Have any of you read the court case of Roe v. Wade?
In that court case, the plaintiff was allowed to receive the medical treatment she was seeking through a court injunction, even though it was still against Texas state law at the time.
Why?
Because the plaintiffs rights were in limbo at the time the court case was brought before the court, and so as not to deny Roe her right to a "possible" outcome in that court case of legal abortion, she was granted the "right" before the case was heard.
Why does this have relevance to this case concerning Ms. Shaivo?
JUDICIAL REVIEW
In all court cases I have read about, the Judge or Judges have referred to past case law to help guide them in making a decision, based on other judicial determination and law interpretation. Sort of like looking for guidance from other examples similar to the situation.
In the case of Roe v. Wade it was stated that the matter of abortion was:
"...capable of repetition, yet evading review because of its shortness in time."
Yet Justice Blackmun noted however, that just because Roe was granted injunctory relief it did not moot her case, and it would go on, and a decision would be reached on the matter.
THE LAWS OF THE LAND
This was certainly not done in this case, especially when it came to Ms. Shaivo's rights as declared would be protected by the laws of the the United States, the Declaration of Independence, Art. IX of the Confederation, ,and Art. VI of the U.S. Constitution. Let alone the promise stated in Amendment V in the Bill of Rights:
"...nor shall any person be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..."
WAS THE LAW FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH
If this case was truly carried out in a Judicial manner in the way all other court cases are carried out in America, there would be a hearing, both sides would present evidence;
- evidence explaining Ms. Shaivo's "current" medical state
- and the plaintiffs would introduce evidence to support the claim that Mr. Shaivo has a potential "conflict of interest in determining the future of his wife's medical decisions".
But none of these things have been allowed to happen.
Why?
So valid legal questions remain in this medical/judicial case:
Has the judicial process guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment been carried out and exhausted for the benefit of Ms. Shaivo in this situation?
Has Ms. Shaivo's situation been proven "beyond reasonable doubt", by examination of factual data, medical input from both sides under oath, and a preponderance of ALL evidence, including new and conclusive medical testing.
Does Michael Shaivo's current arrangement present a conflict of interest?
If you cannot prove that, you should be calling for the reinsertion of the feeding tube until this case is settled in a fair and balanced court, where both sides are represented. To not do so is to not provide justice for the weakest among us. That goes against the very principles of this Country's foundings.
After all, as was stated in Roe v. Wade, this case is capable of repetition, yet may evade review, because of its shortness in time.
Many people want to claim that this should be argued on the side of legal ethics instead of morality. If you can guarantee me that all of the above has been granted to Ms. Shaivo, then I will be satisfied that her legal rights have been exhausted and her right to a fair trial was carried out.
But if you can't then this was death by Judicial fiat.
We seem to have no shortage of activist courts who have no trouble telling American citizens how they will live....
and this time, how they will DIE.
No doubt its judicial MURDER plain and simple....
I pray to God that those who will be responsible for Terri Shavio's death will receive a fitting punishment here on earth before they are sent to hell for the rest of eternity.
I don't know much about the law, but I do know evil when I see it, we all do. The fact is that there is man's law and there is God's law. They should be one and the same, but there are those who have seen to it that they are no longer one in the same. So now, there is a time to obey man's law and there is a time to obey God's law. It's time to obey God's law. It's time to act and beg for forgiveness later.
