John McCain Addresses Terri Schiavo Debate After Barack Obama's Flip-Flop

Life News ^ | 3/12/08 | Steven Ertelt

[wagglebee]

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Presidential candidate John McCain addressed the debate over Terri Schiavo's euthanasia death but added little to his position other than to call the ordeal "very sad." His comments are the first since Barack Obama came under intense criticism saying he regretted supporting a bill to help her family prevent her ex-husband from killing her.

McCain addressed the debate over the disabled woman during a campaign stop last week the corporate headquarters of Chick-fil-A restaurant.

In a brief news conference following the event, Baptist Press reports that McCain called the entire situation relating to Terri "very sad" and a "great American tragedy."

"It's very sad when you see a situation such as this, it's very sad," McCain explained.

"I think just by looking at the situation it was a terrible situation and one that probably the state should have handled in retrospect," he added, according to Baptist Press. "[I]t was a very sad, sad situation and moved all of us who are -- and the plight of this situation moved every American."

Last month, Barack Obama said during a Democratic presidential debate that his biggest mistake was siding with a unanimous Senate to help save Terri Schiavo.

“It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped,” Obama said.

“And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better,” he added.

It was the second time Obama said he regretted supporting the bill to help the Schindler family top the painful starvation and dehydration death.

Terri Schiavo's family and pro-life groups soundly condemned the statement.

"Everyone with a disability, or who knows someone with a disability, should be outraged that a potential US president would so callously reject his own action taken in favor of life over death," Terri's father Robert Schindler told LifeNews.com.

"As a country, we should all be distressed that doing the right thing suddenly becomes a 'mistake' when one poll later showed it to be unpopular," Schindler said. "That isn't leadership; it's pandering to popular prejudices."

In March 2005, just weeks before Terri died from a painful 14-day starvation and dehydration death, Congress approved legislation allowing her family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop the euthanasia from proceeding.

Terri was not on any artificial breathing apparatus and only required a feeding tube to eat and drink. Her family had filed a lawsuit against her former husband to allow them to care for her and give her proper medical and rehabilitative care.

The Senate unanimously approved a compromise bill, which the House eventually supported on a lopsided bipartisan vote and President Bush signed, to help the disabled woman.

Related web sites:
Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation - http://www.terrisfight.org

[wagglebee]

"As a country, we should all be distressed that doing the right thing suddenly becomes a 'mistake' when one poll later showed it to be unpopular," Schindler said. "That isn't leadership; it's pandering to popular prejudices."

Very true.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Ping

[TheLawyerFormerlyKnownAsAl]

“It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped,” Obama said. “And I think that was a mistake, . . .

He makes a lot of mistakes.

[NeoCaveman]

"[I]t was a very sad, sad situation and moved all of us who are -- and the plight of this situation moved every American."

Actually it only moved half of us.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

McCain: "...it was a terrible situation and one that probably the state should have handled ..."

And that means, what?

[wagglebee]

"[I]t was a very sad, sad situation and moved all of us who are -- and the plight of this situation moved every American."

Actually it only moved half of us.

We are well aware that some people who consider themselves conservative are totally opposed to the pro-life movement.

[wagglebee]

I think he means that Jeb Bush should have done job and protected Terri as prescribed by the Florida Constitution.

[Perdogg]

I agree. This situation the federal govt had no business in it. As sad as it was, it should have remained a local issue. I am a conservative and I thought that the federal govt should have stayed out of it because of Federalism.

[NeoCaveman]

We are well aware that some people who consider themselves conservative are totally opposed to the pro-life movement.

And that is a shame.

[wagglebee]

I agree. This situation the federal govt had no business in it. As sad as it was, it should have remained a local issue. I am a conservative and I thought that the federal govt should have stayed out of it because of Federalism.

So you don't believe it's the federal government's responsibility to protect Fifth Amendment rights?

[Perdogg]

She had due process, at the State level where it was appropriate.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe he should have turned Teri over to her parents, but I don’t believe it was an issue for the Federal govt.

