Free Republic

Mr. Ramirez is not on “life support.” He is breathing on his own and is simply receiving nourishment and hydration (you know, that “life support” known as food and water) because he is in a medically-induced “coma-like” state.

No, this is not “another Terri Schiavo.” That lasted more than a decade. This man was in a car accident TWO WEEKS ago. He is recovering from that accident. Doctors have determined his prognosis to be that he could possibly be a vegetable or he could possibly regain most normal functions. Much uncertainty to kill him so early in his recovery, don’t you think?

I understand the position about the wife making medical decisions. However, it is not a “medical decision” to prevent a person in recovery from eating and drinking, even if that person can not yet do that on his own. BY AZ law, a surrogate MAY NOT make that decision and without a living will or power of attorney, the wife is SOL in her desire to kill him.

Additionally, this couple had been experiencing a rough time in their marriage for an extended period. They were having an INTENSE fight when the SUV rolled. AZ law requires that if a life/death decision is made, it is made by a competent person who has the injured person’s best interest in mind. Rebecca seemed all too eager to kill him by starvation and dehydration. Therefore, the family has a right to have the questions answered regarding Jesse’s best interests and whether Rebecca is acting in good faith. That insurance money, yes there is insurance money at stake...can’t be a factor, right?

What the parents are asking is that he be given a fair chance at recovery. Ten days (the time from the accident to when his wife ordered that he be moved to hospice and that he be starved and dehydrated to death) IS NOT long enough. Any compassionate human being who knows these facts and considers also that Jesse has three kids ages 17, 14 and 11, could not possibly arrive at the conclusion that he has been given a fair opportunity. That’s all his folks, his brothers, sister and the rest of his family are asking for. They have stated that if his condition is determined by doctors to be hopeless that they will let go, but ten days...too soon.

“kid’s got as much chance as a snowball in Hades, but you gotta give him credit for at least trying.”

To the contrary, ADF has been scoring victories on studnet speech cases across the country. Watch for the school to buckle in 5, 4, 3, 2...

I’ll put a wager on it.

www.telladf.org

Gary—

This is the Alliance Defense Fund’s website. Please consider donating to this rising organization.

Watch this op-ed shred the federalism argument:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1645035/posts

Yes, the issue TJ addressed in his letter to the Danbury Baptists was CLEARLY addressing FREE EXERCISE, not the establishment clause. (I'm sure you meant the 1st Amendment) Despite the screeches by the Left that this peripheral piece of non-binding correspondence bound judges to order the razing of a cross on a memorial to war dead or the sand-blasting of every mention of our TRUE heritage from public floors, wall, doors and halls, the "separation of church and state" is an ugly phantom conjured up by Hugo Black and abused by radicals that wish to remake our society in thier own twisted image. The First Amendment was meant to be a shield, not a sword, but sadly, that's what we've got today.

Thanks GE.

I think our difference rests on what institution is more fear-worthy adorned with additional power -- the Federal govenment with a clear framework enshrined in the Constitution vs. a renegade judiciary within which a single judge with an agenda may impose a whim on the rest of us.

Both troubling for their own reasons, but I'll take a clearly-worded, easily understood, uniform amendment over the mood of a judge ten times out of ten.

Actually, if you read the text of the amendment, it appears to be geared toward federal/federalist concerns. The second sentence reads like it may leave the door open for states to create other benefit sytems, but that no other states would be subject to litigation should such a scheme exist elsewhere in the Union. What do you think?

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Wow, I don't how to start addressing the contradictions in your last post.

"I don't see how your claims that ACLU lawsuits are imminent is a compelling argument for a federal iron fist to preempt the states' right to set their own standards. If court battles ensue, then so be it. I'm not going to wet my pants and go crying to mamma federal government to protect me from the big bad bully."

So you are willing to cede this power to the whim of what could literally be a single judge?

"At face value, an equally viable solution based on your reasoning would be for the federal government to mandate that all states must recognize all marriages from all the other states."

No, because this would force every state to redefine the foundational building block of our society, making the only institution of its kind that the state has any interest in recognizing absolutely meaningless. Not only that, scoff at the slippery slope all you will, but the PRECISE arguments being made by homosexual activists right now WILL be employed by polygamists, polyamorists, close relatives that wish to marry and who knows what else. Advocates of same-sex "marriage" are fully aware of this (including and especially the ACLU, which is already on record as supporting polygamy and striking down age of consent laws) and that proves that they are not fighting FOR marriage, but fighting to destroy it, despite the pretty rhetoric of civil rights (clearly misplaced in this debate).

Bingo.

"No, uniform recognition of the definition of marriage was NOT the requirement. Not having polygamy was the requirement, and no - since it was a condition of statehood, they could not back out and re-legalize it. However, such was NOT a condition, say in New York."

