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

Skip to comments.

FLA. SENATE GETS INTO COMATOSE WOMAN TIFF (AP HEADLINE); SENATE VOTE EXPECTED BY TONIGHT
Associated Press ^ | Oct. 21, 2003 | Associated Press

Posted on 10/21/2003 5:55:07 AM PDT by varina davis

Fla. Senate Gets Into Comatose Woman Tiff

October 21, 2003 07:49 AM EDT

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Florida House lawmakers stepped into the contentious battle over the fate of a brain-damaged woman slowly starving to death, voting the governor new powers to restore her feeding tube.

The Florida Senate scheduled a vote Tuesday on a House-passed bill to let Gov. Jeb Bush intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo, one of the nation's longest and most bitter euthanasia cases.

Schiavo has been at the center of a court battle between her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and her husband, Michael Schiavo. The parents want Terri Schiavo to live, and her husband says she would rather die.

The Florida Supreme Court has twice refused to hear the case, and it also has been rejected for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Last week, a Florida appeals court again refused to block removal of the tube.

The House measure would give the state's governor 15 days to order a feeding tube to be reinserted in cases like Schiavo's. The governor's power would be limited to cases where a person has left no living will, is in a persistent vegetative state, has had nutrition and hydration tubes removed and where a family member has challenged the removal.

Bush said in a statement earlier Monday that lawmakers understand the "unique and tragic circumstances of Ms. Schiavo's case, and I am hopeful the Legislature will pass a bill immediately."

The House voted 68-23 for the bill late Monday. The Senate Rules Committee planned to take the bill up Tuesday morning, with the full Senate scheduling a vote by early evening.

George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo, said he thinks the legislation would be unconstitutional. He said it is Terri Schiavo's right under the Florida Constitution to not be kept alive artificially.

Court-appointed doctors have described the 39-year-old woman as being in a vegetative state, caused when her heart stopped in 1990 from a suspected chemical imbalance. Her feeding tube was removed Wednesday.

Doctor said she will die in a week to 10 days without the tube.

Schiavo's family members believe she is capable of learning how to eat and drink on her own and say she has shown signs of trying to communicate and could be rehabilitated. Michael Schiavo says he is carrying out his wife's wishes that she not be kept alive artificially.

During a two-hour debate in the House, several Democrats argued that the Constitution doesn't allow the Legislature to give governors the power to overrule the courts.

"This bill so oversteps our role it ... turns democracy on its head," Rep. Dan Gelber said.

But Republicans said that where judges might be wrong, especially in cases like Schiavo's, such legislation is desperately needed.

"The Constitution is supposed to protect the people of this state," said Rep. Sandy Murman. "Who is protecting this girl?"

The House action came hours after a state agency for the disabled asked a U.S. judge in Tampa to keep the woman alive so it could investigate a claim that she is being abused by having the tube removed. The judge was expected to rule as early as Tuesday.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ap; assininepress; senate; terri; vote
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-185 next last
To: wirestripper
The courts have granted the executive branch special powers

I think that just about says it all regarding which branch is currently above itself, don't you? The public (through the Constitution) "grants powers." The courts have no authority.

101 posted on 10/21/2003 7:54:02 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Where am I? Who are all these kids, and why are they calling me Mom?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
The public (through the Constitution) "grants powers." The courts have no authority.

Uhh.........????

I am afraid I do not follow that logic.

As far as I know, the "vote" is where the power resides in the people.

Under the Constitution the Court has the responsibility and the rights to interpret the law. And to make a judgment regarding the law. That authority is their purview.

102 posted on 10/21/2003 8:01:06 AM PDT by Cold Heat ("It is easier for an ass to succeed in that trade than any other." [Samuel Clemens, on lawyers])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
The public (through the Constitution) "grants powers."

Yes, excellent point. Too few people realize that, I think.
103 posted on 10/21/2003 8:01:18 AM PDT by iowamomforfreedom (Why is it illegal to starve an animal but not a human being?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
The people's representatives, in convention, originally distributed the powers of government among the branches by means of the State and Federal Constitutions. *In theory*, each branch has only the powers granted by the Constitution; no branch has the authority to "grant powers" to any other.

