much, because they have no bearing on anyone else.

I would prefer a public law that protected both Terri and those in very similar situations, but if the Democrats insist on making this apply to Terri and Terri only, that's fine for now, I think.

Allah said, "If the latter, I wonder how [Sullivan would] feel about a Congressional statute that legalized gay marriage. Probably pretty bummed about the implications for federalism, huh?"

Can we just consider it a settled point that whenever federalism and some great object of one's personal desire come into conflict, we'll be in conflict within ourselves between the harm done to federalism and the good (posited here for the sake of argument) that was thereby achieved?

Whether anyone in the world has ever been entirely consistent in supporting federalism has no bearing on the question as to whether federalism should be supported. The value to us of maintaining what's left of the federalist order is not decreased one little bit by Sullivan's inconsistency in supporting the principle.

Sullivan's involvement in this topic--God only knows how--gives me an idea. Allah, maybe it would help if you began to think of argument fallacies as "queer," "perverted," "dirty." So far in your life, you've tolerated argument fallacies because the reach-around feels so good, never mind the way all those sticky wads gum up your thinking.

You are too talented to go on conducting your arguments at that level. At the moment, that bothers me viscerally more than does the decline of federalism, but it doesn't make federalism any less important. If the Congress and President interrupted everything else for a week in an effort to help you overcome your subjection to the tu quoque, red herring, and ad hominem argument fallacies, I'd be pleased if they succeeded, despite my federalist objections to the government's distraction and its meddling in personal matters. And you, reformed as you would be, would see that my satisfaction is irrelevant as an argument to anyone else regarding the advantage of federalism in general and to the U.S. as a whole.

I'm mostly conservative, but I think Congress shouldn't intervene.

1) I hate to say it, but this is a State's rights issue. If Florida can't get this right, there's not much that the feds should be doing.

2) IMHO, this is particularly true where there's a sympathetic person like Terry driving the law. Those are the situations that make the worst laws.

3) Finally, the problem isn't particularly that people have the right to refuse medical care, or that guardians have the right to refuse medical care for their charges - it's that Michael Schiavo *should not* be Terry's guardian.

and yeah, they tend to involve favors for people-- money paid, declarations of gratitude, etc. -- not restrictions on behavior.

I don't think this will technically be a private law, though. I just think it will be so restricted that it will apply only to Terry. It is and it isn't, in other words.

I hate to say it, but this is a State's rights issue. If Florida can't get this right, there's not much that the feds should be doing.

I think I agree, though I don't know the law in this area (perhaps there have been prior cases giving Congress limited rights in this area; I don't know).

I think, at least as I understand things (and that isn't too well) that this is fairly clear violation of the doctrine of federalism.

Still-- there is a fucking life on the line. The courts will get around to knocking the law down shortly enough. But in the time bought, perhaps the florida legislators can be persuaded by public outcry to get their shit together.

Federalism? States Rights? Who gives a fuck?!

What about Right and Wrong? Starving someone to death is wrong. Its Evil if their is such a thing.

Its pretty pathetic argueing about this crap like your Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr.

Sometimes you just have to say "Fuck the Law- we are doing the right thing" I think that this is one of those times.

Rock on Ace of Spades. Rock on.

Donald Manzullo (R- Illinois) said this during a press conference today:

The constitution specifically gives power to congress to determine jurisdiction of federal courts. We make that decision. That is our decision, that decision is not subject to judicial review because we can grant jurisdiction to courts, we can withdraw jurisdiction to courts. And when people say "Well, Congress should not get involved in personal situations" -- that's why we're here.

Let me give you some examples; there are two reporters sitting in jail now. They're going to be there for several months, until the grand jury ends, because there is no...there is no repoerting shield law. And Cogress is thinking of passing a federal shield law. And you know what's precipitating that? Two of your own [press] members. Two people out of 300 million people are sitting in jail, and people are coming to us saying "You've got to get involved, because that involved the first amendment, which is very precious."

The Americans with Disabilities Act is Congress acting because of personal situations. The Idea Act (sp?), taking care of children that are in schools, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when Martin Luther King was sitting in jail. Everything that we do here is based upon how the Constitution impacts the lives of people. And to say that Congress should not get involved in situations where the lives of people are involved means that this body should just go home, and fold up, and leave everything to the Executive and Judicial branches. But it is extremely important that the document here that is defining jurisdiction in the courts - that is given to this body by the constitution. And we are exercising that prerogative.

Where is he wrong?

Ace:

The Florida legislature and the Governor control everything here but...the judiciary. You've got elected Judges, and everyone votes "Yes." It takes a pretty serious transgression for a judge to get voted out. When voters get their little finger or poker out, the last thing they see is "Shall Judge X be re-elected?" They usually poke "Yes."

So you don't have lifetime appointments (but you do have guaranteed re-election), and you don't get the Executive with the power to quickly change this. That's why the Florida Judiciary is still heavily liberal and while after Childs (God rest his he-coon soul) retired and Buddy McKay got his ass handed to him by Jeb, and the legislature became completely dominated by the GOP, the Judiciary is still lib-for-life.

And, in-power-too-long has settled in. These guys have been in power long enough to start in-fighting, and the Democratic Party in Florida (at the state level) is pretty much toast. But they can always turn things around. So you have a timid legislature and a lefty court system, and now you've got a bunch a pussies.

Good luck. The party in dominant power in Florida is more concerned about getting knocked out of power than doing this again.

I'd also add that the Florida legislature and Jeb already did this, and got poked in the rear pretty hard for it. That makes them a bit more timid, also.

Halleck--My point about Sullivan's reaction to a federal gay marriage statute wasn't offered to support the proposition that federalism doesn't/shouldn't apply to the Schiavo case. It was offered to support the proposition that if federalism applies here -- and it very well may -- then, logically, it should also apply vis-a-vis gay marriage. I don't see where the fallacy is. Granted, this is a thread about Schiavo, but gay marriage and Sullivan's "by any means necessary" advocacy of it come up frequently here on Ace's blog. I'm not exactly heading off into left field by bringing them up.

I appreciate your compliment about my being talented but I don't appreciate your presumptuousness about what I've tolerated "so far in my life." How would you know that? Are you my mom posting under an alias? If so, I've got to tell you: dinner sucked tonight. Nor do I appreciate your trying to "explain" logical fallacies to me as something "queer," as though I'm too stupid to understand them or so homophobic that the mere hint of gayness will cause me to recoil like Dracula from a crucifix.

I'll make you a deal. I'll police myself for logical fallacies if you'll police yourself for obnoxious, patronizing rhetoric, okay?

Allah:

You just used your Crucifix on Dracula. Hell, I even recoiled in horror after that smackdown. And you did it lightly (yet somehow manfully) in your loafers at that.

But soberly, how was dinner?

Halleck:

When you ended your observation with the words "U.S. as a whole," were you gaily playing with words, suggesting that you wanted to become One with Allah in a manful way? It sounds just like "us as a-hole." And you also have "a whole," which suggests oneness. I'm appalled at your use of overt homophobic language in your post.

