Posted on 12/29/2004 3:20:57 PM PST by amdgmary
Press Release
Florida Court of Appeals Rules Without Hearing Argument Pinellas County, Florida
Attorneys for Robert and Mary Schindler, parents of Theresa Schiavo, are disappointed with today’s one-line order from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal. The order, issued without a written opinion, dismissed a motion filed by Terri Schiavo’s parents asking the court to consider a recent Papal Declaration. The court ignored the Schindler family attorney’s request for oral arguments to address these important new issues.
The Schindler family is appalled that the 2nd DCA would treat such an important matter of religious freedom in such a cavalier fashion. They are strengthened in their resolve to continue to fight for the life of their daughter and intend to continue to exhaust every legal avenue available.
The Free Exercise of Religion, guaranteed to disabled patients by both the Florida Constitution and the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not being adequately protected by the Florida courts in this case. The new Papal Declaration makes a clear statement of Catholic religious doctrine that “water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represent a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act.
Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such moral and obligatory.” Attorney David Gibbs III, representing the Schindlers in their appeal, said, “We believe that the Papal Declaration, issued in March of 2004, is new evidence that as a matter of law should require a new hearing into what Terri’s wishes would be today, given her devout faith and her current inability to speak for herself. Although Terri is unable to speak, she is very alert and aware of her environment and interacts regularly with her parents through sounds, facial expressions, laughter, and other non verbal communication.
"Terri is not in a coma; nor does she require any other assistance to maintain her life beyond assisted feeding through a tube.”
Terri is a Roman Catholic. If she essentially agreed to (which she did not) ASSISTED SUICIDE which they want to do (STATE SPONSORED MURDER) Terri as a Roman Catholic is subject to eternal damnation.
I think Terri's judges are more suited for that sort of place based upon their partnership with evil.
FLORIDA JUDGES HAVE A PARTNERSHIP WITH EVIL. A FULL PARTNERSHIP.
LET TERRI LIVE! "I am alive and love still."
You idiot! They did not say the Pope was ordering the court to decide in Terri's favor. Have you ever heard of Catholics? Do you even know what one is?
I don't understand how Greer can let the Guardianship case just sit, like he has. Remember that he last scheduled it for when Terri was supposed to be dead, in October 2003. After Terri's Law, Greer put it in limbo, where it has remained. How can he legally stall on it?
Ever hear of the First Amendment?
According to the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Warner v. Boca Raon, (and I'm paraphrasing), the State must overreach constitutionally guaranteed religious liberties of the individual. Likewise, the state cannot cause someone to do something that their doctrine forbids.
That their doctrine forbids. Meaning, the state can't cause Theresa to be euthanized if her faith forbids it.
I'm not the one who didn't read the article.
They did not say the Pope was ordering the court to decide in Terri's favor. Have you ever heard of Catholics? Do you even know what one is?
Heard of Catholics, but that doesn't change the fact that papal directives have no bearing in a U.S. court of law. U.S. courts aren't required to hop everytime some cleric or cardinal puts pen to paper. Sorry.
Because Terri has a Constitutional Right to practice her religion. She has a Constitutional Right to life. Both of these rights are being denied. The court ruled that Terri does not wish to follow her own religion, and it doesn't matter what that religion is. They ruled that she must be murdered, and that when she is murdered she will be guilty of suicide. They did not rule on whether or not she will have to burn in hell forever as her religion proscribes for those who commit suicide. They simply ruled that it doesn't matter what her religious beliefs are, and it doesn't matter if she wants to die or not. She must die. That's the ruling. No explanation. Terri's Constitutional Right to live and practice her religion are not that same as a muslim's Constitutional Right to commit murder in the name of his religion. Last time I checked, there was no Constitional Right to commit murder. There is a Constitutional Right to live.
Believe it or not, there were people who were afraid to vote for John Kennedy in 1960, because they thought that the the US would be ruled from the Vatican. After more than 40 years, I guess some people let the same fear blind them to the issue of 1st Amendment rights. Some prejudices die hard.
Yes. You want to try and tie that into this thread?
Unfortunately, you're the one who didn't read the brief.
So you think god will put her in Hell because of what the court does? You think that's how god will judge Terri? That's an interesting faith.
