Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Granddaughter yanks grandma's feeding tube
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | April 7, 2005 | Sarah Foster

Posted on 04/07/2005 5:34:06 PM PDT by News Hunter

Edited on 04/07/2005 5:39:05 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]

In a situation recalling the recent death of Terri Schindler-Schiavo in Florida, an 81-year-old widow, denied nourishment and fluids for nearly two weeks, is clinging to life in a hospice in LaGrange, Ga., while her immediate family fights desperately to save her life before she dies of starvation and dehydration.

Mae Magouirk was neither terminally ill, comatose nor in a "vegetative state," when Hospice-LaGrange accepted her as a patient about two weeks ago upon the request of her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, 36, an elementary school teacher.Also upon Gaddy's request and without prior legal authority, since March 28 Hospice-LaGrange has denied Magouirk normal nourishment or fluids via a feeding tube through her nose or fluids via an IV. She has been kept sedated with morphine and ativan, a powerful tranquillizer.

Her nephew, Ken Mullinax, told WorldNetDaily that although Magouirk is given morphine and ativan, she has not received any medication to keep her eyes lubricated during her forced dehydration.

"They haven't given her anything like that for two weeks," said Mullinax. "She can't produce tears."

The dehydration is being done in defiance of Magouirk's specific wishes, which she set down in a "living will," and without agreement of her closest living next-of-kin, two siblings and a nephew: A. Byron McLeod, 64, of Anniston, Ga.; Ruth Mullinax, 74, of Birmingham, Ala.; and Ruth Mullinax's son, Ken Mullinax.

Magouirk's husband and only child, a son, are both deceased.

In her living will, Magouirk stated that fluids and nourishment were to be withheld only if she were either comatose or "vegetative," and she is neither. Nor is she terminally ill, which is generally a requirement for admission to a hospice.

Magouirk lives alone in LaGrange, though because of glaucoma she relied on her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, to bring her food and do errands.

Two weeks ago, Magouirk's aorta had a dissection, and she was hospitalized in the local LaGrange Hospital. Her aortic problem was determined to be severe, and she was admitted to the intensive care unit. At the time of her admission she was lucid and had never been diagnosed with dementia.

Claiming that she held Magouirk's power of attorney, Gaddy had her transferred to Hospice-LaGrange, a 16-bed unit owned by the same family that owns the hospital. Once at the hospice, Gaddy stated that she did not want her grandmother fed or given water.

"Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus," Gaddy told Magouirk's brother and nephew, McLeod and Ken Mullinax. "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?"

Gaddy's telephone is not in operation and she could not be reached for comment.

According to Mullinax, his aunt's local cardiologist in LaGrange, Dr. James Brennan, and Dr. Raed Agel, a highly acclaimed cardiologist at the nationally renowned University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center, determined that her aortic dissection is contained and not life-threatening at the moment.

Mullinax also states that Gaddy did not hold power of attorney, a fact he learned from the hospice's in-house legal counsel, Carol Todd.

On March 31, Todd told Ruth and Ken Mullinax during a phone conversation Georgia law stipulated that Ruth Mullinax and her brother, A.B. McLeod, were entitled to make any and all decisions for Magouirk. Ruth Mullinax immediately told Todd to begin administering food and fluids through an IV and a nasal feeding tube.

Todd had the IV fluids started that evening, but informed the family that they would have to come to the hospice to sign papers to have the feeding tube inserted. Once that was done, Magouirk would not be able to stay at the hospice.

Ken Mullinax recalled that Todd said the only reason Magouirk was in the hospice in the first place was that the LaGrange Hospital had failed to exercise due diligence in closely examining the power of attorney Beth Gaddy said she had, as well as exercising the provisions of Magouirk's living will.

Todd explained that Gaddy had only a financial power of attorney, not a medical power of attorney, and Magouirk's living will carefully provided that a feeding tube and fluids should only be discontinued if she was comatose or in a "vegetative state" – and she was neither.