And by the way, Allah didn't make a false dilemma fallacy. He merely suggested that Sullivan would be a hypocrite in the extreme if the Federal government supported or intervened to give gay marriage fundamental-right status. There's never anything wrong with suggesting one might be a hypocrite. It may not be the most persuasive attack on one's opponent, but it is a fair charge. We are all human, however, and one rarely sees people being completely consistent when it comes to their basic desires.

No fallacy, just a suggestion of hypocrisy.

To quote Scott Chaffin's comment earlier:

"I'm rapidly boiling over about this case, but I'd just like to know how any human being can sit there and say "kill her" when there is NOTHING outside of hearsay from a very interested party to indicate she would wish that, and there IS another course of action. There should not be a damn thing political about that."

I have been going on about that for as long as this case has been going on (even before I started blogging, myself). This is not something that is so cut-and-dry simple as yanking a plug and it being done. Terri Schiavo is, frankly, not a human light switch - nobody is. You can't just flip it to off because it's halfway on the panel, or all the way off in the first place just because it is inconvenient to keep it on in the first place.

It is pretty obvious to me that, from reading the medical report documented in WuzzaDem's blog, as well as the unusual circumstances to which Michael has this "epiphany" of his (right after the settlement), this case deserves a full review. While Judge Greer may be the original "finder of facts" in this case, and therefore not susceptible to legal manuevering, it does NOT insulate him or the decision from criticism. Meaning, this case should be looked at in a "trial de novo", a different set of eyes to review the case.

Congressional actions to that effect may just have to be warranted, because the rest of the Florida court system is so cowed by the coverage of this case, it can't effectively rule for itself for fear of being colored as being one thing or another in regards to the case. We shouldn't ignore our humanity and intrinsic nature to help just because we may not like the fact Congress is involved. Sitting around silent doesn't change matters, and tolerating others rooting for court-ordered starvation is unacceptable.

Denying Terri Schiavo treatment and therapy for years flies in the face of all that is right about humanity, and it should not be rewarded by a judge who insists on putting blinders on to see a case like this to its horrible end. This must be stopped, and be given a chance to be rectified in a way that does not put the State, any State, in the untenable position of having to follow this kind of choice for decades to come.

If Terry was an "enemy combatant" and her inuries were a direct result of the violence being waged on the world by our military, instead of being the more likely victim of domestic violence at the hands of an abusive husband, whose motives and conduct are suspect, it would be illegal to deny her food and water. Because that would be considered torture and we all know the democratic party is against all forms of torture aren't they?

is their any actual evidence that Shiavo was abused by her husband? or that she had an eating disorder as some other commenter suggested as the cause of her illness?

anybody got any solid proof of either one?

Ace writes: If only a bunch of liberal bloggers could make the case to their fellow liberals that they ought not be in a rush to pull the food from Terri's mouth, there might be a change in pulbic opinion

Well, in a nearby State, we have a serial killer who raped and did in 13 women including a 11-year old and two 14 year olds - who just escaped his execution date after 20 years on Death Row. The same argument was used. After 20 years, why the "RUSH" to execute??? His latest ploy is harsh conditions on Death Row have left him mentally disabled and his past appeals were not as effective as they could have been. He wanted a new 5 year process, given his newly found condition....and a Judge gave it to him, using the "What's the rush" logic...his life is to precious to substitute a definitive decision in favor of "ongoing processes to ensure no mistake is made".

With Schiavo, we are asked the same thing. After 15 years, after 7 years of relatives and experts and courts advocating, battling, seeking to determine her wishes - we hear "what's the rush??" Why not another 7 years?? Why not involve

There are plenty of problems with both approaches, if you care about justice for the parties that matter, not the side parties - the central parties. The 13 victims of the serial killer, and Terri Schiavo.

20 years awaiting his justice to be meted out is an insult to the young women and girls he raped, tortured, and killed. The 5 years for a new round of appeals by a "what's the rush??" Judge is additional injury.

If the Court, the experts consulted, the physicians, and yes, Michael Schiavo are right.....Terri Schiavo would be like 95% of the rest of us....95% at least...that would consider decades in a PVS state, or worse, in PVS with the consciousness the Schindlers claim she has...as a fate so bad they would absolutely prefer death over. If that is true, then she has been waiting a long time, a far too long time, for what she and the vast majority of us would want if we were in her place.

The "rush" is actually an accruing injury from a delayed application of justice in the case of the serial killer, and injury to Schiavo in taking 15 years to rescue her from a hell she never wanted to be in.

Now, on the other side, we have people, typically religious conservatives, that say only Jesus should take a life...killers excepted. To them, "erring on the side of life" assumes that Terri Schiavo is best treated if she is considered part of that miniscule number that would prefer to live decades in a Permanent Vegetative State. Some Catholics try to be consistent and say they love life so much that no one should be killed - not even Osama bin Laden - but they come across as wussy fag priests to the general public when they argue Binnie shouldn't get capped and capped good.

The other argument that Right to Lifers make is that T Schiavo may be a total vegetable, but her parents say they love her so much why not give her to them as sort of a Teddy Bear they can hug, dress her up in cute clothes, and have meaningful conversations, a claim they frequently make. A claim that no guardian or physician has personally observed - both Schindlers maintain that Terri and they cry together, pray together, laugh at one another's jokes, talk all the time - though no one else has observed this.

So what's the harm? Plenty. It's one thing for a woman to talk to cats, a Dad to tell jokes to a blotto'd drunk - but removing any dignity from an adult women that the Court, her husband, other acquaintences and sheer human odds say she would never have wanted - to treat her like a special love pet, is WRONG!

I think the longer this goes on, the stranger the Schindlers and their Right to Life handlers will appear, and the more disgusted the general public will get at their antics. We may have seen the high water mark stain of the Religious Right on American society with the Schiavo Affair. We already see some politicians expressing disgust at the flood of personal threats being launched by the "Christian Talibani" against legislators and judges that think differently than they do about Schiavo.

And like Laci was the only focus and 800 other spousal murders ignored in 2004, Terri only matters to the RTL crowd and her fans..;.nothing about the million who die routinely every year after life support is withdrawn.

Beth,

So true. I have discussed with you and with Ace. I expected the debate but I was surprised at the unwillingness to at least host the thoughts of one of "their own". It didn't happen that way.

Sailor Kenshin..."may the Democrats be treated to the same fate as Terri." Do you honestly want to paint everyone with the same brush? Surely, you cannot be that unaware. I am an individual, a person, Sailor. You speak as though the only thing people need know about me is that I am a registered Democrat. I take defendable positions based on listening to all sides. A luxury I suppose you would not afford me.

I recognize that the decisions being made now are influenced by party agendas, but "we" do not have to follow a bad example by perpetuating a dem / rep - conservative / liberal fight. I thought our intentions were above that.

Megan

Q-You know what the hardest thing is about eating vegetables?

A-Putting them back in their wheelchair.

Still less offensive then CedarTard.

I didn't even have to reach the bottom of the post to see it was Cedarford.

It's a question of right or wrong. Starving a serial killer to death wouldn't be legal in this country, but starving a retarded woman is perfectly okay. Where does it end? Do we move on to killing people with any mental or physical deficiency?

Go back under your bridge.

michael dennis:"Where does it end? Do we move on to killing people with any mental or physical deficiency?"

On the plus side we might be able to wipe out 99% of the DU members. And that kid from "Life Goes On"... I just never liked that guy...