Of course not because in NY it was not an issue. The definition of marriage was not in dispute. The issue of same-sex "marriage" was not even a germ of a thought in ANYONE'S head at the time and had say, Oregon recognized such an oxymoronic institution as SSM, it surely would have been required to scrap it in order to be accepted into the Union. I'm sure you'll agree.

Read my reply to GE above. Pretty simple.

True, but a uniform recognition of the definition of marriage was a REQUIREMENT for statehood. Are you saying that once Utah became a state it would have been justified to pull out of its agreement and re-legalize polygamy? You can't be saying that.

GE--

The piece addresses why an amendment (which, of course would specify what has historically been a given on a federal level AND A REQUIREMENT for statehood) does not run afoul of the concept of federalism and would in fact protect it.

We have situation now in the state of Washington, where we are awaiting a decision from that state's supreme court on marriage. WA does not have a residency requirement, so if the state court decides to redefine marriage, WA will become a "Las Vegas" for same-sex couples to "marry," go back to their own states with license in hand, have their "marriage" not recognized by the home state and have an ACLU attorney at the ready to file a federal lawsuit on a full faith and credit basis.

With this very real possibility on the horizon, is it not wise to settle once and for all (even though it's ludicrous that we are forced to restate that the "Pope is Catholic") what will be recognized as marriage and thus not put every citizen in every state at the mercy of a one-judge majority in one state? After all, once in the constitution, we've solved the problem.

Yes, but the requirement that marriage be federally uniform in composition (one man, one woman) is what the op-ed addresses. Did you read the entire piece?

"I trusted my doctors and then they humiliated my family and me by refusing to perform the insemination procedure after they'd been treating me and promising it to me for nearly a year," she said.

This woman is a flat-out liar and so is her disgusting attorney.

1) She was recently married...to a man. She presented herself initially to this clinic as a married woman.

2) This clinic, though refusing to perform the insemination once they found out the truth, referred her to another area clinic that would inseminate her!

This is a conflation of the oath that binds doctors to treat ill or dying patients regardless of their means or status and an extreme political agenda that aims to stamp out ALL relgious freedom and expression.

People like this have no respect for the Constitution or their fellow Americans. It's such a joke that these are the same people that claim Christians and Conservative are trying to "impose" our ideology on them. HA!

Aaaaaaactually, ADF is suing Penn State right now for its fascist speech codes! Maybe you were being saracastic : )

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3688

It's official -- Al Gore has lied about his country in order to enrage the Muslim world. There has been NO round up of Arabs or Muslims in the wake of 9-11...despite the FACT that there exists a huge, not-so-secret network of terrorists or terrorist-connected people and organizations IN THIS COUNTRY that reaches into EVERY Muslim community in this country and probably EVERY mosque in one way or another.

So why would Gore make something like this up?

Gore's creation of this fantasy land on foreign (enemy) soil -- the description of which can serve no other purpose than to inflame a culture that riots, burns and kills over cartoons -- borders on the criminal. This isn't simply "criticizing the administration," which should not be done under ANY circumstances in the country that MOST generously injects lifeblood into the filthy veins of international terrorism. This slug-slime trail of a man has invented a police state in this country that does not exist for his own twisted political agenda. This can only feed the mass propaganda myth-machine that rules the psyche of the Middle East Islamic terror empire. This is nearly as bad as when Egyptian newspapers make claims about Jews using the blood of "Palestian" children for sacred pudding. Vile falsehoods both. He should be held to account. This is far worse than mere stupidity (although that is certainly a factor).


No matter which way you slice it, Gore's comments in that forum were scandalous. Anyone who comes to his defense is immoral, hates his country and is quite possibly deranged

Hey Sam --

Glad you asked. Read the new book!

www.acluvsamerica.com

You will get more specifics than you ever thought you'd need.

Funny how the ACLU classifies this under "Reproductive Freedom." Wuh? Sanoty below!

ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND NEWS RELEASE
August 23, 2005 - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT ADF MEDIA RELATIONS: (480) 444-0020



Court awards ADF right to intervene
on behalf of abstinence-only sex education program

ADF attorneys moving forward on behalf of Silver Ring Thing
in ACLU of Massachusetts v. Leavitt



BOSTON - A federal court has granted attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund the right to intervene on behalf of Silver Ring Thing, an abstinence-based sex education program in danger of losing federal funding because of an ACLU lawsuit.

"ADF chose to represent SRT because the program offers kids the truth about the only certain way to avoid the destructive effects of premarital sex: abstinence," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster. "We are continuing our fight to show SRT has not run afoul of the law and in fact never utilized funding for religious indoctrination or teaching, as the ACLU claims."

SRT's program encourages teenagers to sign a pledge of abstinence until marriage and to wear a silver ring as a reminder of their vow.