As you noted, judges have the Constitutional authority to interpret the law. When they do anything further, they have overstepped their authority.
104 posted on 10/21/2003 8:12:30 AM PDT by Tax-chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
As you noted, judges have the Constitutional authority to interpret the law. When they do anything further, they have overstepped their authority.

We come full circle and get back to my point and reality.

The court did interpret the law and that interpretation is what is being overridden by the legislative branch by creating new law.

If this were to occur in every instance, then Al Gore would now be president of These United States.

105 posted on 10/21/2003 8:18:29 AM PDT by Cold Heat ("It is easier for an ass to succeed in that trade than any other." [Samuel Clemens, on lawyers])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief
Make sure if any of you can that the bill is written properly. Should we focus on the wording of the bill? There pay be a problem with the line "persistent vegatative state". What if the individual is not in a coma?

That's the main reason for this measure. They've redefined "persistent vegetative state" to mean "brain injury". Slippery Slope City. The camel's nose is under the tent, all the way up to the second hump.

106 posted on 10/21/2003 8:26:22 AM PDT by Don Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
I KNOW you're mistaken, that judges Constitutionally have this kind of power, but I've confused myself and have to allow that you've won this argument :-).

And not only that, but my kids are running amok while I'm involved with this, so I think it's clearly time for Xy to stop FReeping and start praying.

"Do not fear those who can kill the body, but cannot destroy the soul."
107 posted on 10/21/2003 8:27:50 AM PDT by Tax-chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: varina davis
No action until 6:45PM. Are these fools truly so detached from reality or do they really want this woman to die. Every minute counts but they just plod along. Fools or devils?

Either way, it scares the bejeebers out of me to realize that they hold the power of life and death over this woman.

How can such people be elected to any public office? So absorbed in themselves and their process, Just so absorbed

108 posted on 10/21/2003 8:28:04 AM PDT by isrul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
I liked what that one congressman said last night, i.e., we pass unconstitutional laws all the time, and then let the courts hash them out later.

The spectacle of watching hypocrites and liars drape themselves in the flag, as they use it to cloak their true intentions -- to kill the innocent because a major industry is lobbying HARD for the right to kill for profit -- was enough to gag a maggot.
109 posted on 10/21/2003 8:28:33 AM PDT by Don Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: iowamomforfreedom
I agree wholeheartedly. This should never have gotten to where Terri's tube was pulled. I have a lot of blame for the various public officials. This needs to be resolved ASAP today so that Terri can get the proper care for what they have already done to her.
110 posted on 10/21/2003 8:31:22 AM PDT by pc93 (A good site to visit is http://www.terrisfight.org . Oct. 15th 2pm death order must be stopped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
And the courts allow unconstitutional laws to stand, if a judge or two likes them, and say measures (or individual actions) are "unconstitutional" when they disagree with them. It's all frightful, and I can see millions marching like zombies off to the death camps ... er, hospices, because nobody wants to disobey a judge who thinks he's God, or who's owned by those interests you mention.

But now I've GOT to get back to my real life ... Prayer will be of use to Terri; what I'm doing now isn't :-).

FReegards, Xy

111 posted on 10/21/2003 8:32:44 AM PDT by Tax-chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: UnsinkableMollyBrown
This is a question. Did Terri have a life insurance
policy at the time of her initial collapse? I haven't
heard any real information on that, so does anyone here
have that information?
112 posted on 10/21/2003 8:39:39 AM PDT by Twinkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
"That's the main reason for this measure. They've redefined "persistent vegetative state" to mean "brain injury". Slippery Slope City. The camel's nose is under the tent, all the way up to the second hump."

I like the way you put the redefinition of "persistent vegetative state".
113 posted on 10/21/2003 8:41:42 AM PDT by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: mickie
"I thought that Medicare was paying the hospice bill.
What exaxtly is ms doing with the money except paying for the lawyers."