Tampa Tribune Columns suggest that this might have been the case, though I do not see how this makes any difference upon the current case, that is, unless your into blaming the woman for doing something stupid to her body (which I'm not suggesting you are, but some have):

October 30, 2004, Reporter David Sommer

CLEARWATER — Terri Schiavo's parents won an indefinite ban on the removal of their daughter's feeding tube Friday, prompting their son-in-law's attorney to ponder ending their fight.

"I think we are coming very close, if we are not here already, where proceeding in the judicial system is futile," said George Felos, who represents Michael Schiavo in his quest for court permission to stop feeding his brain-damaged wife.

Schiavo has been fighting his in-laws for 6 1/2 years over his contention that Terri Schiavo would not want to be kept alive in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of improvement.

Twice, Schiavo has won permission to remove his wife's feeding tube, only to have it reinserted as Bob and Mary Schindler used one tactic after another to keep their daughter alive.

Felos said it might be time to advise Schiavo to end his quest.

"It would appear that pursuing any remedy through the judicial system is simply a waste of time," Felos said. "It is hard to see where there is any benefit in staying the course in this case."

Friday's decision by Circuit Judge George Greer to stay the case indefinitely while the Schindlers appeal his latest ruling "could delay this case months, even years," Felos said. "I think it's outrageous."

The Schindlers, who contend their daughter reacts to them and could improve if they are given control over her care, reacted with joy to Friday's developments.

"Eventually they are going to get the point that maybe what they are trying to do is just wrong," Bob Schindler said of Schiavo and Felos.

"The longer this goes, more and more people are recognizing it, and we are getting more and more help from the legal profession," Schindler said in reference to his lawyers, some of whom have donated their time to the case.

Felos said he will ask the 2nd District Court of Appeal to lift Greer's stay but expects the legal battle to drag on indefinitely.

The Schindlers, meanwhile, are appealing Greer's decision last week not to grant them another trial over their daughter's feelings about being kept alive with the aid of a feeding tube.

The St. Petersburg couple have argued that a March pronouncement by Pope John Paul II concerning the feeding of people in persistent vegetative states has changed the facts of the case.

Terri Schiavo has been unable to communicate since January 1990, when her heart failed, possibly because of an eating disorder, at age 26.

Her heart now beats and she breathes on her own, but she cannot swallow and must be fed through a tube inserted into her stomach.

After a January 2000 trial, Greer ruled that testimony from Michael Schiavo and his relatives showed that Terri Schiavo made statements before her heart failure indicating she would not want to be kept alive through artificial means.

The Schindlers dispute that. Even if it is true, they say, their daughter would have changed her mind after hearing the pope state that people in her condition should always be provided sustenance and to do otherwise would be a sin.

In denying them a new trial, Greer cited an appeals court finding that Terri Schiavo "did not regularly attend Mass or have a religious adviser who could assist the court in weighing her religious attitude about life support."

Friday's developments came two days after the Florida Supreme Court issued its own one-month stay on removing the tube in a separate court battle between Schiavo and Gov. Jeb Bush.

Bush used a controversial measure dubbed "Terri's Law" to order the feeding tube reinserted in October 2003 after Greer ordered it removed under instructions from the 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Schiavo immediately sued the governor, contending Terri's Law violated his wife's right under the Florida Constitution to make a private medical decision. In September, the Florida Supreme Court threw out Terri's Law, saying Bush overstepped his constitutional authority by intervening in the case.

December 18, 2003, same reporter:

CLEARWATER — Terri Schiavo has been moved from a hospice to an assisted living facility, but the move does not signal a change of heart by her husband, who insists his wife would not want to be kept alive with a feeding tube.

The move, from Hospice of the Suncoast in Pinellas Park to Park Place of Clearwater, was made late Tuesday or early Wednesday because the Pinellas Park facility is about to undergo renovations, said George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo.

Schiavo is locked in a series of court battles with his in-laws, Bob and Mary Schindler, over their daughter's fate. The Schindlers dispute their son-in-law's contention — supported by most examining physicians — that his wife is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of improvement.

On Wednesday, Bob Schindler and his son, Bobby, said Terri Schiavo was exceptionally expressive during a visit at her new home.

"We had a really good session today. She talks to me, and she is saying something," the senior Schindler said.

"She seemed to be really reacting to my dad today," Bobby Schindler said. "Actually, it's heartbreaking. She clearly was trying to communicate with my dad, but they won't give her speech therapy."

That therapy is but one contested issue in a 5 1/2-year court battle that is being waged in two courts almost simultaneously.

News of Terri Schiavo's move came after two hearings Wednesday.

Circuit Judge George Greer again was asked to transfer the original probate and guardianship case to another judge. Greer did not issue a ruling.

It was Greer who, after a January 2000 nonjury trial, found testimony from Michael Schiavo and his relatives showed Terri Schiavo made statements before her illness indicating she would not want to be kept alive with a feeding tube.

The 40-year-old St. Petersburg woman suffered brain damage when her heart failed in January 1990. Doctors have said a potassium deficiency — possibly due to an eating disorder — might have caused her heart to stop, cutting off oxygen to her brain.

Gov. Jeb Bush intervened in October after the feeding tube had been removed for six days on court orders intended to allow her to die. Bush ordered the tube reinserted based on powers granted to him by legislation dubbed "Terri's Law."

Michael Schiavo immediately filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law.

At a second hearing Wednesday, Circuit Judge Douglas Baird postponed until next week a scheduled showdown over whether he should decide the constitutionality of Terri's Law quickly or allow Bush to reopen the issue of Terri Schiavo's wishes.

* Circuit Judge George Greer was asked to transfer the original probate and guardianship case to another judge. Greer did not issue a ruling.

* Circuit Judge Douglas Baird postponed until next week a showdown over whether he should decide the constitutionality of Terri's Law quickly or allow Gov. Jeb Bush to reopen the issue of Terri Schiavo's wishes.

Dated November 8, 2003, Sort of a Q&A summary of the situation:

Coverage of the debate over Terri Schiavo's fate has drawn a host of responses to The Tampa Tribune, TBO.com and WFLA, News Channel 8.

Some residents said extensive media coverage of Schiavo, who suffered brain damage after heart failure in 1990 at age 26, has left them confused. Some said newspaper articles and TV news reports have triggered more questions than answers.

These e-mail messages to Citizens' Voice typify the kind of questions newspaper readers, TV viewers and on-line us*rs want reporters to tackle.

"I would like to know what caused Terri Schiavo to suffer a heart attack back in 1990," Beverly Becktell of Lake Wales wrote.

C.T. Olson of Dunedin wanted to know: "Why is it that no one has said how much it has cost to keep Ms. Schiavo alive for 13 plus years? Who's paying the tab?"

Mary Williams of Sarasota wrote: "What is considered a "persistent vegetative state'?"

And Margaret Whorton of Lakeland asked: "Why can't the courts give Mr. Schiavo a divorce and let her mom and dad take care of her?"

Tackling The Questions
The Tribune's coverage of Schiavo has been led by reporter Dave Sommer. Here are answers drawn primarily from his stories:

Schiavo, 39, suffered severe brain damage when her heart stopped from what doctors say was likely a potassium imbalance, perhaps the result of an eating disorder. Loss of oxygen to her brain left her in a persistent vegetative state, doctors said. She is fed through a tube in her stomach.

