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.

[Aquinasfan]

she is not executed, her artificial surviving process is merely being stopped...

Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering if the courts would consider it murder if I stopped the artificial surviving process of feeding my baby.

In other words, it is now legal to starve anyone to death if their lives do not meet our quality standards.

[TASMANIANRED]

You are very blood thirsty.

[freecopper01]

holdmuhbeer,

Glad you're tired of it. The Ruling Death Party of American can use of people of your mindset. Why? Because over time, they're older members may face the prospect of being without the artificial survival proccess and the party will need new blood.

As for me and mine, let us just say that we've developed a healthy appreciation for the ability to know who can be trusted with our lives.

[GloriaJane]

I love your seal! It feels sooo sadly true right now.

[Tax-chick]

Just don't stop your dog's artificial surviving process ... you'll go to jail.

[workerbee]

Some you countries have euthanasia in their legislation..so are they right like a hitlerian regime?

Why don't you tell us?

Or maybe you're off to a humanities class or something.

[TASMANIANRED]

I didn't make it but it is a work of art.

I intend to use it often.

[Spiff]

by ordering that the port for her feeding tube be removed … and a feeding tube is all this woman needs to continue living.

Check the actual court documents. He didn't order just the feeding tube to be removed, he ordered that ALL nutrition and hydration be ceased.

You can see the actual document HERE.

Here are the relevant portions:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for Emergency Stay filed on February 15, 2005 is DENIED. It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, MICHAEL SCHIAVO, shall cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, THERESA SCHIAVO, at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, at 2:50 p.m. this 25 day of February, 2005.

SIGNED
GEORGE W. GREER
CIRCUIT JUDGE

This clearly is not the order for removal of "artificial life support" or even the removal of a feeding port - it is undeniably the order to starve Terri Schiavo to death. It is like ordering a plastic bag to be tightly tied over someone's head as their respirator is being unplugged - entirely denying them oxygen.

[Reborn]

Rott, Mrs Schindler does not require help with her autonomic functions. She requires food and water, and because she is largely immobile, she also requires other forms of primary care. We wouldn't refuse this form of care to an Alzheimer's patient, or a six-month old child. Or a dog.

Ya know.......I understand now more than ever WHY Nancy Reagan kept media OUT of President Reagan's last years. One has to wonder why Nancy didn't just refuse to feed him [read starve him to death] since he had no hope of ever getting better.

[Aquinasfan]

From the form letter sent to relatives of the victims: "In view of the nature of his serious, incurable ailment, his death, which saved him from a life long institutional sojourn, is to be regarded merely as a release."

Thanks for posting that.

[Spiff]

See Post #88 and then eat your words.

[TASMANIANRED]

You parade your ignorance with out shame.

Terri is not in a coma either.

[Aquinasfan]

artificial feeding or surviving could be stopped..why not?

Because it's murder.

[repentant_pundit]

...under Terri's condition, let her go.

What do you mean, "let her go"? She has a brain injury. She wasn't ill, wasn't diseased, wasn't dying, wasn't going to "go" ANYWHERE until this week, when people like you decided to send her to death's doorstep by the torture of starvation and thirst.

What if you were locked in a room with no food or water, because some judge decided your ignorance and inability to punctuate a sentence were unacceptable mental defects?

Guess that would be simply letting you "go".

[Two-Bits]

Do they forget who started this website, a handicap person. Remember there are those that may feel that Jim is a burden to society and should not be allowed to live......All of you that think being handicap is a condition worth than death better take a hard look at our founder, Jim Robinson who has done more for Society than any of you would ever hope to attain in a million lifetimes.

(Sorry Jim for bringing you into this I am just tired of these people thinking being handicap is the absolute crime against humanity)

[TASMANIANRED]

Why don't you try explaining the difference between euthanasia and Hitlers way.

[Polyxene]

Schiavo, Greer, Felos, et al. - Murder, Inc.

[Aquinasfan]

I'll bet you if you put the food on the floor of the playpen and sat him down amidst it, he would eat on his own.

So does Terri, if you give her a feeding tube. Both are equally "artificial surviving processes."

[TASMANIANRED]

Doctors are not God, they only think they are.

[GloriaJane]

Truth is there is no difference and if we don't reign these courts in we are headed down the same deadly road.