He got his lines right but the other actors (Felos and Greer) were missing from the stage.
They are occupied in another play where they get to kill an innocent woman.
That's QUICK thinking on his part. But no cigar.
... or maybe it was his lawyer's thinking.
I have a serious question. It's not designed to inflame but rather to show how serious what is going on in Florida is, and how it may affect those who are in the condition such as this young woman was in.
Either Felos or one of his cronies spoke this past week his belief people in the PVS stage of existence are not covered/entitled to the same rights as others in under the Constitution.
If, as things are going, more doctors, and politicians and Americans in general accept thinking like his - because, after all, the people in PVS aren't really there...
1. Would this young woman's rapist even have been charged?
2. Could the hospital just have killed her baby, without her family even being allowed to take the child home to love and raise?
Before people scoff, remember:
At the time of the Roe vs Wade, no one (except those who saw long term ramifications) ever believed that a baby would ever be killed. Now you have a bioethics 'professor' at Harvard (I believe it's Harvard - those who know for sure please update) who believes moms and dads should be allowed to decide if their babies should rejected (killed) for up to a period of 30 days, without being charged with a crime.
He was not talking being given up for adoption.
He was talking people having the legal right to kill a baby. It (the baby) could be classified a non-person for that length of time; therefore no crime would have been committed.
The only thing protecting these innocents aside from "We, the people," on a piece of paper is... WE, THE PEOPLE.
This is what bothers me when someone says, "I'm looking for every legal way..."
Last question for this missive:
3. What happens when Legal is not moral, and what's moral is not allowed to be legal?
The Judge nor the Government is killing her.
The Constitution limits the power of the government.
The government can not prevent free speech, this does not mean the government is responsible for everything said.
Her family, legally that is her husband, made a decision, (Glad I'm not in his shoes.), and because we are a nation of laws, we have to live within them, even if it seems to stink sometimes.
Respect the fact that our government is limited and the decision of the family (legally speaking) was supported by the courts.
I supported the President for tying to help, I can understand not encouraging the culture of death. We have to accept she passed away a long time ago and no one is killing her now. We need to unite to fight the rats. No need to respond, in a few weeks what I'm saying might become more clear.