[wagglebee]

A person CANNOT be put to death without a grand jury indictment.

[JavaJumpy]

Yes. He was a lecturer, not a professor. Then again, he was probably misquoted - you know how these articles are.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

My objection is the way he phrased it, so you don't quite know what he means and that's just how he wants it. Personally I think that when someone decides to starve an innocent person to death, the state or the federal govt or whosoever should step in and save her. Anyone at all who has the power to intervene, should do so. And anyone who arguably might have the power. Save her first. Argue later. Defend an innocent life first. Discuss principles of statecraft later.

[wagglebee]

I agree with you COMPLETELY!

[Amendment10]

With all due respect to Terri Schiavo and her supporters, I have a somewhat harsh question. If Florida's majority voters think that Florida's Court handled Terri's case improperly, has there been any initiative by the majority voters to change the state's code so that similar incidents are avoided in the future?

For the record, I think that Terri's case could have been handled more compassionately. Jefferson put it this way in general.

"It is not honorable to take a mere legal advantage, when it happens to be contrary to justice." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Debts due to Soldiers, 1790. ME 3:25

[Young Scholar]

Untrue—many states don’t even use grand juries anymore.

[cgk]

A person CANNOT be put to death without a grand jury indictment.

Untrue—many states don’t even use grand juries anymore.

But Florida, the state we are currently discussing in the matters of Schindler v Schiavo and Bush v Schiavo, does.

[supercat]

What bewilders me is why few if any politicians have put forth arguments that should have been unobjectionable: there were enough discrepancies in Michael's actions since 1993, including his conhabition with and apparent engagement to Ms. Centonze, that his continued authority should have been contingent upon--at absolute minimum--his answering questions about them under oath.

To suggest that a husband should be allowed to move in with another woman, father two children by her, and pledge to marry her, without forfeiting authority over his wife, is to make a mockery of marriage. Can any reasonable person deny that?

[TigersEye]

McCain: "...it was a terrible situation and one that probably the state should have handled ..."

And the state proved itself incapable of handling it which is why it ended up in Congress and the SCOTUS you dim bulb.

[Mr. Silverback]

I am a conservative and I thought that the federal govt should have stayed out of it because of Federalism.

Letting corrupt local officials aid a killer is not federalism.

[Mr. Silverback]

Excellent post!

[cgk]

Your post reminded me of this. Thank you.

[Sun]

It seems as if Obama wants to make this an issue, and get votes from ignorant people who don’t have all of the facts.

[8mmMauser]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

8mm

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[napscoordinator]

Some people fully support federalism and some don’t. I always thought you did but I guess I was wrong. Your pro-federal government. I am more for state’s rights.

[wagglebee]

When a judge orders a procedure that can ONLY result in a person's death and orders armed deputies to use any force necessary to prevent interference with this procedure, the ONLY possible definition for this procedure is execution.

The Fifth Amendment REQUIRES a grand jury indictment for capital crimes:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Fourteenth Amendment makes it absolutely clear that these protections cannot be abridged at the state level AND that Congress is authorized to enforce them:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

So yes, I do support federalism as it is defined by the Constitution of the United States.

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

It is strange, though. I would think most black people, especially women, would have sided with Teri. I spoke with some black women while this horror was going on, and they clearly saw it as her husband killing her. I wonder if Obama’s going for the white yuppie liberal dem vote.

[syriacus]

Matthew 25:40-43

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,....'

[wagglebee]

The last portion of Matthew 25 is absolutely perfect in its demonstration of right and wrong and how we are supposed to treat one another.

[wagglebee]

I don’t remember ever seeing that cartoon before, thanks for posting it. You have a knack for always finding the best graphics to address the situation.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"I think he means that Jeb Bush should have done job and protected Terri as prescribed by the Florida Constitution."

I hope that's what he means.