Physicians define a persistent vegetative state as a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of their environment but retain noncognitive functions such as breathing and a sleep- wake cycle. They cannot walk, talk or otherwise communicate.

Terri's husband and legal guardian, Michael, has been battling in court for years to carry out what he says - and the courts agree - is his wife's stated wish not to be kept alive artificially. He has not sought a divorce.

Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have fought him, saying their daughter had no such wish and is not in a permanent vegetative state. They say she responds to them and could improve.

Schiavo's medical expenses have been paid with money from a $1.2 million medical malpractice settlement received in 1992. The malpractice suit centered on why Schiavo's doctors had failed to diagnose the eating disorder behind her potassium imbalance.

Michael Schiavo has said he has spent almost all of the money caring for his wife, whose current medical bills outstrip the $50,000 that remains. But other sources of reimbursement are available for hospice care.

Terri Schiavo recently went without food and water for six days under a court order that allowed Michael Schiavo to withdraw the feeding tube. It was reinserted hours after the Legislature passed "Terri's Law" on Oct. 21.

Last week, attorneys for Michael Schiavo filed briefs challenging the constitutionality of the law, which gave Gov. Jeb Bush the authority to keep Terri Schiavo alive.

Articles Focus On Schiavo
Others have expressed concern that the debate over Terri Schiavo's fate has overshadowed who she is. Tribune Senior Regional Editor Ken Koehn said the Tribune has tried to keep her in focus.

Tribune reporters have interviewed people who knew her before her heart attack, Koehn said. They also have been interviewing more of her friends and family for stories.

"We remain keenly aware of the need to keep her humanity at the forefront of our coverage," Koehn said.

Ace - the news says that private laws for 1 individual by Congress are very rare, always have been. They typically involve immigrants that don't have access to Court remedies. 14 were drafted in 2004, 2 passed.

Still-- there is a fucking life on the line.

2.5 million people die in America every year. You can count the number that get 7 years of court review on the merits of her disagreeing relative's arguments on the fingers of one hand.

Congress completely disrupting their schedule for this, stopping all other affairs both in DC and with their constituents at home, having Midnight voting or Terri, doing no other business for a week, no debate? Plus, the President flying back from Crawford, cancelling meetings there when he could have just signed the fax'd Bill there?

All that is pure Grandstanding. Stand by for the great Photo Ops.

If Congress's authority must be inserted everytime a fucking life is on the line, with thousands of tough calls on withdrawal of life support happening all over the country every week, then Congress must be not too busy with other matters.

As for Bush, a sideline came up in debate...As Governor of Texas he signed a law in that said if life support and heroic measures is deemed absolutely futile by medical professionals, it may be removed even over the objections of the family...who are given 10 days to find a facility that will take over from the hospital, and no State funding for such indigents with no hope of recovery would be granted. Sometimes the courts intervened, but many other times the law was enforced and the plug pulled..

Cedarford, you conveniently ignore most of the context behind the entire opposition to Terri's feeding tube being removed in the first place.

First and foremost is the legality of a court to order that someone's feeding tube be removed, in the face of all the other evidence presented that show that doing so is akin to murder by starvation. Terri Schiavo has demonstrated, according to medical records and the testimony of her family, that she is NOT a vegetable, and responds to stimuli in a way that shows conscious thought and reaction. This court order would be like a judge ruling that a baseball pitcher had to have his right arm cut off while they were in a coma because it has stitches from a fall they had several years ago, because you may have heard them say they never want their arm to be disfigured in any way. It's an inelegant analogy, to be sure, but I think I make the point that you can't just run this case on hearsay and ignore the physical evidence.

Secondly is the behavior of the parties in the continuing battle. Michael Schiavo is reportedly to have said, on numerous occassions, very disturbing remarks to hospital staff. Things to the effect of "Is the bitch dead yet?" and being constantly furious that Terri is still alive (link here (apologies for not making this a hyperlink, I'm unsure of how Ace's comment system handles HTML tags) : http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2005/03/when_is_that_bi.html). Consider also that she has displayed signs of cognitive ability, from recognizing pain, to turning away from noxious stimuli, all documented in the original hospital report. Including talking to her husband, hospital staff, and her family, including saying "Momma" and "Help me". Those are not signs of a brain-dead woman. Add to the fact that Michael is with his new common-law wife and children, and it starts to look a little bit crass that he's jockeying for his disabled wife (who is NOT, according to the original medical report from when Terri was originally admitted to the hospital, a vegetable) to kick the bucket. Also consider how Michael has denied treatment and therapy for years, and it is no small wonder that Terri has not improved much - he's not allowing anyone to do anything to help.

It would be so enormously easy to blame this on religious groups or pro-lifers, save for the fact that this is a matter of injustice, not a matter of arguing semantic details over what constitutes life and when it officially is not. Terri Schiavo has demonstrated time and again that she is alive, that she deserves and needs treatment, and could actually get better from it. It would be a very hard, long road to do now, but it still can be done to the point where she has a life again. Taking away the one thing that keeps her in this world and possibly having her life and future back is wrong, and it is something that people cannot abide by on either side of the political spectrum.

What is going to happen to the House Democrats is anyone's guess, and I won't pretend to hide my irritation that they insist this debate go on when it will prove totally unnecessary in the end (it will pass, and by a large margin). But this is not a game of political cat and mouse, it never should be, and there are people like Megan and I who can agree, COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF POLITICS ENTIRELY, that this is a matter of doing what is right for someone - not what is politically expedient.

Jonah Goldberg has a great post just up at the Corner comparing Congressional action here to the Violence Against Women Act. I have to say, I think the federalists have the better of the argument here.

Michael Schiavo finally tells the truth on Larry King:

Quote:
KING: Have you had any contact with the family today? This is a sad day all the way around, Michael. We know of your dispute.

M. SCHIAVO: I've had no contact with them.

KING: No contact at all?

M. SCHIAVO: No.

KING: Do you understand how they feel?

M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is

what we want...

TRANSCRIPT

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/18/lkl.01.html

maybe we'll get lucky and Michael will disconnect Larry Kings feeding tube while hes at CNN.

I hear he paints his bald spot.

College Pundit: but I think I make the point that you can't just run this case on hearsay and ignore the physical evidence.

Not really.

1. You base much of your opinion on hearsay testimony from a nurse who is now deep into the Right to Life Movement who not only claimed M Schiavo was walking around - talking to potential witnesses saying damning stuff like "Is the bitch dead yet?" and being constantly furious that Terri is still alive...", or at least according to this Right to Life fanatic, who also said that Terri didn't do it with other nurses or doctors - but around her, Terri was always fully conscious and talkative and was aware of everything around her.

How did the Court respond to this deranged affidavit?? All the other staff was interviewed, her Bush-appointed Guardian was interviewed...no one else every heard M Schiavo making the remarks the one Right to Lifer nurse was saying he was loudly shouting to everyone. No doctor described her as responsive in any way. No doctor, investigating the Schindler parents claims of miracles like speaking full sentences that just happened when they were private with Terri - were ever able to see anything
of a response. The Court determined this particular nurse was religiously motivated and not credible given her stories conflicted with everyone else's.

