Still Waiting

Dakota Voice ^ | 1/29/2007 | Carrie K. Hutchens

[8mmMauser]

I don't know about anyone else, but I am still waiting for Michael Schiavo to make a correction on his blog about what "actually" took place in Colorado when he went there (to the debate) to supposedly ask Congresswoman Musgrave one question and she and her staff supposedly tried to have him removed. He called it, "My unreal night in Colorado - with radio link" (Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:05:14 PM PST). I'll say (from what I read) that it was his "unreal night".

As I said before in "Standing up and Admitting a Mistake: Not Schiavo's Style?",  if four uniformed officers were around my seat, I would have some idea of what was going on. I certainly wouldn't be sitting in "duh mode" to only be told later of what took place right there around me, as Michael suggests he was. If Michael's account is realistic -- his response and reaction is not. Nor is his response appropriate now that he has "learned" what he was "allegedly told" is not what took place. One would think if he can't get the words out that he was mistaken, he could at least have removed the inaccurate entry from his blog.

He has done neither.

I'm also still waiting to read about, "Also, maybe tomorrow I'll post about my election-eve rally with Bill Clinton in Florida." (A real election impact by Michael Schiavo, Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:40:34 AM PST).  Indeed, I would love to read that story by Michael, since I read it was not possible. Not if he was implying it was the Bill Clinton that is the former President of the United States. Will be interesting to see what he says about that if he ever does.

If Michael couldn't get it straight what happened at the Musgrave debate or even if he spent election-eve with former President Bill Clinton -- do you suppose he might have gotten Terri Schiavo's wishes mixed-up as well? (He does claim to have a bad memory from what I read.) Makes one wonder. At least makes me wonder. Whatever...

I'm still waiting for the corrections if not the explanations!

 

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

[Sun]

Please consider signing this petition to stop abortions in Mexico:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1822243/posts?page=13

[8mmMauser]

Did so. Thanks.

[8mmMauser]

I am not sure why this suddenly appeared in today's New Standard without explanation, a news article on Terri from 2004, but it did...

May 10, 2004 – This week, a Florida judge ruled that "Terri’s Law," which granted Florida Governor Jeb Bush authority to intervene in the death by starvation of severely mentally disabled Terri Schindler-Schiavo, is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Schindler-Schiavo’s parents asked the courts to intervene on their behalf against Michael Schiavo, Terri’s husband, who has denied the Schindlers visitation access to their daughter. In their lawsuit, the Schindlers are seeking to remove Michael Schiavo as Terri’s legal guardian, alleging he has neglected her care and therefore has no legal authority over her.

The controversy surrounding Terri Schindler-Schiavo’s health care rights has pitted her parents, disability advocates and "right-to-life" organizations against her husband, civil libertarians, and "right-to-die" organizations.

On Thursday, Circuit Court Judge W. Douglas Baird ruled to strike, on grounds of unconstitutionality, an October 2003 state law allowing Governor Jeb Bush to intervene in Schindler-Schiavo’s case. The bill was signed into law seven days after Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube had been removed.

‘Terri's Law’ Struck Down; Rights Groups Side With Parents

8mm

[8mmMauser]

Boston Globe-al warning...

.............................

The New England Journal of Medicine this afternoon published online two commentaries and an editorial critical of the US Supreme Court's decision last week upholding the federal ban on the abortion procedure that opponents call "partial-birth abortion."

"With this decision the Supreme Court has sanctioned the intrusion of legislation into the day-to-day practice of medicine," writes Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen, the Boston-based journal's editor. Physicians are open to oversight and discussion of delicate matters, he says, but those discussions should occur "among informed and knowledgable people who are acting in the best interests of a specific patient."

The political ruckus over Terri Schiavo in 2005 demonstrated "the disastrous consequences of congressional interference" in a medical case, Drazen writes. And now, "the judicial branch has regrettably joined the legislative branch in practicing medicine without a licence."

Journal decries Supreme Court abortion ruling

8mm

[8mmMauser]

In the Washington Post, an article appears, a "touching" story on the justification of killing a baby in the twentieth week. When I first saw the title and realized it was also about Terri, I could have thought perhaps this article was about the denying of Terri the Right to Choose.

Wrong in so many ways...

The pregnancy was planned and joyful. The young California health aide and her teacher husband had just announced it to their families with a celebratory video of themselves playing "Wheel of Fortune." "I was really blessed," McNichol, now 49, says.

~Snip~

Though her health and her concern about it worsened by the day, she still hoped to continue the pregnancy. But eventually, she began asking her closest relatives and friends what to do. "The worst part of it was that it was never clear," McNichol says. "I never knew what was the right thing to do."