My husband and I talked this over and sent money to the good guys (should have gone down to Pinellas myself and I forget what my slack-off excuse was)--- anyway, Don-o were in agreement that this was really Jeb Bush's job, as he swore on a Bible as chief executive officer to uphold the Constitution of the State of Florida.

It looked like he was going to, he went right up to the edge and then ---- pffft.

Makes me sick to my stomach.

[wagglebee]

I became VERY familiar with significant portions of the Florida Constitution while all of this was going on. Jeb Bush certainly had both the responsibility of protecting Terri and the powers to carry it out. He CHOSE not to, as you noted, he SEEMED like he was going to step in and then he dropped it.

As I’ve noted already on this thread, the 5th Amendment is very clear that there must be a grand jury indictment if someone is being put to death and the 14th Amendment makes it clear that this requirement is also binding to the states and that Congress can enforce it. The people who run around talking about states’ rights were totally wrong on this (usually it was obvious that they were using this as a cover, the truth was that they were members of the culture of death), it became a federal issue when Florida was in violation of the Florida Constitution (which has specific provisions for care of the disabled and religious protection), the United States Constitution and a multitude of federal laws.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I admire your detailed knowledge of the law. And your continuing commitment to all the other “Terri’s” similarly situated. Wags, we’ve got to keep on keeping on.

[GoLightly]

It still comes down to the source of all of our rights. Those who believe that rights are bestowed upon us by “the state” will see the right to life as a state issue, while those who believe the source of all of our rights is our Creator will see life as a basic civil liberty, one that deserves protection *by* the Federal government, not despite the Federal government.

Are we mere chattels of our states?

[wagglebee]

I admire your detailed knowledge of the law. And your continuing commitment to all the other “Terri’s” similarly situated. Wags, we’ve got to keep on keeping on.

Thank you for your kind words. However, I can say in all fairness that there are others who have done far more than I have and I think we have all benefited more than we realize from 8mm's commitment to the Terri Dailies thread.

For as long as I can remember I have been opposed to abortion on every level; however, I had never really given much thought to the dangers of the euthanasia movement. What happened to Terri showed me just how evil the culture of death truly is by bringing home the reality that they wanted to kill everyone who didn't meet their standards. I really think that decades from now what happened to Terri will have far greater importance that a lot of people thought.

[wagglebee]

With all due respect to Terri Schiavo and her supporters, I have a somewhat harsh question. If Florida's majority voters think that Florida's Court handled Terri's case improperly, has there been any initiative by the majority voters to change the state's code so that similar incidents are avoided in the future?

That would be totally unnecessary, the Florida Constitution and laws of the state provided more than adequate protection for Terri. The problem was that there was a systematic failure at every level of the Florida government to enforce these laws.

That is why Congress was clearly empowered to step in under the authority granted in the 14th Amendment.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for replying.

Based on your reply, I surmise that Florida's voting majority didn't do anything to change Florida's laws concerning people like Terri.

[GoLightly]

Based on your reply, I surmise that Florida's voting majority didn't do anything to change Florida's laws concerning people like Terri.

What would be the point in changing any laws when the laws already on the books are ignored or twisted to say something they were never meant to say?

[Amendment10]

With all due respect to Terri Schiavo and her supporters, I have a somewhat harsh question. If Florida's majority voters think that Florida's Court handled Terri's case improperly, has there been any initiative by the majority voters to change the state's code so that similar incidents are avoided in the future?

That would be totally unnecessary, the Florida Constitution and laws of the state provided more than adequate protection for Terri. The problem was that there was a systematic failure at every level of the Florida government to enforce these laws.

With all due respect, I've just been examining California's homeschooling code. Half of California's homeschooling problem is that its homeschooling code is poorly written, in my opinion. So my reservation about Florida is that its code may likewise be half-baked with respect to people like Terri.

That is why Congress was clearly empowered to step in under the authority granted in the 14th Amendment.

This is the first time that I've heard any action of Congress being associated with the 14th Amendment where Terri is concerned.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that if Florida's voting majority didn't like what happened to Terri, then they are evidently asleep at the wheel with respect to making changes to their system to prevent similar things from happening to people like Terri.