2. Seems you are ignoring the biggest piece or lack thereof, of physical evidence. Schiavo's outer brain died and rotted away back in 1990 from lack of oxygen. That is the area of all cognitive thought, memories. Brain tissue doesn't regrow and even if it did, it would be a blank canvas. CAT scans show extensive damage and huge gaps where brain tissue once was. That is fairly important physical evidence, wouldn't you agree??

HAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!! Here's the way Cedarford* responds to his instructions, issued to people emailing him factual information that conflicts with his fantasies:

"What part of the "you have a closed mind I don't want to hear from you again" message I sent you didn't you understand???

"I read the 1st sentence just to confirm you hadn't become objective perchance........deleted whatever else you wrote unread.

"Have a nice life. "

*who, by the way, is a cocksucker (my apologies to KCTrio)

Hey cedarford,

you said Terri's outer brain died and rotted away; please put up a link that supports that statement. I've put up a link that has testimony from many prominent neurologists who say that that diagnosis can not be made from a CAT scan. Also, please put up a link that supports your claim about the nurse's involvement in the Right to Life movement.

p.s. have you talked to God yet? You really need to you know.

Imagine that, a NURSE in a pro-life movement. It's heresy, I tell you.

It wouldn't exactly be a smart thing to say to a GUARDIAN remarks like "Is the bitch dead yet?", espeically if you want to win the case in court. Nor would it be smart to say that to a doctor who is treating her. For all we know, Michael Schiavo DID say these things to a nurse, or nurses, if he thought he could get away with it. It could very well be possible that he didn't say those things, but his behavior in the public eye and the court does lend a little bit of consideration to the claim, I submit. Also, where are you getting this idea that the Schindlers are going on about "full-sentence miracles"? Do you have actual sources or are you going to continue to shovel bullshit? It is an absolutel miracle to Terri's family that she responded at all to stimuli, and a few words here and there could someday become full sentences, should she ever be given the chance at speech therapy, yet another thing denied to her by Michael. This completely sour tone of yours is really quite depressing, considering that Terri has so much to gain from the right treatment.

If all of Terri's cognitive memories went with the part of her brain that was deprived of oxygen after her fall, explain to me how she ends up calling her mother "Momma" and is still able to recognize faces? You act as if she is completely gone here, the "blank slate" you mentioned before, and yet there are piles of paperwork saying that she is still a functioning human being, albeit with some brain damage. That still doesn't give credence to yanking out her feeding tube because she may not remember EVERYTHING. I don't remember half the time where I put my keys, everything that happened to me in High School, everyone's birthday, what play I did in third grade, or what time my dentist appointment is - does this mean I should stop eating and drinking for two weeks because I'm otherwise useless at renenbering everything?

Spare me your patronizing. Don't presume that because a NURSE, a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL, is in a PRO-LIFE movement, she's somehow a nut. It is her JOB to save lives, and being in a PRO-LIFE movement is a natural extension of that cause. She could be a lunatic for all we know, but since you're operating on the sole basis of a group she is in, I am going to go ahead and give her the benefit of the doubt. ESPECIALLY considering the fact that you present no evidence that she is, just a lot of pontificating and arrogance. Just because YOU don't like the group doesn't make them all nutty. I could be a real asshole and treat all Democrats , or Greens, or Leftward-Leaning Libertarians that way for any given thing, but I don't have enough time in my life to do so and I rather like going to social get-togethers. Besides, I actually have friends that are Democrats, and all the ones that I am friends with all universally hate what is happening to Terri Schiavo.

So, does that make them "nutty Pro-Lifers" too?

Dear Blank:

You wrote:

is their any actual evidence that Shiavo was abused by her husband? or that she had an eating disorder as some other commenter suggested as the cause of her illness?

anybody got any solid proof of either one?

I provided you with some stories from The Tampa Tribune in a post that I made (nested between your request and some other posts) that provided statements regarding her eating disorder. Just wanted to make sure you caught that.

With all of the comments, you may have had a difficult time seeing why I put the articles up there, but all three at least reference the allegation. As to that being proof, I don't know, but the paper keeps printing it, and it does seem to be based upon truth. There was a column today from Daniel Ruth, a classic Goldwater Republican, who wrote a column about the case. I hasten to put it up here, since the guy basically sounds like Cedartista* but with more style (he's a columnist who tries to be funny), but I think this is interesting, since it again mentions the eating disorder stuff. Aside from that, his column sounds like Cedartista- could have written it.

*who, by the way, is a cocksucker

Mr. Ruth's column can be found here.

"Forgive Them, For They Know What They Do"
DANIEL RUTH
Published: Mar 20, 2005

This isn't governance. It's rule by hankie.
So what might we call this piece of emotionally manipulative jackbooted political opportunism at its most craven?

"Terri's Maul''?

For the past week or so, legislative efforts were afoot in Tallahassee and Washington that would have allowed the government to undermine the authority of legal guardians to honor the end-of-life wishes of their wards.

The assault of the right to privacy of the incapacitated and terminally ill was an attempt to pre- empt the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, which has been in place for the past 15 years since she lapsed into a vegetative state after she suffered heart failure.

After those measures stalled, it would have seemed that Terri's husband Michael Schiavo would be free - after prevailing at every legal juncture - to at last remove his wife's feeding tube and allow her die a calm, peaceful death.

Holy Hucksters!

Alas, enter the political holy roller hucksters, U.S. Sens. Bill Frist and Mel Martinez, along with U.S. House Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the Pipsqueak of the Pecos, who have seized upon Terri Schiavo as their Lolita of the Right-to-Life Cabal.

In what has to be one of the chintziest acts of political hypocrisy since the first blatantly unconstitutional ``Terri's Law,'' which was little more than Jeb Bush serving as the lotion boy for his right wing, Congress issued subpoenas ordering Terri Schiavo to testify before a House committee.

Fortunately, Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge George Greer, who has presided over the Schiavo case with grace and courage and wisdom, essentially told Frist and Martinez and all the other publicity-grubbing, cheesy pols trying to use Terri Schiavo as their own hospice care pinup girl to take their subpoenas and insert them ... well, you get the general idea.

A Bit Tempted

Then Greer ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed.

You do have to wonder, though, if Michael Schiavo wasn't a bit tempted to say to Frist and Martinez and rest of the Washington phonies trying to exploit this horrific tragedy: ``You know what, guys? You want Terri to `testify'? No problem; we're on our way.''

How do you think these Senate and House self-righteous self-promoters would have reacted to Michael Schiavo wheeling his vegetative wife up the steps of the Capitol, pushing her into a committee hearing room and announcing: ``Here she is, folks. Ask her any question you want.''

What do you think the odds are Frist, Martinez, DeLay and the rest of these political con artists would find a reason be on a junket to Tasmania rather than be in the same room with the brain-dead Terri Schiavo exposing them for the cowardly shills they are?

By the way, for the record, this space asked the flacks for both Frist and Martinez to detail how many times they've visited Terri Schiavo in her hospice room and whether Frist (a doctor) had ever reviewed her medical files. Still no response.

To try to subvert Michael Schiavo's perfectly legal guardianship rights and to deny Terri Schiavo her end-of-life wishes by abusing the subpoena power of Congress is a twisted and delusional perversion by Frist, Martinez and their fellow disingenuous sanctimonious storm troopers.