Gaddy, however, was not dissuaded. When Ken Mullinax and McLeod showed up at the hospice the following day, April 1, to meet with Todd and arrange emergency air transport for Magouirk's transfer to the University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center, Hospice-LaGrange stalled them while Gaddy went before Troup County, Ga., Probate Court Judge Donald W. Boyd and obtained an emergency guardianship over her grandmother.

Under the terms of his ruling, Gaddy was granted full and absolute authority over Magouirk, at least for the weekend. She took advantage of her judge-granted power by ordering her grandmother's feeding tube pulled out, just hours after it had been inserted.

Florida law requires that a hearing for an emergency guardianship must be held within three days of its request, and Magouirk's hearing was held April 4 before Judge Boyd. Apparently, he has not made a final ruling, but favors giving permanent guardianship power to Gaddy, who is anxious to end her grandmother's life.

Ron Panzer, president and founder of Hospice Patients Alliance, a patients' rights advocacy group based in Michigan, told WND that what is happening to Magouirk is not at all unusual.

"This is happening in hospices all over the country," he said. "Patients who are not dying – are not terminal – are admitted [to hospice] and the hospice will say they are terminally ill even if they're not. There are thousands of cases like this. Patients are given morphine and ativan to sedate them. If feeding is withheld, they die within 10 days to two weeks. It's really just a form of euthanasia."

Ken Mullinax does not want that to happen to his aunt. He pointed out that one of the ironies in this tragedy is that the now-helpless woman worked for years as a secretary for a prominent local cancer doctor.

"She devoted her whole life to helping those who heal others, and now she's being denied sustenance for life," he said.

Mullinax said he has begged Gaddy to let him take on full responsibility for his aunt's care.

"If she would just give us a chance to keep Aunt Mae alive, that's all we ask," he said. "They [Beth and her husband, Dennis Gaddy] have a family and Beth is a teacher, and it was just getting to be a lot of trouble. But I'm the caregiver for my mom, and Aunt Mae could move in with us. We'll buy another house with a bedroom and we'll take care of her. She can move in with us once she can leave the hospital."

But her health becomes more precarious by the hour. Her vital signs are still good, but since admission to hospice she has not been lucid – "but who would be since nourishment and fluids have been denied since March 28," Mullinax remarked.

Attorney Carol Todd could not be reached for comment; a message on her voicemail said she would not be gone the entire week of April 4. Hospice-LaGrange did not return phone calls.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: cary; cultureofdeath; deathcult; euthanasia; feedingtube; grandma; hitlerwouldapprove; hospice; magouirk; necrocapitalism; schiavo; terri; thirdreich
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720721-727 next last
To: muawiyah
Still, you know enough of the law to understand that an "emergency" request submitted on Friday in an ex parte hearing that deals with a custody question of an elderly person might well be something less than kosher!

Sure. And I had this discussion with someone, maybe you, not sure. But all in all, it was cured on Monday. I don't know if Gaddy felt she was the only one involved since she had taken care of granny for 10 years, or if the judge acted improperly by not ascertaining whether granny had any other family. As I said though, it was cured on Monday.

Ms. Geddy lost it the second she walked into the court to ask for such a thing. The judge lost it when he granted it, and his decision to hold another hearing on Monday simply does not exempt him from the harshest of criticism for his intial ill-considered action.

Got no problem with that. Now that it's over, it's certainly fair to look back at the judge's actions.

And hey, what's this nonsense of this judge thinking 100 e-mails is a large number? Is he some kind of part time monk/part time judge?

Well, there may not even be 100 people in the town. Just because you worked for the Post Office, sometimes you have to think small!

701 posted on 04/10/2005 5:08:37 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 681 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

Hey, there are no real numbers below 100,000,000 ~ everybody knows that!