What a moron! How can I make you understand. Terri is a Catholic. The court ordered that Terri wishes to be murdered, contrary to all the evidence brought forth so far. Now the Pope, the highest authority in the Catholic Church has declared that it would be a sin for Terri to agree to be murdered. As a faithful Catholic, Terri would not go against the Pope's ruling. Terri would not want to be murdered. For her to agree to be murdered would mean that she would burn in hell forever. This is strong evidence to show that Terri does not want to be murdered. Terri's family asked the court to consider this evidence in determing whether or not Terri would consent to her own murder. The court ruled that Terri does not have the right to follow the directives of her most sacred religious leader. They ruled that she must give up her Constitutional Rights, despite the fact that she doesn't want to and her religion forbids it.
This thread is all about Terri's First Amendment right to practice her religion, which was denied to her by this court decision.
What about the merits of Terri's religious liberties argument?
I don't think the appeal said anything more than Terri should
have the same religious liberties "guaranteed" by our Constitution,
that any other living, breathing human should be granted -
the well organized attacks on them (liberties,) notwithstanding!
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20041229005160&newsLang=en
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 29, 2004--The American Center for Law and Justice, which represents the parents of Terri Schiavo in a legal battle to keep their daughter alive, today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take the Florida case in which the Florida Supreme Court declared unconstitutional "Terri's Law" - a state law enabling Florida Governor Jeb Bush to save Terri from starvation and dehydration. The ACLJ today filed an amicus brief with the high court on behalf of Mary and Robert Schindler - Terri's parents - in support of a petition filed by Governor Bush asking the high court to take the case.
"This is a case that certainly deserves consideration by the Supreme Court and we are supporting the Governor's office in its effort to have the high court take this critically important case," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which is representing the Schindlers in their efforts to defend the emergency Florida legislation that saved their daughter's life. "At the center of this life and death struggle is Terri Schiavo - a woman who has received a death sentence from the Florida courts. The Governor and legislature acted properly and constitutionally in passing 'Terri's Law.' We are asking the high court to take this case to protect the life of Terri Schiavo by upholding the constitutionality of Florida's decision to enact life-saving legislation - the measure that saved Terri's life."
The brief
(http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/AmicusBriefinSupportofPetitioner2.pdf)
said the decision by the Florida Supreme Court is an "astonishing and unprecedented ruling" and encouraged the high court to send the case back to the Florida Supreme Court for further clarification prior to accepting the case.
The brief argues that the Florida Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally in its decision when it determined that once any court has issued a decree regarding the care and treatment of an incompetent person, neither the legislature nor the executive branch can take independent steps on behalf of the incompetent person's welfare. The brief states that "the state supreme court's construction of the Florida Constitution to produce such a ruling renders that state constitution, as applied, unconstitutional under the federal constitution ..."
The brief also asserts that Terri Schiavo, a disabled woman whose husband wants her life to end, is not in a persistent vegetative state, as alleged by her husband, that her condition is not terminal and untreatable, and that she is aware of her surroundings and does not want to die - especially by starvation and dehydration.
Governor Bush acting under "Terri's Law," ordered feeding and hydration tubes to be restored to Terri after a Florida trial court had ordered them removed. On behalf of the Schindlers, the ACLJ urged the state's highest court in Bush v. Schiavo to reverse a lower court ruling that struck down "Terri's Law" as unconstitutional. In September 2004, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the lower court decision.
The American Center for Law and Justice, which specializes in constitutional law and the protection of human life, is based in Washington, D.C. and its website address is www.aclj.org.
FV SAYS: Thank you, ACLJ.
This isn't about me imposing my beliefs on Terri. It is about Terri's right to practice her religion. It doesn't matter what I think will happen to Terri's soul. It isn't up to me. Guess what. It isn't up to you either.
God may put all the judges in Hell for what they did to Terri, if He decides, in favor of His justice, to ignore His mercy. Now, that's interesting!
As a life long and obedient Catholic (who accepted the host the night of her collapse), it's a bit of a stretch to think that Terri Schiavo would not embrace the teachings of her own true faith and church. When the Pope said we don't do this to people, he meant all people - including Terri.
The petition argues that Terri, able to make that choice, would accept her teachings of faith based upon the new information. In sales, they tell you give someone new information and they will make a new decision.
However, Terri is not represented in the courts. Her lifelong teachings and personally held belief system is not considered - even though the constitution of our country and our state say they should be.
But, that's nothing new. Years upon years upon years of neglect by the guardian have gone unchecked by the courts who govern him.
Ask yourself a question and be honest. Is this about honoring Terri Schiavo's desires, or is this about opening the doors to killing off 'useless' elderly and disabled people who have a couple of coins to their name.
Be honest. Whenever there is a substantial problem, ask yourself 'who profits?'.
Do you think Terri's wishes should have anything to do with whether or not she's euthanized?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.