At 20 weeks, McNichol had an abortion using a procedure she says fit the description of the intact extraction method that the U.S. Supreme Court banned last week. Afterward, she learned her condition was placental abruption -- the placenta, which nourishes the fetus, was breaking up and sloughing off from her uterus. The condition can cause a woman to bleed to death. "It's one of the causes of maternal death," McNichol says.

McNichol went on to have two healthy pregnancies. Her children are now teenagers. She first told her story in a friend-of-court brief submitted to the lower courts as the landmark abortion case wound its way upward.

~Snip~

We are all Terri Schiavo now. We all can be subject to second-guessing of our family's medical choices from the halls of Congress.

McNichol's doctors couldn't diagnose what was wrong. How could the justices? How could 535 members of the House and Senate -- 448 of them men -- prescribe the best medicine for a woman they've never met, let alone examined with a trained eye?

"I have to tell you, I asked everyone -- what should I do?" McNichol says. "I never thought about calling up my representative in Congress to ask them what to do. There was no way that someone who has any other agenda but my well-being could make that decision.It wasn't a political decision. It was a medical, personal decision."

It is the sort of decision American women no longer can assume they are free to make.

When women can't choose

8mm

[8mmMauser]

Wagglebee thread on new law proposed. If only they would have wished Terri could have the "Right to Choose"...

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The pro-abortion Freedom of Choice Act was officially introduced on Thursday and the legislation would codify the Roe v. Wade decision into law. That would make legalized abortion the law of the land, but it also would overturn the pro-life laws state legislature have enacted.

The FOCA bill would "bar government, at any level, from interfering with a woman's fundamental right to choose to bear a child or to terminate a pregnancy."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, is behind the bill in the Senate and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, is the sponsor of the bill in the House.

"We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect a woman's constitutional right to choose," Nadler said in introducing the bill and responding to the high court's decision to uphold a national ban on partial-birth abortions.

Pro-Abortion Freedom of Choice Act Officially Introduced in Congress

8mm

[8mmMauser]

It's Rudy Tuesday again!

Thread from wagglebee on Rudy latest...

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Rudy Giuliani is continuing his slide in the polls following an abortion flap two weeks ago in which he declared his support for taxpayer-funded abortions and promptly reversed his position a day later. A poll conducted by Fox News finds Giuliani sliding down four percentage points in their surveys since February.

In February's poll, the former New York City mayor had 39 percent of the support of Republican voters but that dropped to 35 percent in the April 17-18 survey.

Rudy Giuliani Continues Slide in Republican Polls After Abortion Flaps

8mm

[8mmMauser]

Rudy Tuesday continues...

With Giuliani, we don't know any of this. The only positions he's taken on national issues in the last year or two have, far from challenging any orthodoxies, consisted of praising George W. Bush and sucking up to the right as much as humanly possible. He supports the war and the surge. He said he'd appoint judges in the mold of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Accepting the endorsement of Steve Forbes, he embraced Forbes' regressive flat tax, which 11 years ago he'd branded a "disaster." He hired a Texas-based consulting firm, Olsen & Shuvalov, that grew out of Karl Rove's old firm. He hired Ted Olson, the former solicitor general and guru for the "Arkansas Project" (the right's campaign to dig up or fabricate dirt on Bill Clinton), to advise him on legal issues. He even said, in 2005, that he backed Bush and Bill Frist in the Terri Schiavo case, and that he would have signed legislation to keep her feeding tube in. Most tellingly of all, this former U.S. attorney, who has a keen understanding of the freedom that prosecutors need from political pressure to do their jobs properly, said not a single word about the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department for weeks after the scandal became public. And when he finally spoke, on March 21, it was merely to offer a defense of Alberto Gonzales as a "decent man" who deserved "the benefit of the doubt." This was after the release of e-mails showing that Gonzales was more involved in the firings than he had acknowledged.

What Rudy Believes

8mm

[Sun]

If anyone is interested in submitting, or voting for, pro-life questions, etc. for the Republican debate, details here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1822424/posts

[8mmMauser]

Thread on a cartoon blasting pro-life by NYer. Thanks, NYer, thanks Coleus.

Philadelphia, PA (LifeNews.com) -- The Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper is coming under fire for a cartoon it ran following the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the federal partial-birth abortion ban. The cartoon entitled “Church and State” features the five Catholic members of the high court wearing bishop miters.

Joseph Cella, the head of Fidelis, a leading Catholic pro-life group, says the newspaper, "has breached the line of reasonable editorial commentary. This cartoon is venomous, terribly misleading and, blatantly anti-Catholic."

