I don't care for polls but here is one:
Unless you agree with these current polling results, please visit:
http://www.baynews9.com/ViewerCenter.html
NOW and voice Your Opinion!
How should the Terri Schiavo case be resolved?
Allow her husband to decide her fate. :
bar head49%bar footer 49%
Allow her parents to decide her fate. :
bar head45%bar footer 45%
Allow the courts to decide her fate. :
bar head2%bar footer 2%
Other. :
bar head2%bar footer 2%
Tell us what you you think:
http://www.baynews9.com/Chat.cfm?event=evtListThreadsbyPollId&ThreadTypeId=2&PollId=120
http://www.baynews9.com/Vote.cfm?event=Vote&action=vote&pollid=120
http://www.baynews9.com/content/74/2005/2/22/72244.html
These polls are so disrespectful, as if Terri was an auction item or something.
That said, let me go vote as many times as I can.
Allow her parents to decide her fate. :
bar head47%bar footer 47%
Allow the courts to decide her fate. :
bar head2%bar footer 2%
Other. :
bar head2%bar footer 2%
Let's ramp thing up a bit. Deo, my old friend in ramping.
Why do the newsmedia always report as fact everything that is said by Michael Schiavo and his lawyer George Felos? Many of the things these people say are provably untrue, and yet the media keeps repeating their word as gospel.
Michael Schiavo claims that cameras would be an invasion of Terri's "privacy", but on a Larry King Live interview he seemed quite eager to describe her gynecological exams in indelicate detail.
Is it more likely that Michael Schiavo really is concerned about Terri's privacy, or is it more likely that he's afraid that if video of her was broadcast people would see she's not a vegetable?
If Michael really were certain his wife was in a permanent vegetative state, he should favor testing that would confirm that and bolster his case. Unless, of course, he thinks the testing might shows that she's aware and concious?
Finally, why does Michael not allow Terri's parents to make bona fide efforts to feed her by mouth? If, as he claims, doing so would risk causing her to choke, why should he object? He has openly stated that he wants her dead, and accidental choking would be a lot less painful than deliberate dehydration. The only reasonable explanation for his refusal is that something horrible might happen: Terri might be able to eat without a feeding tube. And if she could do that, he'd have no right to kill her.
The following post was at the bay9 site (without paragraph breaks, btw, since apparently the site doesn't support them). It is reposted here to show people what we're up against.
Who is funding the Schindler fight to deny Terri's constitutional rights? Read the following -- they are not supporting the disabled -- they are promoting their own agenda.The Terri Schiavo case: Following the money
By Jon B. Eisenberg
Jon B. Eisenberg is an attorney who practices in Oakland, California and is an adjunct professor at University of California Hastings College of the Law. His specialty is civil appeals, on which he publishes a widely-used California treatise. His work mostly involves commercial and liability disputes, but his occasional forays into pro bono work lead him to cases like Terri Schiavo litigation, where he filed a amicus curiae brief in the Florida Supreme Court on behalf of 55 bioethicists and a disability rights organization opposing Governor Bush.
Have you ever wondered who is paying the lawyers and activists trying to keep Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube attached? The trail of money leads to a $2 billion consortium of ultraconservative Foundations with close ties to Governor Jeb Bush.
The Florida Supreme Court will soon decide whether Governor Bush violated the Florida Constitution when he squelched a court order for removal of artificial nutrition and hydration from Terri Schiavo, whom the courts have determined is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) with no hope of recovery, I am a California attorney who filed a “friend of the court” brief on behalf of 55 bioethicists and a disability rights organization opposing the Governor’s action.
A few weeks ago, on the day before oral argument in the Florida Supreme Court, I participated in a public debate on the Schiavo case at Florida State University in Tallahassee. Among the other participants were four lawyers supporting Governor Bush’s position: Pat Anderson, the attorney for Terri’s parents, Mary and Robert Schindler; Diane Coleman, who heads a group of disability rights organizations that filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the governor; and Wesley Smith and Rita Marker, two behind-the-scenes pro-life activists whose specialty is opposing surrogate removal of life-support from comatose and PVS patients.
On my flight home the next day, while contemplating the evident fact that these four attorneys have somehow made full-time jobs out of their causes, I found myself thinking: “Somebodymust be paying these people.”
It turns out to be a very interesting group of somebodies. Internet research reveals that funding behind all four attorneys; the lawyers representing Governor Bush before the Florida Supreme Court; the groups that filed two “friend of the court” briefs in his support; and two new lawyers for the Schindlers, can be traced to members of the Philanthropy Roundtable. The Philanthropy Roundtable is a collection of foundations that have funded rightwing causes ranging from ultraconservative mainstays like abolition of Social Security and religious social engineering to fringe-group anti-tax crusades and United Nation conspiracy theories. Its members’ founders include scions of America’s wealthiest families, including Richard Mellon Scaife (heir to the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune), Harry Bradley (electronics), Joseph Coors (beers), and the Smith Richardson family (pharmaceutical products).
The chart accompanying this article shows a dizzying web of funding connections between six of the Philanthropy Roundtable’s richest members and ten organizations behind the Schindlers, their lawyers and supporters, and the lawyers representing Governor Bush before the Florida Supreme Court.
Here are just a few examples: Pat Anderson works with the Alliance Defense Fund, which received $142,000 from Philanthropy Roundtable members that include the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation. Wesley Smith works with the Discovery Institute, which received $175,000 from the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation. Diane Coleman’s “friend of the court” brief is signed by the World Institute on Disability and the National Organization on Disability, which are funded by the Scaife Family Foundations, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, and the JM Foundation.
The other “friend of the court” brief supporting Governor Bush was filed by the Family Research Council, which was formerly headed by Bush lawyer Kenneth Connor and which received $215,000 from the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation. Rita Marker’s organization, the International Task Force on Euthanasia, received $110,390 from the Randolph Foundation, an affiliate of the Smith Richardson family. Bush lawyer Robert Destro has tries to the Council on Economic and Policy Education, which is funded by the Randolph and JM Foundations.
The two new Schindler lawyers, Deborah Berliner and Brett Wood, are affiliated with Judicial Watch, Inc., which received $7,069,500 from the Scaife and DeVos foundations. And in the thick of this is Governor Jeb Bush, a former director of the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a creation of Joseph Coors and one of the most prominent member of the Philanthropy Roundtable. The Heritage Foundation has been funded to the tune of $47 million by, among others – you guessed it – the Bradley, Scaife, DeVos and JM foundations.
That’s a lot of money. No wonder they’re been able to keep the Schiavo litigation going for 11years.
During the Watergate scandal, investigative reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein werefamously advised to “follow the money.” In the Schiavo case, the money – all of it – leads to members of the Philanthropy Roundtable and Governor Jeb Bush.
Bump!