[Pan_Yans Wife]

Because Greer has been consistently upheld, the Health Care Advance Directives Law stands as both constitutional and enforceable, Felos and the law professors said.

Has there been any attempt to get this law overturned?

[wingnuts'nbolts]

But by then Terri will be dead, murdered by law, her widower remarried and home free all of all charges of foul play, her mother and father devastated and the case for euthenasia advanced by this liberal judge and scandalous Lawyer, who has an interest in the Hospice where this is being played out. Makes me ashamed of the Florida Courts and their liberal legislative law writing judges.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

[hedgetrimmer]

Because Greer has been consistently upheld, the Health Care Advance Directives Law stands as both constitutional and enforceable

I don't believe because a law has been upheld by one judge that it necessarily is Constitutional. In fact, the constitutionality of the law has never been questioned, just its application. This is clearly an attempt to brainwash people into thinking euthanasia is OK.

[syriacus]

In September 1990... the Supreme Court ruled that Floridians have the right to refuse medical treatment, no matter what the treatment or the prognosis.

September, 1990 is after Terri's alleged comment, "No tubes for me."

Terri "collapsed" in January of 1990, many months before the FSS Court decision, which makes it easy to remove feeding tubes.

George Felos, Mike Schiavo, and George W. Greer are, in effect, retroactively applying the September 1990 decision to Terri .

If the law is changed to in a way that would give jail time to those who remove food tubes in uncertain circumstances, I hope Felos, Greer, and Schiavo have it retroactively applied to them.

Looks like permission from the Pinellas/Pasco Medical Examiner will be needed if Mike-el Diablo decides to cremate Terri's body.
XI. CREMATION APPROVAL (Florida Statutes 406.11(1)(c))

Will Greer try to arrange a way for Mike to circumvent Florida law?

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

There should be a change in the law.Something needs to be done to take power away from judges as they lack both the moral graces and the intelligence required to make life or death decisions.

[syriacus]

We've learned that the judge is the ultimate guardian for the patient.

Guardians with control over patients lives should be required to speak directly with their wards.

If nothing else, there should be a law that forces judges like Greer to visit the patients, perhaps to try to communicate with the patients, to see if they can indicate what their wishes are. Witnesses and experts at communicating with the disabled should be present. The video tape should be rolling as the judge asks the questions.

Someone should make sure that the patients have not recently been given drugs that would make them unable to respond. (I wonder if Terri has ever been "doped up," to make her less responsive during examinations.)

[Coral Snake]

I am not refering to the POSTER here just the article itself.

QUIT CALLING THE ORIGINAL CAUSE FOR TERRI'S DISSABILITY A HEART ATTACK YOU MEDIA JERKS!!!! This is a CRIMINAL CASE from start with clear evidence in that direction and I wonder why people ARE NOT SEEING IT!!!!

[honeygrl]

Breaking news on terrisfight.org:
http://www.terrisfight.org/lead.htm

IMPORTANT UPDATE ON HOW JEB IS TRYING TO HELP
This person wanted this word to be spread:

Please help to get this info. spread out on other places here and on the net, etc. to individuals, and others you deem should be made aware. Let them know to convey the same info. to others.

Regards.

Please get this info. out:

Contact: Pamela Hennessy

Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation

Phone 727-445-1766

eFax 802-609-9121
email: phenn@zimp.org


Press Release

Special Session Called in State Legislature

Speaker of the House, Johnnie Byrd to introduce “Terri’s Bill”

Clearwater, FL October 19, 2003: The Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, has called a special session of the Florida Legislature for Monday, October 20, 2003. At that time, Florida’s Speaker of the House will introduce “Terri’s Bill”. By Florida law, two thirds majority vote are required to have a topic entered.

Volunteers with the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation have learned that Senate President, Jim King is against this bill.

The Bill would put an immediate moratorium on all dehydration and starvation deaths currently pending in Florida.

We have come to a time when the merchants of death have created a constitutional crisis and a justice gridlock, while the rightful life of Florida’s disabled and vulnerable citizens tragically hang on Terri Schindler-Schiavo’s court ordered dehydration and starvation death.

We urge all concerned Floridians to contact their Senators and State House members to vote for Terri’s bill.

Time is short.


77 posted on 10/19/2003 8:49 PM EDT by pc93 (A good site to visit is http://www.terrisfight.org . Oct. 15th 2pm death order must be stopped)

[nmh]

Folks have a living will drawn up that state your desires on this kind of issue.

[kancel]

>>The court also upheld a state law that said people who can no longer communicate need only to have told friends or family of their wishes not to be kept alive by artificial means, <<

This was just written to be abused by jerk-offs like Schiavo. Were the idiots who wrote this into law born the day before or what? I wish I had a pair of those rose-colored glasses they seem to see through.

[emilynghiem]

Dear PYW:

Trying to get the whole law overturned invokes unnecessary opposition. The law can be corrected by strengthening it to prevent abuses by advocates or opponents on either side.

The common goal of right-to-life activists and opponents is the right of consent. I have never met people on either side who wanted their consent violated, and that is why both sides push for religious freedom and choice not to be under the policies of the opposing school of thought.

A better criteria would be to require consensus of all parties affected. And/or allow people to designate another percentage like 2/3 or 3/4 majority of designated parties.
Such a standard would prevent abuses by advocates on both sides without denying freedom to choose either one.

In the case of Schindler-Schiavo, the parents voiced their dissent, yet their religious freedom was denied in violation of Constitutional laws protecting all persons equally. Thus, the ruling violated other laws and was not proper. No law can be applied to violate the Constitution.

Denying the right of the family peaceably to assemble and to exercise freedom of the press in videotaping their daughter was equally unlawful by Constitutional laws, and nothing in state or federal statutes gave Michael Schiavo as guardian, or his lawyers or the judge, any right to impose such a directive. All such action is illegal under the First Amendment, which wasn't properly enforced here.

Regardless of how the legislation was written, none of the interpretations were lawful anyway. They all seem to have broken other laws already on the books.

Even if you believe that secular law makes it legal to let someone starve to death, the fact that this case permitted a person to be put to death on the testimony of one witness clearly violated Biblical scripture. It is unlawful for the family as believers in Christian obedience to civil and Biblical law to be ordered by a court judge, to "believe" in a court order that violated their Biblical standards.

By religious freedom, Michael Schiavo could argue that he did not "believe" his actions were "killing" or "murder" against the Schindler's beliefs (by interpreting what he was doing as legal, and not killing or hateful murder). But no one, not even he, can deny the *fact* that he was the sole witness testifying against her to cause her death, which is an undeniable violation of the Schindler's beliefs in Biblical law and obedience. So this argument would have been a better "rebuke" to overrule the court's ability to make such a decision against the Schindler's religious beliefs in obedience to Scriptural and civil laws.

Again, if equal consent of the parties, and their religious beliefs, becomes the standard for upholding and interpreting laws, nothing can be abused to deny or disparage the equal rights and freedoms of all parties.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
Houston Texas
emilynghiem@hotmail.com