702 posted on 04/10/2005 5:18:38 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: the808bass
Though this case appears to have been "resolved," what difference would it make if Ken had not had a bit of contact with Mae for the 10 years prior? Would that give Gaddy more of a right to do as she wished (despite the living will provisions)? Curious...

As you say, curious. Whenever relatives are involved in a dispute over incapacitated parents, siblings, etc, truth is usually the first victim. I doubt if Gaddy was as bad as everyone here made her out to be, and if Ken was as good as folks thought. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, and as one of the lawyers said, "All of the parties have Mae's best interest at heart."

703 posted on 04/10/2005 5:21:03 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Obviously you and I would have been on different sides at the beginning of the Civil War. Then, later on, you would have discovered the tyrants in Richmond had betrayed your trust, and only then would you desert to the forces of righteousness.

LOL! My states' rights beliefs don't extend that far. And even though I live in the original heart of the secession, the "Southroners" here know my sympathies. If you look far enough back in my posts (last year) you will find some pretty heated discussions. A lot of folks here still harbor grudges.

704 posted on 04/10/2005 5:25:52 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
Souvrn'rs all sound dangerous as heck on the states' rights thing, but when you bring up cotton price supports they turn mushy as heck!
705 posted on 04/10/2005 5:36:11 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
The commerce clause and others provide more powerful restriction on the exercise of federal power than the 10th Amendment does,

A couple of points. It's interesting that you bring in the 1941 case, as 1941 is generally recognized as the beginning of the monolith we today call our federal government. And it hasn't stopped encroaching since. The other point relates to the commerce clause, which unfortunately has been the basis for much of the government's encroachment. It is used to justify federal intervention in a host of areas no reasonable person would ever link to interstate commerce. But the courts agree, so that's that.

As for the Tenth Amendment, yes it is almost completely overlooked, as is the 9th. But to some of us, it still exists, and I will use it for a baseline if nothing more. I still reject the idea federal government intervention in areas the states can handle themselves, and I'm not even a Libertarian! But when the federal government can bring Congress together and have the President fly to Washington to administer a law aimed at a specific individual probate case, as far as I'm concerned it has gone completely berserk.

And of course, back to the 1941 cases, FDR broke new grounds when the USSC determined that the federal government could fine a farmer for not complying with its wishes. That was the beginning of the end. And yes, almost every part of the Constitution has been "bastardized" by the USSC, including the definition of interstate commerce, the infamous right to privacy, the 2d Amendment, of course the whole idea of religious exclusion from anything "governmental", and on and on.

And no matter how badly I felt for Terri Schiavo, I absolutely believe the federal government had no business in it.

706 posted on 04/10/2005 5:44:04 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Hey, there are no real numbers below 100,000,000 ~ everybody knows that!

LOL. Knew you had been with the USPS too long....

707 posted on 04/10/2005 5:45:23 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Souvrn'rs all sound dangerous as heck on the states' rights thing, but when you bring up cotton price supports they turn mushy as heck!

Yeah, that's about the only time they'll take Northern money, and then only if they hold their noses.

708 posted on 04/10/2005 5:46:56 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 705 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
A couple of points. It's interesting that you bring in the 1941 case, as 1941 is generally recognized as the beginning of the monolith we today call our federal government.

Actually, my intent was to introduce the entire piece that I cited, which ran through the history of SCOTUS interpretation of the 10th. Darby just happens to contain that truism line that "sticks out" in my mind. FedGove has been expanding its sphere of influence since well before 1941, but I do agree that Roosevelt's threat to pack SCOTUS did seem to have an effect on its rulings, i.e., not striking down Federal laws as impermissible extensions of constitional power.

The other point relates to the commerce clause, which unfortunately has been the basis for much of the government's encroachment. It is used to justify federal intervention in a host of areas no reasonable person would ever link to interstate commerce. But the courts agree, so that's that.