I made an assumption that the hospice bills were coming out of the settlement money. I would like to know who is paying the hospice bill.

If the husband isn't even paying for that, I don't see why this isn't considered fraud, since the funds were for Terri's welfare.

Hopefully we can save Terri, but I sure want an autospy done if she dies. Evidently the husband says no autospy and a quick cremation. He may want to hide old wounds or he doesn't want the public to know how Terri suffered while her family looked on helpless.
114 posted on 10/21/2003 8:46:29 AM PDT by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Kuby should write a living will. As should anybody who doesn't want a Terri like end.

Kuby finished up his remarks by advising everyone to write a living will.

Kuby's own living will, he said, says EVEN IF I'M IN A VEGETATIVE STATE, ASSUME I WANT TO LIVE.

115 posted on 10/21/2003 8:53:59 AM PDT by shhrubbery!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
"Do not fear those who can kill the body, but cannot destroy the soul."

I was not trying to win anything, just inject a bit of rational thinking into this very emotionaly charged situation.

I could not help it.

As to fear and death, I think about it often.(morbid)

It happens when you get older and the kids have been raised.

Good luck with those youngins! They are everything.

116 posted on 10/21/2003 9:02:14 AM PDT by Cold Heat ("It is easier for an ass to succeed in that trade than any other." [Samuel Clemens, on lawyers])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
No, I didn't think you were trying to "win," just that I think you're wrong but can't figure out how to put it :-). Thanks for your kind wishes - it's really loud here, but I wouldn't have anything different!

(See how long my resolution to get back to real life lasted!)
117 posted on 10/21/2003 9:04:56 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Going to pray now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
It is the proper business of the Florida legislature, or the legslature of any state, to write laws concerning the health and welfare of their citizens. There is no question that Florida can pass this law if it chooses, and that the Governor can act under the law, as soon as it is passed and he signs it into law.

There is no conflict between the Florida court that ordered the feeding tube removed (and the US District Court which decided it had no jurisdiction to act in this state matter), and the Florida legislature. The Florida court acted on the basis of the law as it existed when it made its decision. Being bound to obey the law of its own jurisdiction, the Florida court would and should reverse its prior decision when acting under the new law. As for the US Court, I believe it was correct to rule that this was a state issue, not a federal issue.

Hope that's helpful.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Three People who Have it Coming," discussion thread. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

118 posted on 10/21/2003 9:18:17 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Okee Dokee, one more for you.

What IF the court refuses to reverse itself under the new law? Because the decisions were made under old law is Greer's decision still valid? Help me here, lol.

119 posted on 10/21/2003 9:58:44 AM PDT by PleaseNoMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: isrul
No action until 6:45PM. Are these fools truly so detached from reality or do they really want this woman to die.

Both. Only a fool that is so truly detached from reality would really want this woman to die.

They have pushed this country to the brink. I've seen calls for insurrection. There are people -- a growing number of people -- who are seeing this as a "Lexington and Concord Moment."

I am not endorsing this, merely noting that I've observed it via posts copied here. And I do think the risk is real.

What are these "leaders" thinking? That if things do boil over, they'll simply pass some ultra-draconian legislation that they've been keeping at the ready for a moment such as this? What would that accomplish? The people who've been pushed past the brink will say oh, it's illegal, I'd better pack my bags and go home?

Nope. Just the opposite will happen. Think back to all the really ugly riots this country has seen. Then tell yourself that they were nothing, compared to what will happen here if they push things truly past the breaking point.

If they do push the country into a major insurrection, it won't be like "1776 Version 2.0". It'll be more like the French Revolution, only bloodier and far more brutal -- on both sides.

Given the sensitivity of the subject, I will repeat -- I do not endorse this. I am merely observing the growing frustration and anger, which is seething just below the boiling point. Should it break past the boiling point, all bets are off.

Don't shoot the messenger!

120 posted on 10/21/2003 10:06:35 AM PDT by Don Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-185 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