The ACLU of Massachusetts filed its lawsuit, ACLU of Massachusetts v. Leavitt, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts last month against federal officials in charge of funding sex education programs. The ACLU claims that funding provided by the federal government to SRT constitutes an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

According to the motion to intervene, SRT has a direct interest in the outcome of the case since the ACLU is challenging SRT's constitutional right to participate in government funding programs free from religious discrimination (www.telladf.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3468).

"Time and time again, the effectiveness of abstinence-only education programs has been proven," Oster said. "The ACLU's continuing crusade to undermine programs which encourage teenagers to remain abstinent shows again their ethical shortcomings and an agenda which is beneficial to no one."

Oster clarified the facts about the recent decision of the Department of Health and Human Services with regard to funding for SRT: "HHS has asked SRT to clarify its guidelines to make sure that money is not spent inappropriately, but made no finding that money was spent inappropriately. HHS simply wants assurance that all guidelines will be met. SRT is working toward that end, as it always has."

ADF-allied attorneys Robert Kilroy and Mirick O'Connell of Westborough are local counsel in the case.

ADF is America's largest legal alliance defending religious liberty through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.



www.telladf.org

Adding another member to the swelling ranks of the Left’s Consolidated Caucus of Moral Midgetry is the working man’s equivalent of stuffing 12 pounds of meat in a six-ounce sausage skin. But hey, these are the Democrats Version .05 we’re talking about. Infinitely Infantile Intellectuality International, welcome your newest member – Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.

Durbin in his own words describing conditions at the terrorist (I’m talking about the detainees, not the troops Dick) prison at Gitmo: “If…I did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in the gulags or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings.”

Senator, by last count, those good folks you mentioned slaughtered about the equivalent of the population of California. Throw Chairman Mao’s rosy record in there and the slaughter count would provide an easy U.S. electoral victory (for Democrats of course, remember – these are corpses voting). Interesting Durbin didn’t mention that paragon of perfidy Fidel on his own turf, whose own prisons I’m sure offer preferable accoutrements. I know, keep Castro out of this, he provided Spielberg the most important moment of his life…

I fully appreciate that the United States operates by a different standard of conduct than the unholy hordes of the New Dark Age that have (shake Durbin awake and let him know please Illinois) declared war on this country. It’s trite by now, but I’ll repeat it – this enemy will kill anyone anywhere and will die to kill, no hesitation. They adhere to no recognized law or code – just kill, baby. I pray thankfully every day that I am an American because we are exceptional – economically, culturally, militarily and, most importantly, morally. Yes it’s true Senator Durbin, we ARE better – welcome to the dimension called reality.

America being better is a given and we’ve gone above and beyond to live up to that expectation, so we’ll move on. I think it’s appropriate (but unbelievable that it is necessary) to explain that while we are different from the Nazis (duh), the inhuman detritus being held in Gitmo (average weight gain – 13 lbs. each – give any visitor to Club Auschwitz that little tidbit before beginning a panel discussion on torture) are even more different than the victims of the Honor Roll on which Durbin listed our troops.

Victims of Nazis-Soviets-Khmer Rogue: innocent civilians starved, raped, butchered, maimed, experimented on; most for the high crime of not liking Communism or being Jewish or simply being alive in the wrong place at the wrong time. Detainees in Gitmo: war criminals, murderers and terrorists (don’t tell me “there’s no evidence or charges against them”) picked up as illegal combatants trying to fill their Karmic Morgue with American Infidels on the Road to Paradise. These butchers get a little hot and Democrats want to have a PBS telethon? Try flipping back the flap of a Marine tent in the middle of Iraq if you want to know hot, Senator.

I’d like to ask Sen. Durbin if his thinks Nazi troops that bayoneted babies or gulag guards that performed mass executions were innocent victims of their respective regimes. Presumably, and correctly, he’d answer no. Next logical step – if he thinks our troops and public servants responsible for oversight and interrogation of Gitmo prisoners are engaging in Khmer Rogue-like slaughter, wouldn’t our troops need to be tried for war crimes and crimes against the precious humanity of our enemy? Of course, it’s fashionable for Democrats these days to choke out their “support the troops, oppose the war” pap, but this is one they can’t outrun. He directly attacked the troops in an obscene, but inevitable, progression of collecting Democrat rhetorical precedent.

This historic idiocy and historical illiteracy should not surprise us; consider the source. The maddening thing is that there are many people of undetectable character and judgment occupying the highest levels of our government trusted with our nation’s secrets as is the case with Dick Durbin. So while it’s fun to hurl buckets of well-earned invective and revel in the missteps of unworthy rubes like the popularly-elected Durbin, it requires that one step back and evaluate why Churchill really said that democracy is the worst system of government aside from all the others. He must have had Dick Durbin in mind.