Terri Schiavo was a beautiful woman, wife, daughter, friend who laughed and cried and lived.

The pity is in death she will be remembered as a woman abused by the egregious political ambitions of odious little men who viewed Terri Schiavo as the centerfold of a campaign brochure.

What might we call this cruel geek show of biblical proportions?

"Terri's Pall''?

Forgive them, for they know exactly what they do.

Dogstar, you emailed me 4 links. I objectively looked at each one. I wrote you back that I didn't find them persuasive, explained why, and suggested you read the Court disposition of those affidavits. You didn't and instead emailed me back, beginning "you moron". You are a fucktard who evidently finds self-researching a daunting challenge. The determination of whether anything is true or not must be a never-ending challenge to you.

SpewFan - Do you know why your "I'll pray for you" patronizing is so irritating to most Americans? First, because is is simply a ploy to disguise a passive aggressive asshole masking his jerk behavior behind a facade of "Christian caring" - which is hardly atypical of shitheads that gravitate to being saved because they have a fucked up life and sleazy moral nature - and continue as usual except adding Biblical quotes to describe their fucked up life and expressing their inner sleeze. If you actually are the Christian you profess to be, you profane your faith using it as a tool to attack others. Second, because it is identical to the smug smarmy holier than thou behavior of radical Muslims when they aren't blowing things up. 3rd, assholes like you can't resist trying to shove your faith down other people's throats. Most Christians are cool, but if we could gather up you and a million of your ilk, gather up the million worst Muslims, then drop a nuke, America and the world would be a better place.

CollegePundit - Please check the Court documents out for yourself. The nurse conflicted her testimony with that of several others witness to the same times, dates, and people in question. Read her affidavit - she was saying Terri Schiavo was regularly talking and interacting with her in a high cognitive manner when no one else testified that was the case but the Schindler parents, who also claimed T Schiavo was lucid and talking, something all T Schiavos treating physicians flatly said was not the case. The nurse's testimony was discredited, her emphasis on religion dissonent with other testimony from the same period. The doctors that say T Schiavo can be treated have not satisfied the medical community on their claims that hyperbaric oxygen treatment will help, because the consensus is her missing cerebral cortex is the problem and no one has regrown brain tissue. (And the doctor that claimed she could be helped is under investigation in the State of Florida for other miracle cure treatments he has done)

Are you having difficulty reading the Court docs everyone else is reading? The CAT scans? Do you need assistance in typing Schiavo+Court+testimony+Greer into Google? Are you a college student unfamiliar with searching??? If you do that, you will find all the records you want on the 1st or second page of hits. Have you also ignored past posted direct links?? I am not shoveling shit, I am asking a college student why he doesn't bother to read the central documents of the case on his own. It takes all of 10 minutes to find, load and read the 11/22/2002 pricipal document determining T Schiavo is vegetative and her interests and wishes as determined by the Court in a finding of fact are best served by removing her from life support and letting her die...10 minutes, college boy!! Isn't part of college learning to think and find things on your own without hand-holding? Do you want me to guide you to source docs?? Shouldn't you learn that on your own? Well, good luck on your knowledge quest.

As for your statement that even liberal Democrats you know as well as everyone else universally hates what is happening to T Schiavo.....you need to expand your circles. What I am finding is few if any people would want to be kept alive if they were in T Schiavos shoes and a solid majority say they would pull the plug if they were her Guardian.

What I see matches the March 4th FoxNews Poll. By 5 to 1, registered voters say they would not wish to stay alive if they were in T Schiavos position. And 60% said they would pull the plug if they were T Schiavo's guardian, 15% wouldn't, and 25% weren't sure. Hope their next poll comes out and asks about what they think now that the Non-Right to Life side is finally getting told and I hope they have approval/disapproval numbers for how both Congress and the Prez handled this

Guys, I don't think we should question Cedartard's statements on brain damage. He seems to know from first hand experience all about brains dying and rotting away.

Whoopee, you're repeating the same testimony and court findings that a bunch of court-appointed doctors said years ago. Want a medal? EVERYONE knows the court arrived at that decision, and yet almost NO ONE knows how she spent this entire wrangling suffering from no treatment for various conditions and diseases in the meantime. NOR do they know how a simple MRI and PET scan would greatly assist the court in making an objective decision - only that they had the one CAT scan from when Terri was first admitted. I mean, when DOCTORS are telling the press how it's borderline criminal that those tests aren't being taken, what else are we supposed to think, here? Those court-appointed doctors essentially arrived at their decision from examining Terri herself or her records - the COURT arrived at the decision that she was in a vegetative state, not the doctors. The doctors testified that she was neither comatose nor braindead (ie, "vegetative"). The court is drawing that conclusion, not the doctors that have examined her. Add to the fact that there was compelling evidence presented at trial that proved she responds to stimuli and vocal prompts (documented EXACTLY in Terri's medical records) from a video showing her tracking a floating balloon, laughing and smiling, and responding to prompts from her mother. Tell me how that is the action of a vegetable.

What I am getting at here is that the court is making a seriously huge BLUNDER by lurching along this way. Many, many people have maintained that this case needs to be retried, away from the interference of Judge Greer and his conflict of interest with the hospice Terri is currently staying in, and we'll just see how much another set of judicial eyes see it Greer's way. I submit that it will not be a lot, if at all.

Your last paragraph proves that you're all politics about this - you're nothing but eager to see this degenerate into a spate between groups and nowhere near concerned about the fairness of this judicial process. You're more concerned to see the Republicans and the President somehow get taken to the cleaners for this- you're nothing a but a partisan ghoul with a total lack of concern for the fairness of giving Terri a chance. Nowhere NEAR as concerned that a whole raft of evidence is being ignored by a judge because he gets into semantic details over one person's testimony about a conversation in the 80s, or ignores the findings of a dozen doctors to arrive at his own contrary conclusion. He relies on testimony from a husband who changes tacks after a lucrative settlement to decide that this feeding tube needs to be yanked and soon because, by golly, Terri said something in sympathy to a television program's events. Wow, thats REALLY compelling testimony and in NO WAY SUSPICIOUS AT ALL! Give me a break.

Shit, if I was in Terri Schiavo's position and was being cared for by the likes of Michael, I wouldn't wish it on ANYBODY. And, as always, not everyone has this framed in the same context as the rest of us (although that is slowly changing) - people still think she's completely braindead and is just taking up space. Naturally, they're going to be sympathetic to someone who ISN'T otherwise alive and want to end their suffering. Terri still is, and if more people knew the actual details behind that, I can safely say the numbers would DROP like a stone.

AndreaHarris - It must be easy for you to just rely on your emotions and never have to think. But on the other hand, doesn't your preference to not think but simply emote put you closer to T Schiavo than normal humans??

CollegeBoy - As suspected, you haven't read the Court papers that address and debunk your charges . All the tripe you laid out about the video, PVS status, CAT scan vs. MRI was laid out, both sides, and why the court weighed certain items and decided the way it did. But you refuse to review it yourself because ....well, that would be Effort. Know where you're coming from you little slacker! I've been there. But soon you will learn while slacking off is a noble goal, it's best to avoid getting in a discussion with someone that has read the materials.

