Aside from killing a disabled woman, what’s the controversy?

FreeRepublic ^ | 5/23/2005 | Marvin Galloway

[MHGinTN]

Aside from killing a disabled woman, what’s the controversy?

A cousin asked me the other day, “What’s this Terri Schiavo thing all about down in Florida?” I did my best to catch cousin up to speed on the history of the plight. While on line, a newbie at FreeRepublic cited four points over which the newbie needed confirmation or correction. I did my best to address the problems with the perspective expressed in the four points of interest as stated by the poster.

Clearly, there are different levels to this issue; this is not a simple controversy lending itself to sound byte explanations, though the mainstream media tend to over simplify and use sound byte explanations, usually tainted with the network’s bias –such as the stilted poll done by ABC, for which they received precisely the ammunition they were trolling for, rather than an honest perspective of the American people.

Let’s take a look at the controversy from a perspective other than bedside sadness.

First, there is a lengthy judicial process followed in Florida, and controversy and major dispute beginning with the power and perspective of one Judge Greer. Terri was receiving due process without complaint from any family member, until Judge Greer’s court took over dealing with the controversies. Every appeal following the Greer rulings amounted to other courts rubber stamping Greer’s actions … and therein lies the reason for the Congress of the United States finally getting involved.

That brings us to a second point of controversy, with major political ramifications. A state judge in a Florida court has order that a non-criminal severely disabled woman be put down via starvation and dehydration by ordering that the port for her feeding tube be removed … and a feeding tube is all this woman needs to continue living. [Is food and water actually artificial medical intervention?]

Last week, the United States Congress issued an oversight action authorized by the Constitution in the Third Amendment, in order to give Terri Schaivo assurance that her Fourteenth Amendment rights were not short changed in arriving at her current court ordered sentence of death by dehydration. The bill issued by Congress stated a request for a ‘de novo’ hearing of the case at Federal level. The Federal Judge who received the case chose to ignore the request and do yet again what has been done at every judicial stage in this controversy, glance at Greer’s rulings and stamp them adequate for Terri’s rights.

It is precisely the questionable nature of Greer’s rulings that caused Congress to request a Federal de novo hearing. What if Greer has a bias or new facts have come to light that indicate Terri Schiavo has not in fact received fair and balanced treatment from the court or the court has been in error due to inadequate facts? How can the wrong rulings of a judge be questioned in a process where rubber stamping passes the rulings along without honest ‘de novo’ review? Apparently, not even Third Amendment responsibility of the United States Congress can break the bias of particular court systems.

And therein is the substance of the second major controversy: how can judicial activism and rubber stamping based on political/philosophical bias be corrected, if Congress only requests without any consequences to follow when a judge such as Whittemore (the Federal appeals Judge who received the Congressional request) thumbs his nose at the Congress in their Constitutionally authorized oversight of the judiciary?

Terri Schiavo is not going to be saved from death by dehydration through a conflict between the Legislative and the Judiciary. As things are now progressing, Terri will be dead before the controversy could be resolved. And therein is the substance of a third controversy: what’s the damn hurry to execute Terri Schiavo before full de novo hearing can be accomplished? Is it so outlandish to consider that Judge Greer has a bias that has prevented Terri from receiving fair and balance justice? If a de novo hearing concludes that all court rulings have been sound, without new information changing anything of the findings of fact and promotion of truth, Terri isn’t going to flee to some other jurisdiction and thus be beyond the judge executing her after further review. What’s the hurry to put her down without actual Federal de novo hearing?

And therein lies the fourth controversy: political forces are thrashing the issues around for political empowerment; one force with a heavy bias toward granting to one person the right to kill another alive, sensing human being feels their rite, er excuse me, their right is threatened by de novo review that potentially could change the now obvious destiny of an inconvenient human being; Terri, if granted a fair and thorough review, just might get a stay of execution and then be given therapy that would improve her interactions with her environment, and thus embarrass the faction pushing for this inconvenient human to be put down. Surely the other faction, the one wishing to value even the life of a severely disabled woman, realized that further review might confirm what are already the findings, so that faction was willing to risk the ridicule inevitable from the liberal media in their water-carrying for the other political faction.

So how honest is the faction now demanding that Terri be put down and cremated immediately, without a final de novo hearing? And how cold, political, calculating, and stark is the wrong committed by a Federal judge ignoring the oversight request from the Congress of the United States, to yet again rubber stamp the rubber stamps forwarded up from his fellow Florida Judges?

