Posted on 01/24/2006 9:05:19 AM PST by presidio9
Governor Mitt Romney is calling for an independent review of the case surrounding a comatose Westfield girl at the center of a life support dispute.
11-year-old Haleigh Poutre has been hospitalized since September. Prosecutors say she was beaten into a coma by her adoptive mother and stepfather.
Last week, the state's highest court gave the Department of Social Services the right to remove Haleigh from life support. Only days later, however, officials said the girl had been removed from a ventilator and was breathing on her own.
DSS Commissioner Harry Spence said Friday that he could not discuss Haleigh's medical condition, but said the state now has no immediate plans to remove her life support.
"One cannot look at the life of Haleigh Poutre without being overwhelmed with sadness," Romney said at a Statehouse news conference. "She was not someone who fell through the cracks -- doctors and social workers were watching. But errors in judgment were made."
Romney's announcement of an independent review comes amid calls from several state lawmakers who also want to question Spence about the department's handling of the case. Some are concerned the department is overburdened and therefore susceptible to missing signs that children are being abused.
Haleigh had been on life-support since her hospitalization with a badly damaged brain stem that authorities say resulted from abuse administered by her stepfather, Jason Strickland, and her adoptive mother, Holli Strickland. Both were charged with assault.
But less than two weeks later, Holli Strickland, who was Haleigh's aunt and Jason Strickland's wife, was found dead alongside her grandmother in a possible murder-suicide.
Jason Strickland fought the state's efforts to remove her life support, but the Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously that he could not prove that his role in Haleigh's life was "of a loving or nurturing nature, or even that it was beneficial to the child."
Gov. Romney says the panel will be formed by the end of the week. He wants their recommendations within 30 days.
How quick some were to want to pull the life support. I am glad I was not one of them.
There were people here on FR saying that this little girl was in worse shape than Terry Schiavo. If Haleigh can not find support and protection here, where will she find it?
For some, a real Hobson's choice. You want her to live, but you think her step-father should be charged with her murder, too. He is likely not pro-life, but wants to keep her alive so that he doesn't get charged with murder. Sad that there was no person in this little girl's life that had her best interests at heart from the start. I hope she shows them up and can make a terrific recovery. Miracles do happen.
I know what you are saying. I wonder if those people have read FR's homepage and the statement by the founder? If so, why are they on FR? However, I am also willing to admit that maybe FR is moving away from what I believe in?
I try to avoid those who want to kill the innocent. You can usually spot them by their tag-lines...:)
It is a mistake to look at the statements of the founder. Jim kow-tows to the libertarian scum who hang around here because their own stupid philosophy is too marginal to have its own forum.
I hear that. Why don't the libertarians go hang out on their own board? CP is pretty anti-religious, they could go there or they could start their own? Anyway, I try to avoid them.
It's polite to ping someone if you're going to talk about him.
Would you like me to do it for you?
Knock yourself out suck-up.
Do you also have the usernames for George Bush, Ted Kennedy and Sandy Alito? I plan on talking about them later too.
Suck up?
Me?
I'm always on the verge of lifetime banishment.
Do as you wish.
Thanks glad to have your permission. I ping people when I think they can add something to the discussion, not necessarily because I think they need to know that their name got mentioned.
For someone who was just suspended less than a week ago, you have some pretty ballsy comments towards JimRob. Can't you just accept that libertarians can be conservative and vice versa?
Because libertarianism and conservatism are essentially the same thing. Did you know that Ronald Reagan called libertarianism the "heart and soul of conservatism"?
CP is pretty anti-religious, they could go there or they could start their own?
What is CP and what does being anti-religious have to do with anything? All the libertarians I know are Christian or Jewish.
Ronald Reagan would be the first to admit that he had a lot of crazy ideas before he became a conservative. He was once a registered Democrat, and as a Republican Governor of California, he signed an abortion bill into law.
Fortunately, he grew up to become a great Presidet. The Ronald Reagan who people respect around here had no time or patience for libertarianism whatsoever.
Who died and appointed junior moderator. My suspension was either the result of a mod being lazy and petty or the fact that some people around here can't handle the fact that libertarianism has nothing to do with Conservatisim.
Hey, I didn't hit abuse on you, not my style.
My suspension was either the result of a mod being lazy and petty or the fact that some people around here can't handle the fact that libertarianism has nothing to do with Conservatisim.
Well considering that most freepers disagree with that last statement, and the owner/president of the forum, has been quoted as being at odds with it, perhaps it is your brand of conservatism that should find another home on the web.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see you leave FR. You contribute by posting a lot of new articles, and you're not a total dumbass like most of the anti-libertarians. I just don't think it's fair to complain when you're on Jim's "private property".
So what was your point in bringing it up?
Well considering that most freepers disagree with that last statement
What ever gave you that idea? Most FReepers tolerate Jim's errors because this was the first "conservative" site, so it gets the most traffic. If libertarian ideas were in the conservative mainstream, you'd see more conservative politicians adopting them.
Go to ANY thread dealing with the War on Drugs. The vast majority of freepers think it is a bad idea. Go to ANY thread dealing with gun issues. The vast majority of freepers have an absolutionist view of the 2nd Amendment. Go to ANY Ron Paul thread. The majority (but not vast majority, in this case) of freepers have nothing but praise for Paul. Go to any thread dealing with big government and President Bush's irresponsible spending. The vast majority of freepers oppose Bush on this issue.
Most FReepers tolerate Jim's errors because this was the first "conservative" site, so it gets the most traffic.
It's also the best forum, political or otherwise out there. The software and interface behind this site are second to none.
If libertarian ideas were in the conservative mainstream, you'd see more conservative politicians adopting them.
The problem is that actual conservatism is not in the mainstream. We've had liberalism and big government rammed down our throats for 80 years, and the typical American likes a large, nanny government. The fact that this perverted brand of "conservatism" throughout most of the GOP today is the norm is pretty depressing to both social conservatives as well as libertarians.
Is that why EVERY drug thread includes some idiot libertarian pinging-in the fifty-or-so hard-core libertarians who hang around this site? One would think that if libertarian thinking was so prevelant here that wouldn't be necessary. Don't even try to suggest that this is not exactly what happens.
We've had liberalism and big government rammed down our throats for 80 years, and the typical American likes a large, nanny government. The fact that this perverted brand of "conservatism" throughout most of the GOP today is the norm is pretty depressing to both social conservatives as well as libertarians.
Libertarianism is a necessarily extrimist philosophy with an inevitable crazy outcome. Conservative adults are very capable of seeing the need for necessary laws in society without confusing them with government empowerment. Libertarians are not. That's the difference. Which is also why every thread libertarians get involved in includes people on your side who advocate legalized heroin and stinger missles. You people bitch about Prohibition every chance you get, but I have yet to come across a FReeper who advocates outlawing alcohol. Even the basis of your lame arguments are flawed.
BTW, this thread is about a dying little girl. You posted to me and I responded. If you want to continue this conversation, I'd be happy to do so elsewhere. Pick another thread and ping me.
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.