Posted on 10/25/2007 4:05:19 PM PDT by wagglebee
He says they would be more likely to support the actions Congress and the Florida legislature took to try to help his family prevent her former husband from subjecting her to a painful euthanasia death if they knew more about her case.
"I want to personally talk with them about Terri's case," Bobby Schindler told the Boston Globe. "They need to be fully informed. There obviously exists a lot of confusion about my sister's situation."
Schindler told the newspaper that he plans to write each candidate a letter about Terri's circumstances and the painful 13-day starvation and dehydration death her former husband Michael made her endure.
He says Terri's case was not an end-of-life one because she wasn't dying and that his family took their lawsuit to federal courts because state courts had mandated that she be killed.
Thompson responded to questions about Terri Schiavo on Monday and said he didn't think that government should intervene in cases like hers. He says government should stay out and let families decide.
“It should be decided by the families — the federal government and the state government too, except for the court system, ought to stay out of those matters as far as I am concerned," he said.
One leading pro-life advocate who spoke with LifeNews.com about the comments on the condition of anonymity said the media is making too much of Thompson's comments in an attempt to show a divide between him and the pro-life movement or the Schindler family.
The pro-life leader said Thompson's view that government shouldn't make end-of-life decisions fits into the pro-life perspective but that government had to intervene in Terri's case because her family was split over her care.
However the pro-life community views Thompsons' remarks, the Schindler family has found a reason to be disappointed with the comments most of the candidates have had on the case.
The family endorsed pro-life Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, but he dropped out of the race last week.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has come under fire for his comments, as have ex-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and Senator John McCain of Arizona.
Even former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who is considered one of the better candidates left in the race from the pro-life perspective, told the St. Petersburg Times earlier this year, "I wasn't sure how the federal government had a role in all that."
I would like to see Romney meet with Terri’s family. It would be a great dialog.
We're damned foolish if we play liberals here and let our emotions run wild. Let the family fight it out among themselves and leave it there.
Agreed. I would only take issue with one thing. A true libertarian could never endorse the killing of an innocent person like Terri. It was state-enforced homicide.
I don’t think he is being politically smart.
He can achieve the desired result by couching his position as “wanting to prevent future crisis”.
Instead he is now being spun as a person who is fighting the fight that is over.
he should be creating new laws which WOULD stand up constitutional muster. this way it looks like he is looking backwards not forwards.
When a dozen-plus Congressional Democrats added their voices to the Starvation Nation, I remarked at the time how nearly every one of them belonged to the Democratic Socialists of America [DSA] caucus.
Then later this was as much confirmed when Schiavo started his payback PAC for '06, and proceeded to get most of his DUmmie candidates beat [in a historically significant mid-2nd term opposition party sweep, no less].
High-profile, fellow-traveling DUmmies like Jim Davis, Ned Lament, and (CO-4) Angie Paccione; and what the heck, let's go down the list: (FL-9) Phyllis Busansky, (FL-10) Samm Simpson, (FL-21) Frank Gonzalez, (FL-25) Michael Calderin, (MA-9) Jack Robinson, (NJ-7) Linda Stender, (NY-29) Eric Massa, and (OH-1) John Cranley -- all lost with Schiavo's support.
Schiavo just couldn't stand all this electoral 'success', so much so he took his PAC off life support and buried it just a month ago.
There is a major lesson to be learned by this example. Everyone should decide, independently of their family, what it is they want to have done in the same or similar circumstances, go to a lawyer and have it reduced to writing and then sign it - NOW before it happens. All family members and your personal physician should be advised of the legal decision. At any time their circumstances, belief, opinions, marital status, etc. changes, have the legal work redone. A person should NEVER assume that just because they are madly in love with someone and marry them that that person will “know” what is to be done. Parents do not always make the best decision on behalf of an adult child. It’s no different than determining what you want to have happen to children should either or both parents die or become incapacitated, or an elderly person determining what they want to have happen should they become unable to responsibly make appropriate decisions concerning their welfare. I know what I want done and under what circumstances and have named a person who I have empowered to make that decision. I believe these are totally family decisions but family members more often than not do not agree - particularly when making decisions of this nature.