Pro-Life Group Blasts Philadelphia Inquirer's Anti-Catholic Abortion Cartoon

8mm

[8mmMauser]

Thanks, Sun. Repeating for emphasis...

The Republican candidates for president will be debating on May 3, and Politico wants user-submitted questions that they'll ask during the debate. The event will be broadcast live on MSNBC and streamed live at Politico.com. All of the GOP candidates appear to have been invited, but I don't know which will show up.

You can submit your questions at the link, and you can indicate which candidate it's for. You need to sign up first, but that's free.

Please think up specific, adversarial questions designed to reveal flaws in the positions or statements of the various candidates. I.e., no general, open-ended, etc. questions. Before posting a question, imagine how the candidate will respond. Make sure they can't respond with their stock talking points, and try to make it as difficult as possible for them to evade the question. ................

Submit presidential debate questions (MSNBC/Politico, May 3)

8mm

[8mmMauser]

I emphasize that this is but an excerpt. These august writers are loathe to have anyone swipe their pearls of wisdom, nay even their black pearls.

It would appear that these sensitive beings are not bothered by the thought of pulling a helpless baby out of the womb and slaughtering it, but have nightmares if this pleasure may be threatened.

......................

This recently affirmed law politicizes a highly private and personal decision. Think back to 2005, when the Republicans who controlled Congress passed special, highly discriminatory legislation aimed at preventing the husband of Terri Schiavo from exercising his right to make decisions about his comatose wife’s medical care.

 

Those who want the government – federal, state or local – intervening in and dictating the course of personal medical decisions are no doubt ecstatic. The rest of us should be furious and very, very alarmed.

 

If you like this writer's work, please contact your local newspaper editors and ask them to carry it. To offer feedback on this column, click here.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ruling Makes Nightmare Reality

8mm

[T'wit]

I can't see why it's appearing three years late either, but the lies march on and on...

>> Baird ruled that Bush had violated Terri Schindler-Schiavo’s privacy and her constitutional right to make her own decisions regarding her health.

She didn't make any decision.

"By substituting the personal judgment of the governor for that of the patient, the act deprives every individual who is subject to its terms of his or her constitutionally guaranteed right to the privacy of his or her own medical decisions," said Baird.

Notice that it is actually Judge Baird substituting HIS judgment. Terri never asked to die. By this twisting of words and reason, Judge Baird killed an innocent woman.

[T'wit]

>> The political ruckus over Terri Schiavo in 2005 demonstrated "the disastrous consequences of congressional interference" in a medical case, Drazen writes.

This man is evil. "Congressional interference" had no medical effect whatsoever on Terri. He's not talking about medicine anyway. He is reciting the politics of death. We need not be surprised that he supports baby-killing.

[T'wit]

The Democrats are a majority on Congress for a few weeks and they introduce an act to kill babies.

I wonder how many more months it will be before they introduce an act to exterminate senior citizens, people with mental problems and disabled persons.

And how many months after that until the act is amended to define conservative views as being mental problems that are to be exterminated.

[8mmMauser]

One more item for Rudy Tuesday...

Just gotta ping it again today...

The thread continues apace, is too good to miss, even though I mostly lurk there. Plenty of our Terri List like EV are in there pitching and pinning the ears back on the detractors.

Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?

8mm

[8mmMauser]

They already redefined Christianity and pregnancy as a disease. (to be eradicated...)

[T'wit]

>> He even said, in 2005, that he backed Bush and Bill Frist in the Terri Schiavo case, and that he would have signed legislation to keep her feeding tube in.

OMG! He'd "even" prevent the murder of an innocent disabled woman!!! The man will stop at nothing!

[T'wit]

>> With Giuliani, we don't know any of this.

I have to agree. Giuliani is such a flip-flopper, you never know what he believes. It's mildly positive that today he is appealing to the conservatives he snubbed throughout his career. It reminds us that conservatives have voting power. Nevertheless, when he changes positions, he reminds us that to him, there are no fixed principles. It's all politics.

And that view is absolutely unacceptable to people who take a principled position on issues.

[T'wit]

Polls, polls, polls. I have no use for polls, even when our side does the rigging :-) For one thing, we are pretending to read the minds of great numbers of people. A fortune teller on 9th Avenue will do it better. For another, most of them are manifestly unfit to offer an opinion on policy questions -- especially the ones who think they are well informed. For yet another, what bloody difference does it make who they like and what they think?

In the marketplace, you express your opinion by paying dollars for this or refusing to buy that. Now that is opinion you can count on. In politics, your opinion costs nothing and is worth not a penny more.