Well, from a low point (my opinion) marked by Wickard v. Filmore (local farmer broke federal law by selling more wheat in his local market than federal regulations permitted) to Lopez (gun free school zone act an unconstitutional extension of commerce clause), SCOTUS seems to be giving less power to Congress on the commerce clause, not more.

I still reject the idea federal government intervention in areas the states can handle themselves, and I'm not even a Libertarian!

Irrelevant. The law applies in the way that SCOTUS permits. There are many federal laws that could be equally effectively regulated by states. There are even SCOTUS decisions that impose the weight of federal law (e.g., Roe v. Wade), where dissenting Justices find the court usurping legislative prerogative. The federal government is hip deep in public education, labor law, and if you check US Code and Code of Federal Regulations, I bet you could easily come up with 10,000 pages of regulations that could reasonably be handled by the states, or trashed wholesale.

But when the federal government can bring Congress together and have the President fly to Washington to administer a law aimed at a specific individual probate case, as far as I'm concerned it has gone completely berserk.

If the federal court that heard the case believed the satute was unconstitutional, it had the DUTY to assert exactly that. So, your issue lies also with the courts in this regard. I do agree that the hurried circumstance of this case (due to legislatinve neglect and politics) created a big public impression; but personal federal laws are de rigeur. They are generally passed in tax matters. I would put probate/trust/foundation legislation in there as well, as that is largely a tax issue.

And yes, almost every part of the Constitution has been "bastardized" by the USSC, including the definition of interstate commerce, the infamous right to privacy, the 2d Amendment ...

SCOTUS has shied away from the 2nd ;-) I think Miller is the last decision. It's holding is grossly misprepresented in just about every lower court case that refers to it.

And no matter how badly I felt for Terri Schiavo, I absolutely believe the federal government had no business in it.

Sound legal arguments can be made on both side of that issue. As I've pointed out on numerous occasions, much of the trouble lies with the fact that a life and death decision is before our civil courts, and the clvil law system lacks safeguards that are appropriate when the stakes are that high. Congress establishes the jurisdiction of the federal court system (see 28 USC), and also establishes the Rules of Procedure for both trial and appellate cases. The only power that Congress does not have is to actually decide the case.

709 posted on 04/10/2005 6:08:15 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: Fiat volvntas tva
"This is happening in hospices all over the country," he said. "Patients who are not dying – are not terminal – are admitted [to hospice] and the hospice will say they are terminally ill even if they're not. There are thousands of cases like this. Patients are given morphine and ativan to sedate them. If feeding is withheld, they die within 10 days to two weeks. It's really just a form of euthanasia."

More and more people are finding out just how 'wonderful' hospice really is.

710 posted on 04/10/2005 8:11:09 PM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
FedGove has been expanding its sphere of influence since well before 1941, but I do agree that Roosevelt's threat to pack SCOTUS did seem to have an effect on its rulings, i.e., not striking down Federal laws as impermissible extensions of constitional power.

From everything I've read, 1941 was the key time that the USSC broadly expanded federal jurisdiction. It appeared that FDR's move toward a significant role for the federal government, if not socialism, was aided and abetted by "his" supreme court.

Well, from a low point (my opinion) marked by Wickard v. Filmore (local farmer broke federal law by selling more wheat in his local market than federal regulations permitted) to Lopez (gun free school zone act an unconstitutional extension of commerce clause), SCOTUS seems to be giving less power to Congress on the commerce clause, not more.

I only recollect one other in the past few years which seemed to have the effect of recognizing some rights in the states, having to do with state responsibilities under the ADA. Even Nina Tottenberg was surprised at that one. But I think those are few and far between. The truly big ones seem to always go in favor of the fed government.

The law applies in the way that SCOTUS permits. There are many federal laws that could be equally effectively regulated by states. There are even SCOTUS decisions that impose the weight of federal law (e.g., Roe v. Wade), where dissenting Justices find the court usurping legislative prerogative.