As for politics, I'm a moderate conservative, but a strong believer in federalism & states rights and if Delay, Bush, and others bootlicking and shamelessly pandering to the Right to Life fanatics get burned by a backlash - well, they richly deserve it. Many Dems I know would have been more than happy to censure Bubba Clinton in the Senate. When leaders of your side do something remarkably stupid or pandering - "read my lips, etc." they should face the heat. Blind loyalty is for blind reasoners.

As for the numbers falling, it's going the other way as the public begins to see how much the Right to Lifers running the Schindlers have been misrepresenting the facts. The March 10-13th ABC News-Washington Post poll shows 87% of the registered voters polled would not wish to be kept alive if they were in Terri Schiavos position, with 4% not sure. 59% say they would pull the plug on Terri if it was up to them, 13% would not pull the plug, the remaining 28% not sure or wanted more info.

Ace, thank you for your attention to the Terri Schiavo matter. As a "leftie" (according to most people I know in real life), this was a "right to live" issue and it's heartfelt... NOT an issue that should be divided by party lines.

I hope you'll understand my recent change in status from civilian to f/t military has forced me to stop blogging under the "Airman" handle I've been using.

Nevertheless; I'm STILL trying to figure out why half the "lefties" in Congress were able to stand with Terri while the "blogosphere lefties" were (apparently) 98% to 2% in favor of euthanazia of her.....

Seems like somebody's out of touch....

Cedarford,

You really need to do something about that bad attitude of yours. Also, I think I asked you to provide two links. Now, I knew you wouldn't be able to because you just make stuff up as you go along and when challenged you launch into ad hominem attacks. But I thoght I would ask anyway to demonstrate to the lurkers just how misinformed you really are. BTW, out of curiosity, what religion are you exactly? Probably too personal to reveal, right? You wouldn't want to shove your religion down anybody's throat I suppose.

Cedarford: the Rain Man of the blogs.

Look! A Chinese Zionist!

Oh, I most certainly DID look up related documents to Terri's diagnosis and evaluation - its patently obvious you're cherry-picking details. The whole MRI vs. CAT scan deal proves that the court is relying on a scan (the CAT scan) that gives a TENTH of the information of an MRI. In a NRO article dating just five days ago, it clearly lays out that Michael never consented to those kind of scans - scans that would prove more conclusively on Terri's condition. It blows my mind that the judge in this case doesn't want to look at other evidence when it could prove that she doesn't have to die. The sheer amount of neglect that he has committed towards Terri isn't even worthy of a rabid dog. I mean, when you have 50 physicians, many of them board-certified neurologists, all willing to testify in court that her condition should be reevaluated, that is something you cannot ignore. Besides, what would the harm be in letting them do that and running the tests?

Do me a favor- quit citing polls that have no relevance to the discussion we are having now. I said it in my last comment, if everyone knew ALL the facts and ALL ABOUT the abuse Terri has had at the hands of Michael, those numbers would turn around right quick. The "Right to Lifers" are out to prove that Terri is ALIVE, and that this is not a matter of just flipping a switch and her being completely gone. Instead its a long, protracted way to end the life of someone that could otherwise improve with actual TREATMENT. Obviously, you are not sympathetic to that idea, a damn shame. Poll numbers, as you have probably found out in elections and EVERYWHERE ELSE, usually mean nothing anyway.

I may be wrong, but I have a strong feeling that the Feds will be moving in real soon.

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

Spewfan - You can ask for me to research stuff, but given your smarmy posts and your "I'm praying for the souls of those who disagree with me" attitude, I'm hardly inclined to play along with your wishes. If you think anything I said was factually inaccurate, show the error!

Collegeboy -

If you read the court docs as you claim, why do you repeat allegations debunked by independent investigation during discovery and numerous appeals ? Why do you claim abuse when police investigated those claims and found them groundless? Why do you insist it was only the court, not doctors, that claim she is vegetative? In all proceedings..which you would have known if you had read the court docs...the consensus of DOCTORS from 15 years of physician reports, from the malpractice lawsuit testimony, from the idependent doctors retained to render opinion at several levels ........was she is positively vegetative. The doctors defending themselves at the malpractice lawsuit did not request the Holy Grail of the Right to Lifers - the MRI - because they conceeded that her cerbral cortex being destroyed was a conclusive fact established by CAT and other tests.

Your "50" doctors are folks that never examined her - but in contravention to medical protocols barring such long-distance diagnosis - claim that just looking at selected snippets of a video, they can "tell" she is cognitive. Many are well identified as past religiously motivated stooges of Randall Terry trotted out in other "Right to Life" court cases. The usual suspects. The same boobs that if shown a Mr Ed video, would venture an opinion that the horse, in fact, does talk....

As for polls and your view they can be discounted "if voters only knew the truth", that is always what the folks on the losing side say - "polls don't matter". It ignores that voters and the public are actively seeking the truth on major issues, and a poll reflects their sorting out what is true and not at any given moment. As more people see the lurid Right to Lifer claims discredited as lies put out to achieve a Greater Cause and serve a Greater Being, and M. Schiavo and the Florida legal system NOT actually being a bunch of Snidley Whiplashes.......as the Right to Life sliming machine has cast them.......I doubt more people will side with them.

Especially with details emerging that her parents are zealots and apparantly in the grip of self-delusion, based on their preposterous claims. In testimony, both have said that whether Terri wanted to live or not is not important to them, that they would seek to keep her alive at any cost because life is God-given and nothing justifies ending it. In cross examination, Mr. Schindler said it didn't matter if she was PVS, all they want is to keep her alive so they could love her - and if her limbs required amputation as sometimes happens in vegetative cases, they'd gladly cut all her limbs off to keep her alive, gladly subject her to open heart surgery, gladly put her on a respirator the rest of her life......as long as they could keep her alive and be with her. Very creepy stuff. They also make claims substantiated by no one else but a devoutly religious nurse not directly assigned to Schiavo - that Terri regularly talks to them, laughs at their jokes, cries when she hears bad news, and always reacts to them.....something professionals who have watched the Schindlers with her say appears to be mostly in their minds...

Andrea Harris - Fine emoting! Beats bothering to think and understand the facts. Ever hear that great one liberal Congresswoman Patty Schroeder once said? "There are times for thought, but times where thought gets in the way. This time, I just hear my ovaries talking."

Wow, Cedarford*, you really want this bitch dead pretty badly, don't you?

What's the matter, got a lot of money riding on this?

*who is, by the way, a cocksucker.

Cedarford,

There you go with that attitude again! Anyhoo, I didn't ask you to research anything, but, the fact that you 'write' first and 'research' later actually makes my point; which is 90% of what you write is factually inaccuarate. I don't have to prove it because I didn't assert it you did.

Dogstar,

Don't you understand that for Cedarford there is no room in the 'master race' for the likes of Terri? Thats why he's so upset with those pesky Right-To-Lifers. They have the temerity to champion the weak and the disabled and the vulnerable.

Cedardouche just hates her because her maiden name is Schindler.

If you claim that 90% of the facts I assert and polls I cite are inaccurate, it is in your court to demonstrate so with evidence to the contrary...which of course...in your case, is always absent.