He ran his PAC as poorly as he attended to guardianship duties. What guardian sets out to kill their ward? Unfortunately, since him, there are more. The fortunate wards get media attention and are spared. The unlucky ones alone in a room with nobody to turn to are dead before their time.
“”I want to personally talk with them about Terri’s case,” Bobby Schindler told the Boston Globe. “They need to be fully informed. There obviously exists a lot of confusion about my sister’s situation.”
Schindler told the newspaper that he plans to write each candidate a letter about Terri’s circumstances and the painful 13-day starvation and dehydration death her former husband Michael made her endure.”
What a super idea.
If one of these guys is going to be our president some day, they need to be thoroughly informed for the sake of future Terris out there.
http://www.petitiononline.com/ijg520/petition.html
My concerns are for those who have no family. Do they have less rights under the law? It’s likely.
I see. So a 'true libertarian' would advocate involvement of the State in an issue that was a family decision. Gotcha. You do understand what libertarianism is don't you?
Yes, the Supreme Court at the time interpreted it very narrowly - in fact many people felt that the Supreme Court after the civil war was very activist in striking down reconstruction type legislation. However, if you look at the floor statements of the Amendments primary sponsors it is clear that the 14th Amendment was supposed to incorporate the most fundamental constitutional rights at the state level - though at the time the intent was primarily to due this through the Privileges and Immunities Clause rather than the Due Process Clause.
Remind me again, what do floor statements have to do with interpretation of an Amendment? I thought that was the job of the Courts. Interesting that the Courts that made many of those early decisions probably knew well the 'statements on the floor'. As so many SoCons bleat around here when pointed to the intent of the Constitution by the writers of the Constitution itself, if it's not in the document, it doesn't mean squat.
And if you recall some of those primary sponsors were Radical Republicans, many who would be considered Democrats today considering their love of big government
Bobby already had a long sit-down conversation with my candidate, Alan Keyes, before the Values Voter Debate, after Alan had only been in the race for mere hours.
And, unlike any of the other candidates that I’m aware of, Dr. Keyes actually did everything he could to help Bobby and his family try to save their sister from the cruel and unusual judicial torture murder she, and they, were subjected to.
With the morons we have running politics and the courts these days, it doesn't matter whether it's "in the document" or not.
Florida Constitution, Article One, Section Two:
"Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability."
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law..."
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The floor statements are used by the courts in determining the original intent behind the a constitutional provision if the language is not clear. In this case, the clear intent of congress appears to have been to prevent states from enacting the Black Codes which deprived African Americans of freedom or movement, property, and such things. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided to gut the 14th Amendment in the Civil Rights cases where it decided that the only thing that the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities was only designed to protect specifically federal rights such as the right to petition the national government and the right to travel on the high seas. This decision was an activist decision which clearly went against the expressed Congressional Intent behind the 14th Amendment.
A few later the Courts decided to enshrine the right to contract under the 14th Amendment and throughout the late 1800s and early 1900’s they used the due process clause to strike down any state law regulating the hours of workers or setting a minimum wage. Finally, in the 1930’s the court abandoned using strict scrutiny on economic legislation and started to consider whether the due process clause incorporated some of the protections of liberty enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
So, its a long and very complicated history. However, the one thing that there is no question about is that it gave Congress the power to protect the lives of citizens from arbitrary state action. In the Schievo case the state judiciary put a woman to death without a trial. Congress clearly had the power under the 14th Amendment to intervene.
Duncan Hunter voted to give the federal courts De Novo review of the Schiavo case. Unfortunately, the federal courts decided to fight a turf war and refused to actually review the case de novo. However, Duncan Hunter has consistantly done the right thing on this issue and in one of the debates he went out of his way to say about the Schievo case that you should always err on the side of life and that he thought Congress had done the right thing.
More than you, apparently. The killing of Terri was, as I pointed out, state-enforced. Without the state, it would not have occurred, as there were private parties ready and willing to care for her.
Libertarianism is about individual, not state, rights. The denial of the right to life is definitely a deprivation of liberty.
Funny. I've never been able to find proof that Duncan made the final vote in the House.
In fact, this official document seems to show Congressman Hunter among the 174 members "not voting" on the final bill that went to President Bush for his signature.
How does that jibe with your post?
which candidate will have the gust to say “I would have sent US marshalls to pinelas county/”
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.