True and I recognize the power of SCOTUS, but I can respectfully disagree, as the left did with the SCOTUS decision in 2000. But the intent of the Constitution clearly was make the federal government responsible for the enumerated powers only (or we would have simply kept the confederation), and leave the rest to the states.

If the federal court that heard the case believed the satute was unconstitutional, it had the DUTY to assert exactly that. So, your issue lies also with the courts in this regard

No, Congress does have some responsibility to at least try and act constitutionally. Certainly when it pushes the envelope in a macro sense, it can rely on the courts, but in the Schiavo case, Congress acted irresponsibly. If Congress does not now look into the thousands of cases of incapacitation and guardianship, then why the one?

And as far as the courts go, yes, we should look to the court system, but the Congressional actions ignored the court system and attempted to force the judicial process into something simply because it did not like the outcome. I recognize that Congress can enact any law, and if signed, we can look to the courts to ensure constitutionality, but I also expect ethical and responsible legislation.

The federal government is hip deep in public education, labor law, and if you check US Code and Code of Federal Regulations, I bet you could easily come up with 10,000 pages of regulations that could reasonably be handled by the states, or trashed wholesale.

Absolutely, which makes the point of this discussion, the overreach of the federal government in ways never intended, and which make a mockery of the 10th Amendment. Federal land ownership should only be for needful purposes, yet it owns over 95% of the State of Nevada, and substantial quantities of lands in most of the other Western states. Doubtful if the framers intended that. When the federal government can ignore a not guilty verdict for police officers whose actions were solely within the jurisdiction of a state and county, and retry them on "federal" charges solely for political purposes, it has completely usurped the responsibilities of the states. As you mentioned earlier, education and labor law fall into that category as do many regulations on food and drugs, firearms, highways (except interstates), environment, conservation and a host of others. Nor do I disagree with you that once the USSC has spoken, suddenly these things are constitutional.

Sound legal arguments can be made on both side of that issue. As I've pointed out on numerous occasions, much of the trouble lies with the fact that a life and death decision is before our civil courts, and the clvil law system lacks safeguards that are appropriate when the stakes are that high

Well, legal arguments can be made, sound or not. The empowerment of states was not designed simply to empower them to do things that the federal government would approve of. If so, then the word empowerment is not the appropriate word, rather something like ""permitted with approval of the federal government". Regardless of the morality of life and death decisions, unless a specific violation of either the 5th or 14th Amendments are cited, then I fail to see where the federal government comes into it, regardless of the stakes. And while many did not feel that Terri received "due process", some 40 plus judges in their reviews of this case would have respectfully disagreed.

If we are not to accept judicial reviews as adequate protection, then we are essentially using the process created only for decisions in which we agree with the end result. That would be better described as absolute monarchy than anything representative.

711 posted on 04/11/2005 7:19:53 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
but the Congressional actions [the Schiavo Palm Sunday statute] ignored the court system and attempted to force the judicial process into something simply because it did not like the outcome ..

I doubt that all of the legislators have exactly the same rationalization for voting for (or against) this statute. There is another possibility, besides not liking the outcome. It may be that the legislators did not like the process, i.e., that the process of original adjudication and subsequent state review was perhaps not enough.

There is no denying that the statute was drawn to one case. I think legislative action was taken on this case due to politicial pressure. The legislators demonstrate time and time again that they are not bright. Lasting solutions, broader solutions, take time to evolve, and Congress just got caught flat-footed on this one. Wasn't the first time, and won't be the last.

My reasoned opinion is that the civil judicial process, as presently constituted with centuries of case law behind it, is not equipped to enforce a prospective life/death decision. That is, it is fine in wrongful death, wehre money damages are sought after the death, but it is not equipped to reliably sanction the hastening of death in accordance with the patient's wishes. The judicial processs can be easily manipulated by a corrupt or ignorant judge, and a legally innocent (no capital offense) patient could be killed against his wishes.