This truly is an historic controversy, but it remains to be seen if the Congress has the loyalty to our Constitution that would follow through in settling judicial tyranny that is killing one severely disabled woman in Florida.

[GloriaJane]

I feel the same way. This is the sickest, saddest, most emotionally crushing thing I've ever lived through in my life.

I have emailed every place I can think of begging for Terri's life and I've been on my knees crying out to heaven to please please save Terri.

But now I'm turning my thoughts to fighting for an investigation. A never ending fight for her rights even if they murder her I want to go on fighting for her rights.

[MHGinTN]

*

[MHGinTN]

Bttt

[MHGinTN]

Ping to the article

[theophilusscribe]

Very well said.

From the beginning Congress could have created real legislation with teeth--that not only would have saved Terri, but would have given all disabled, "inconvenient" people a voice. They failed to do so.

They still could . . . but somehow I seriously doubt that they'll do it . . .

And until then, the rush--that you so eloquently pointed out--continues.

[FBD]

thanks for the compliment Ladysmith.
I'm convinced there are is quite a number of people who want Terri Schiavo to die, merely because they are tired of hearing about her in the news. They are "sick and tired of hearing about her."

So...it's really just about their own inconvenience, isn't it?

regards

[MHGinTN]

Ping to the article

[MHGinTN]

Yes I was aware that the lawyer had said this the day the tube was removed. I was not however aware that someone came forward who had heaard the outburst and witnessed the actions by Hospice and police. THAT I shall follow up on a.s.a.p. I have some ideas regarding Michael Schiavo and Terri's condition. If you're interested, freepmail me.

[MHGinTN]

Ping to the article

[MHGinTN]

God I wish hadn't read that! And the floriduh courts can't see that as abuse via forced neglect? What a sick state Floriduh is ... to dangerous to even drive through.

[tomahawk]

Thanks for the ping.

An awesome piece. Bookmarking this thread.

[MHGinTN]

BTW, on Nancy Grace's show (CNN) tonight, she showed a video of an aware Terri two or three years after her collapse, with Michael pointing out things to her beside her wheelchair. That is the period of time she was receiving therapy and she clearly swallowed and responded. But as soon as the money arrived, her then husband commanded that ALL therapy stop for her. He even threatened anyone who might give Terri even the miminal therapy to relieve discomfort. The largest percentage of the $700,000 dollars awarded for Terri 's therapy has been awarded to George Felos by Greer's written ascent to same. And the Florida starve'um judge and his rubber stamp goon squad have decided this animal, this monster Michael Schiavo is the best person to be her guardian? This man who is guilty of more than a decade of abuse of Terri (via forced neglect) is the one whom the florida courts choose to believe in a hearsay that Greer uses as his excuse to execute Terri? THIS is why I have nothing but contempt for Jeb Bush and his namby pamby actions that have allowed a biased judge to execute by cruel and unusual means a disabled citizen of the state he was elected to govern. What kind of executive co-equal leadership asks the executing judge for permission to take the condemned into protective custody when the judge has clearly shown his absolute maniacal determination to execute her?

[Ga.Lady]

my grandmother had oral cancer in which she ended not being able to speak.. had a trach too. She ended up having a feeding tube.. Now she was fully cohernt and wrote us notes and motioned what she wanted. Now do we starve her?? I think not. How do people find a feeding tube...life support?

[zerosix]

Mary Kay Culp, Right to Life President of Kansas, gave an interview by telephone to a local radio station, in it she states that the same doctor who was involved in the Nancy Cruzan case 15 years ago in MO, was able to declare "food and water" as "life-saving medical techniques." He also stated that had he not done so in Court papers, they would not have been able to end nutrition, which was also the only thing given to Nancy Cruzan.

The parents and the State of Missouri disagreed about starving Nancy to death and the case went to the Supreme Court, wherein it was decided that the same "Life-saving Medical Techniques" could be stopped when a person was in "Persistant Vegatative State" (a decision that Robert Bork, speaking on Sean Hannity, states was clearly wrong and one in which the Supreme Court should have stayed out of, if they had, Nancy Cruzan would presumably still live but has set up this anti-life direction we now find ourselves on.)

This same "doctor"(would that I could remember his name but I will find out and post on Freepers' Site) has been advising Michael Schavio's lawyers as to how to frame the statement, knowing that the Supreme Court will once again look at their earlier ruling for "precedent."