[Amendment10]

What would be the point in changing any laws when the laws already on the books are ignored or twisted to say something they were never meant to say?

1) Impeach the judges

2) Petition the government for a redress of grievances

3) Vote with your wallet and move out of the state

[wagglebee]

I spent a lot of time three years ago reading the Florida Constitution and state code. There are ample safeguards for the disabled and clearly defined powers for the governor to protect people like Terri.

They simply didn’t act on it.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for your opinion about Florida code.

You may be right about Florida code. I haven't read it.

But it still remains that anybody can read anything they want to into poorly written code as evidenced by the California judges who decided that that state's code essentially says that homeschooling is illegal.

[GoLightly]

States should never have the final voice in the basic right to life. States may have a say in what that state will do on the order of protecting life, but all laws that have to do with the taking of life are supposed to be subject to the US Constitution.

Failure to recognize life as a basic civil right is an erroneous interpretation that has taken place on the Federal level. Impeaching state judges or moving to another state won't cure that ill.

Some fault those who acted on the petition in the case we're talking about here. That seems to include Barack Obama, now that he's changed his mind about the vote he took in response to the petition.

[wagglebee]

In any event it doesn’t matter.

When a judge orders a procedure that can ONLY result in death and sees too it that armed deputies stand guard to ensure that the procedure is carried out, such a procedure can ONLY be described as an execution.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States FORBIDS execution unless there is a grand jury indictment (which obviously there wasn’t as Terri had not committed a crime).

Moreover, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution FORBIDS ex post facto law. At the time of Terri’s injury, a feeding tube WAS NOT considered to be “life support” under Florida law; therefore, it was IMPOSSIBLE for her to have ever consented to having it removed.

The Fourteenth Amendment makes it patently clear that both of these Constitutional provisions are binding upon the individual states and that Congress is authorized to enforce them.

[wagglebee]

States should never have the final voice in the basic right to life. States may have a say in what that state will do on the order of protecting life, but all laws that have to do with the taking of life are supposed to be subject to the US Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence says that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." So, we see that the right to life is given to us by God and that the reason just governments are formed is to protect this.

This is again directly referenced in the Preamble to the Constitution where it is written, "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Here we are clearly told that the purpose of the Constitution AND of the federal government is to secure our God-given rights. So, life IS a federal issue and it ALWAYS has been.

I agree that Terri's situation SHOULD have been handled as a state issue; however, the fact that it is a state issue DOES NOT mean that it is not also a federal issue.

Many libertarians WANTED Terri to be killed because they don't want the federal government to do anything; but to avoid admitting this they talked about states rights. However, their claims are quickly neutralized when it is pointed out that if the individual states have the authority to ignore the Constitution on the right to life, they would also, by the same logic, have the right to ignore the Constitution on the Second Amendment.

[Amendment10]

States should never have the final voice in the basic right to life. States may have a say in what that state will do on the order of protecting life, but all laws that have to do with the taking of life are supposed to be subject to the US Constitution.

I'm not speaking for Terri, but regardless of your attempt to frame Terri's fate as an execution, I suspect that she would have agreed that the plug needed to be pulled.

Also, if the Article V majority states agree with you about states not deciding the basic right to life, since the federal Constitution doesn't reasonably address this issue, then they can exercise their power to amend the federal Constitution to prohibit this power to the states.

[GoLightly]

I'm not speaking for Terri, but regardless of your attempt to frame Terri's fate as an execution, I suspect that she would have agreed that the plug needed to be pulled.

There is no right to commit suicide. Those who try & fail are subject to government action to prevent further attempts.

Also, if the Article V majority states agree with you about states not deciding the basic right to life, since the federal Constitution doesn't reasonably address this issue, then they can exercise their power to amend the federal Constitution to prohibit this power to the states.

The US Constitution does reasonably address this, except to those who believe that rights are given by the state, not protected or secured by it.