Nice chatting with you again. You can have the last word on this subject. I am curious as to whether or not you are satisfied with the present system of judicial process (state Civil and Appellate Procedure) when it is applied in a life-taking case.

712 posted on 04/11/2005 7:49:22 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
It may be that the legislators did not like the process, i.e., that the process of original adjudication and subsequent state review was perhaps not enough.

True, though the USSC was involved earlier than the legislation and refused to comment. And I agree with your comment that politics likely played into it.

I am curious as to whether or not you are satisfied with the present system of judicial process (state Civil and Appellate Procedure) when it is applied in a life-taking case.

As with everything, this is more complex than a simple answer can address. For example, in criminal life taking cases, most people feel that the review process is overly exhaustive. I feel that if the process follows the law and makes no attempt to either userp the law or create new laws, then, yes, I am satisfied it is doing what it was intended to do. If we are to respect the judiciary as an institution we must accept the bad with the good. In the Schiavo case, the law was likely the culprit. As in most states, these kinds of cases do not adequately cover new life saving technology, the substance and power of living wills, distinguishing between life support and feeding mechanisms, etc. I suspect that the good that will come out of the Schiavo case will be reviews of these laws and procedures in most states.

But at the same time I would guess the judicial process works fine most of the time. For example, in the Mae Magouirk case, the subject of this and several threads, the judicial process was working exactly as designed (with the possible exception of the Friday meeting), but many here were unaware of what was going on and wanted to take the "law" into their own hands, in a sort of mob justice or anarchic resolution. In Mae's case, folks put everthing into a respect for her "living will", but in the Schiavo case they did not. I suspect that most here would also ignore any living will that either asked for a "quick end" or anything that suggested suicide. Folks can't have it both ways.

In any case, on to other perhaps less inflammatory and divisive issues. Enjoyed it and take care.

713 posted on 04/11/2005 8:10:49 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
For example, in criminal life taking cases, most people feel that the review process is overly exhaustive.

It is simultaneously excessive and insufficient. There are all sorts of procedural reviews one can seek, but many of them are really quite ineffectual by design. If one's attorney makes mistakes in the initial trial (as often happens with public defenders) one is pretty much [bleep]ed no matter how many appeals one gets.

714 posted on 04/11/2005 8:54:23 PM PDT by supercat ("Though her life has been sold for corrupt men's gold, she refuses to give up the ghost.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

To: supercat
If one's attorney makes mistakes in the initial trial (as often happens with public defenders) one is pretty much [bleep]ed no matter how many appeals one gets.

Little doubt that an overworked public defender can be a killer, no pun intended. But judicial reviews do look at both claims of prosecutorial misconduct and defense incompetence. Also, in capital cases, you additionally have executive review.

715 posted on 04/12/2005 6:22:58 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I usually don't do italics because it creates a whole html scheme for the rest of the post. Lazy, I admit, but that is the truth.


716 posted on 04/12/2005 10:29:47 PM PDT by torchthemummy ("Terrorism has less to do with economic poverty than with political poverty." - Jane Novak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

I know this is belated but, as the kids say, "It' all cool!"


717 posted on 04/12/2005 10:32:53 PM PDT by torchthemummy ("Terrorism has less to do with economic poverty than with political poverty." - Jane Novak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: torchthemummy

Just turn them off. Use an "</I>" right after them.


718 posted on 04/13/2005 2:54:40 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Civil procedures clearly should NEVER be used in life and death decisions.

Still, our history is that judges regularly forget this and end up killing people.

A parallel to the current problem occurred in the 1920s/30s when judges got the idea that doctors knew what they were doing when it came to frontal lobotomies and forced sterilizations.

Obviously the judges were as ignorant and bigoted as the doctors they pandered to.

719 posted on 04/13/2005 2:57:26 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

If paper controlled, Granny would never have been starved and Terri would still be living.


720 posted on 04/13/2005 2:58:33 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720721-727 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson