Haleigh Poutre Almost Victim of Euthanasia, Now Making Good Progress

Life News ^ | September 4, 2006 | Steven Ertelt

[8mmMauser]

Boston, MA (LifeNews.com) -- Haleigh Poutre was the victim of child abuse and was nearly killed via euthanasia when Massachusetts officials gave up on her after she entered a coma. Now Poutre, once termed "brain dead" by doctors, continues to improve and is speaking a few words, her grandmother says.

Sandra Sudyka, the girl's biological grandmother, is no longer allowed to visit her granddaughter and now says she is ready to speak to the media about Poutre's condition.

She told The Republican newspaper that she last saw Poutre on July 18 but indicated she was "doing well."

"She was bright-eyed and smiling. She is always responsive to us," Sudyka explained.

Department of Social Services had asked Sudyka not to talk with reporters about Haleigh, but since they will no longer allow her and Haleigh's biological mother, Allison Avrett, to visit the 12 year-old, she said she's going to talk to the media.

"I decided since they broke the deal, I am going to talk. People should know how well she is doing," Sudyka told the newspaper.

"They don't want people to know how she is doing after they wanted to pull the plug," Sudyka said.

DSS spokeswoman Denise Monteiro declined an interview with The Republican but said that the visiting privileges have been suspended, not terminated.

Haleigh first began speaking in June, her grandmother told the newspaper.

"I was saying to her 'I love you,' and she was trying to say 'love' and it came out as a vibration...'ove,'" Sudyka said.

Sudyka, who is working with an attorney to adopt the girl, said she has said hello, responds to comments and questions, speaks nonverbally and is able to write her name. Haleigh can't walk and is confined to a wheelchair.

Avrett, Poutre's biological mother, lost custody of her daughter after physically abusing her. Poutre was put into a foster home where her adoptive parents also abused her. Her adopted mother committed suicide after abusing Poutre so much she had to be hospitalized.

DSS took Poutre into custody and when she appeared to slip into a coma, the agency asked the state Supreme Court for permission to take her life. That's when Poutre began responding.

Poutre has been receiving physical, speech and occupational therapy since January 26 at Franciscan Hospital for Children in Brighton.

Gov. Mitt Romney appointed a commission to look into how the state failed to properly handle the girl's case.

[8mmMauser]

Activist judge Sandra Day O'Connor does not want to be called an activist judge. Fair enough! I have been calling her something else anyway.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sandra Day O'Connor noticed a disturbing development as her last day on the Supreme Court neared. Over her final years on the bench, more people were talking about "activist judges," an issue she said that appeared to be "erupting all over the country."

Snip....

In 2005, two court cases that caught the public's attention and the president's choices for new Supreme Court justices made the judiciary a political fireball, prompting an intense debate on how judges should operate.

The Terri Schiavo case turned on who, if anyone, had the legal right to allow Schiavo, who was ruled by lower courts to be in a "persistent vegetative state," to die. Despite attempts from Republicans lawmakers and President Bush to intervene by passing a law pertaining to the case, the Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the matter and she died days after her feeding tube was removed.

O'Connor: Don't call us 'activist judges'

8mm

[T'wit]

>> "It was asking for review of one specific case," she said. "That's so unusual..."

That's because this ONE judge in ONE case subverted justice by his prejudicial rulings. That's "unusual" too (we hope!), but it desperately needed review. The higher courts do not, as a rule, overturn findings of fact by lower courts. That is a huge flaw in the system. It allowed one biased judge to put an innocent disabled woman to death. He simply chose the evidence he wanted to hear and excluded or ruled against everything else.

The higher courts had a primary duty to uphold constitutional law, not to provide shelter for a rogue judge on the lame principle that you always do provide such shelter. Moreover the act of Congress specifically allowed for your review de novo. You had no excuse for playing politics.

[supercat]

The higher courts do not, as a rule, overturn findings of fact by lower courts. That is a huge flaw in the system.

There are good reasons for, as a general rule, requiring that findings of fact established by lower courts stand. Were such policies not in place, someone with enough money could win almost any case against someone with less money simply through attrition (endlessly seek do-overs until the desired result is obtained). In addition, the Constitution generally requires that facts decided by jury be allowed to stand.

The biggest problem in this case is that Terri Schiavo was never represented in court by anyone who didn't want her dead. Terri's parents had lawyers which sought to protect Terri's interest, but since they were the parents' lawyers and not Terri's, they did not have all the powers necessary for effective advocacy on her behalf.

Not sure how the law should best be set up to deal with these situations. To be sure, the existing laws probably would have been adequate had they been enforced honestly (in particular, if Michael's conflicts of interest had been recognized as being sufficiently obvious to preclude him from acting on "Terri's behalf") but perhaps more explicit protections from rogue guardians need to be legislated.

[bjs1779]

I think the Constitutional right of Habeas Corpus should of been a sufficient alert in Terri's case. Gordon Watts took that to the FSC for Terri and lost it 4-3 I think. I am not sure how it proceeded from there, but my impression is the lazy SCOTUS turned it down without comment. I remember some scholarly figure made the comment, ALL of the Justices should of been 'impeached' for that, which I remember agreeing with.

[supercat]

I think the Constitutional right of Habeas Corpus should of been a sufficient alert in Terri's case...

I don't think there's a "Constitutional right of Habeus Corpus", per say. Rather, motions of habeus corpus are brought when people's other rights (e.g. reasonable bail, speedy trial, etc.) are denied.

IMHO, the right Terri was denied was the right of due process. Due process in criminal cases requires that the accused be allowed counsel (and have counsel provided if unable to supply it themselves). I see no reason why a civil case that could result in someone's death should have any less of a requirement.