Mark Twain said it bluntly and succinctly: "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a gentleman that was convinced every word of scripture was true, but I repeat myself."

Cedarford,

That was so lame it made me laugh out loud! You've got to do better than that or people [most likely evil Right-To-Lifers] will begin to think your feeding tube needs to be removed.

Ace, I had to ban Dogstar from commenting on my blog because of his unique style of argument.

I didn't patent the procedure, so you're welcome to use it.

Zetetic: That is a great line! It's funny because it's true! :)

Just so there's no question, Dickie*, I want to make clear to everyone here that you are a blithering idiot.

*who, by the way, is a cocksucker.

Are you coming on to me, Doggiestyle? It's awfully sweet of you, but poopie-heads aren't my type.

I am flattered, however, and wish you nothing but happiness with your pending operation.

Judging from your blog, nobody's your type. Having trouble getting posts, Dick*? Things a little slow over there? Needed to find some conversation, so you had to come here? Happens quite frequently, doesn't it? Say, didja ever manage to find any more bedsores?

*who, by the way, is a cocksucker.

Dogstar, Was Dickie* trying to patent bedsores too?

*who, by the way, is a cock sucker and a liberal elitist.

No, Dick* made this ridiculous comment on his blog that I nailed him on.

He claimed that Terri was in constant pain, because she was covered in bedsores, and I pointed out to him that court paperwork (actually the guardian report prepared for Jeb Bush) indicted that she never had ANY bedsores, in over 13 years.

So he found an article (a very recent one) where Terri's dad said she had just developed her FIRST EVER bedsore, and claimed vindication.

When I pointed out how deficient his math skills were (specifically the inability to differentiate between the concepts of plurality and singularity), he banned me.

Ah, the joy of open discussion, and the frank exchange of ideas.

*who, by the way, is a cocksucker.

Ace, I had to ban Dogstar from commenting on my blog because of his unique style of argument.

Looked to me like he disagreed with you. What a maniac.

Allah said, "I'll make you a deal. I'll police myself for logical fallacies if you'll police yourself for obnoxious, patronizing rhetoric, okay?"

That's the tu quoque or "you're-another" argument fallacy, right there. And now back to Schiavo and federalism.

Right, I banned DoggieStyle for disagreeing with me, not for being his generally obnoxious, idiotic, transsexual self.

Boy, I love this high-level intellectual discourse, it's, like, so full of Christian love.

James Pinkerton (via RealClearPolitics) points out that, now that we Republicans have pulled the plug on federalism, we'll have to figure out how to pay for the funeral. Every vegetable is sacred; how much more sacred, then, must be the millions of geezers and geezer gonna-be's who already thought themselves entitled to longterm care at the expense of the young. Mark Steyn (also via RCP asks the altogether too-timely question, "What good is Utopia, if it's only for one generation?" He's polite enough to address his question only to the Left, but since the Right is nationalizing matters of longterm care, I guess "Left" means us, too. (I'm unable to include the links in my comment, so you'll have to pick up the thread at www.realclearpolitics.com.)

I'd like to see a little more discussion about how this case (Schiavo) is any more of a threat to federalism then say Roe v. Wade? The supremes made a decision out of whole cloth on that one which has had far more impact on federalism that this case ever will. And how is this case more dangerous to federalism than the federal government reviewing every death penalty sentence?

There seems to be a notion like the one expressed here that when a legislative body overrides a court we are endangering federalism. Am I missing something or is this not the very excercise of checks and balances that ensures a federalist government?

Poor Dick*. Evidently his blog** is a very lonely place. What's the matter? Nobody wants to play at your house, eh?

*who, by the way, is a cocksucker.

**which is, by the way, written by a cocksucker.

Brewfan said, "I'd like to see a little more discussion about how this case (Schiavo) is any more of a threat to federalism then say Roe v. Wade? The supremes made a decision out of whole cloth on that one which has had far more impact on federalism that this case ever will. And how is this case more dangerous to federalism than the federal government reviewing every death penalty sentence? "

Well, I'd like to start by saying that it seems each of the three "is what it is." That is, each of them is a threat to federalism, or not, rather independently of the other two.

It just happens that I think Roe v. Wade did huge damage to federalism at the same time that it showed a reason why we need federalism so badly. On the other hand, I myself couldn't make a strong argument one way or the other about federal judicial review of death penalty cases. (Blanket prohibition of the death penalty is another matter; that is another injury to the federalist order, as well as to legislative supremacy. I'd elaborate, were it not for the fact that I think I'd be straying from the topic.)

I could be wrong, but I think I catch the drift of your thinking in comparing the Schiavo case to Roe and to judicial review of capital cases. It seems to be, "How can the Left point the finger at us (on the Right) about federalism in the Schiavo case while claiming that Roe isn't a problem?" My attempt to guess what you're thinking could be wrong. But, assuming that's your point, what I would say is just that the Left do many things opportunistically and in a shortsighted way. To that extent, you can't really reason about what they're doing except in order to describe the way they're being opportunistic.

I think we do well to defend federalism even though the Left doesn't do so except as a tactic. After all, federalism just gets in the way of centralized control, which the Left mostly love, so we can't expect them to defend federalism. It's more like federalism is one of our defenses against the Left.

That should help explain why I sometimes bristle when people carry the argument in the direction of, "Well, he/you/they did it, too! Why make an exception in my case?" It seems quite good to say something like that if the issue is almost entirely one of fairness, but it's distracting if the issue is almost anything else (even if fairness somehow comes into the picture in a secondary way). Since federalism is an important part of a good political order, we should want to avoid seductive but invalid arguments such as, "The Left violated federalism with X, Y, and Z, so it's fine for the Right, too," or "The Left is just bringing up federalism as a tactic, so we can ignore any talk of federalism."

Brewfan said, "There seems to be a notion like the one expressed here that when a legislative body overrides a court we are endangering federalism. Am I missing something or is this not the very excercise of checks and balances that ensures a federalist government?"

I think I can offer some worthwhile explanations regarding this second question, too, but I'll have to try to remember to come back to it tonight.

Allah, maybe it would help if you began to think of argument fallacies as "queer," "perverted," "dirty."

"And when I call your argument 'fallacious," that doesn't mean that it sucks dick." - Geoff Miller

I think I catch the drift of your thinking in comparing the Schiavo case to Roe and to judicial review of capital casesIt seems to be, "How can the Left point the finger at us (on the Right) about federalism in the Schiavo case while claiming that Roe isn't a problem?"

Calling "pot-kettle-black" on the left is appropriate but its not my point. My point is that the degree of damage done to federalism by the "Schiavo Law" (if any was done at all) is microscopic compared to Roe v. Wade. I also believe that if there was a chance that federalism would have been damaged my conservative friends in congress would have acted differently. My concern is that this was more of a political liability for conservative legislators (we're going to see a lot of federalism strawmen being built in the next year and a half) but I do applaud them though for standing up for their principles.

My second point is if there is any imminent danger to federalism in our country it is coming from the judicial branch of government, not the legislative or executive.

Richard Bennett:"Boy, I love this high-level intellectual discourse, it's, like, so full of Christian love."

Listen Dick, we stopped talkin about the Catholic sex abuse scandal months ago. Get with the program, we are talkin about Shiavo now.