[bjs1779]

I don't think there's a "Constitutional right of Habeus Corpus", per say

"The only reference to the writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution is contained in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. This clause provides, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." habeas corpus

[supercat]

This clause provides, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Ah, thanks. Not sure how it applies to Terri, though, since legally she was not considered to be imprisoned. Have habeus corpus procedings ever been brought in cases where the person in question was held by someone other than the state (e.g. in child custody disputes)?

[bjs1779]

Have habeus corpus procedings ever been brought in cases where the person in question was held by someone other than the state (e.g. in child custody disputes)?

Not sure about that but,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The writ may be used in civil matters to challenge a person's custody of a child or the institutionalization of a person declared incompetent."

From the same source as above.

[T'wit]

>> There are good reasons for, as a general rule, requiring that findings of fact established by lower courts stand.

Oh, I agree with that. When I said flaw, I was thinking of it like a software design flaw that can be used to infiltrate a virus. A weakness. A chink in the armor. No question in my mind that Greer exploited the weakness to have his own way. In the process, he left the whole system, up to and including SCOTUS, with egg on its face.

>> The biggest problem in this case is that Terri Schiavo was never represented in court by anyone who didn't want her dead.

When the judge is among those who want her dead, justice has been derailed before it has a chance. Even had Terri been represented, Greer could have ruled against her lawyers as easily as he did against the others.

If you read Gary Amos's long, rich essay on the Terri Schiavo case and the 14th Amendment, you find a superb statement that there is NEVER "due process" in seeking the court-ordered death of an innocent person. When a judge actually seeks such an execution, as Greer did, he is outside of any lawful or constitutional authority in doing so.

[wagglebee]

there is NEVER "due process" in seeking the court-ordered death of an innocent person. When a judge actually seeks such an execution, as Greer did, he is outside of any lawful or constitutional authority in doing so.

Terri was subpoenaed by Congress to appear, Greer would not allow the subpoena to be executed. Federal marshals should have been sent in at that point. On top of this was the faxt that Jeb Bush ignored his authority under the Florida Constitution, I spent hours reading that document and he was well within his authority to take custody of Terri and order reinsertion of her feeding tube.

[bjs1779]

Terri was subpoenaed by Congress to appear, Greer would not allow the subpoena to be executed.

I may be wrong, but I don't think they found Greer to serve him. He was hiding.

[wagglebee]

But the subpoena required TERRI to appear before the committee, Greer allowed the hospice/death camp to ignore it.

[bjs1779]

But the subpoena required TERRI to appear before the committee, Greer allowed the hospice/death camp to ignore it.

As I remember, Congress went on Easter break and Judge Greer did not.

[bjs1779]

But the subpoena required TERRI to appear before the committee, Greer allowed the hospice/death camp to ignore it.

I was thinking about this a little more. I think Greer ordered the feeding tube to be removed on March 18th. Congress wanted Terri to appear on March 28th. Nice, most people would be be dead by then anyway.

[wagglebee]

IIRC, Congress wasted a little too much time issuing the subpeona. I think the person with the best chance of saving her was Jeb Bush, and he clearly dropped the ball.

[T'wit]

>> I remember some scholarly figure made the comment, ALL of the Justices should of been 'impeached' for that, which I remember agreeing with.

I'm going to guess it was Gary Amos, in commentary accompanying his article, "Dred Scott and Terri Schiavo."

Scroll down to the fourth paragraph where you see: Here is a statement by Gary Amos on judicial impeachment in the killing of Terri Schiavo:

In all my years dealing with constitutional law, I have always said no to judicial impeachment even when from time to time on various issues some conservative activists have argued for it in specific situations. I can generally provide people more arguments against impeachment than for it where judges are concerned. Sometimes I cannot provide arguments for impeachment at all, because all the valid arguments from my point of view mitigated against judicial impeachment in those situations.

The Schiavo matter is dramatically different. Not only am I convinced that judicial impeachment applies here, I am convinced that it applies to every federal judge in the chain from the district court judge who first received the case under the act signed by President Bush, through the appeals judges of the 11th Circuit, to all nine sitting members of the U.S. Supreme Court, with the exception of the one or two judges that bucked the system.

This is the first time in my several decades of dealing with constitutional law that such a situation exists. I never imagined that I would see this situation in my entire lifetime or in my professional career.

-- Statement continued at the linked site...

[T'wit]

Download Professor Amos's Essay here, in PDF or DOC formats

[T'wit]

For today's cud chewing:

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/29/State/Flipping_positions_on.shtml

Whatchya think, are we about ready for a new Terri thread?

[8mmMauser]

The left frets big time over the race of Santorum and the other guy.

U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is intelligent, articulate, hard- working and passionate. The Pennsylvania Republican is No. 3 in the Senate GOP hierarchy and in a position to move up to No. 2 should he be re-elected. His 12 years in the Senate and his position in leadership have enabled him to deliver important federal dollars for the state, according to no less an authority than Gov. Ed Rendell.

His considerable assets as a politician, however, are bundled with views that are sometimes out of step even by our area's conservative standards. He has increasingly become a divisive figure not only in the state, but in the nation. For many, he is a poster boy for America's right-wing fringe elements. They point to his rushing to the side of Terry Schiavo in her final days, his strong and public endorsement of Intelligent Design, his views on gays in our society as just a few of the reasons why.

Challenger will learn and listen, unlike his incumbent opponent

8mm

[8mmMauser]

And so do the Canadians....

Polls suggest that Democrats have a fairly good chance of winning the 15 seats they need to control the House of Representatives. The Senate, where Democrats need six seats, will be tougher.

"They'll have to do everything right to take the Senate," says Cushman. "But if Santorum loses his seat, it's still a good night for them."

Key Pennsylvania race could deal huge blow to Republicans, Christian right

8mm