Act NOW to Save Terri Schiavo!

Anne

New member
Press Release

For immediate release:
Thursday, March 3, 2005

CONGRESS CAN ACT TO HELP SAVE TERRI SCHINDLER-SCHIAVO
CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE NOW
Read the proposed Bill here TerrisFight

Washington, D.C. -- The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) is calling on Congress to enact a bill to be introduced by Representative Dave Weldon, M.D. (R-Fl-15) that would give the Schindler family access to a federal court to argue for the life of their daughter, Terri Schindler-Schiavo.

“Congress can act to ensure a federal court hearing on whether or not Terri will die of starvation and dehydration,” said Lori Kehoe, Congressional Liaison for NRLC’s Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics. “A proceeding known as the ‘writ of habeas corpus,’ which is protected by the U.S. Constitution, has been used for centuries to give a hearing to those whose liberty has been constrained by state courts in violation of the Constitution or federal laws. We call on all citizens to immediately contact their U.S. Senators and Representatives and urge them to support Representative Weldon’s bill to amend the Habeas Corpus Act to allow its use when a state court orders denial of food or fluids in cases like Terri’s.”

Representative Weldon has announced that he will introduce the Incapacitated Person’s Legal Protection Act on Tuesday, March 8, 2005.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE FEDERAL “TERRI’S LAW” --
THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S LIFE PROTECTION ACT

What is “habeas corpus”?

“Habeas Corpus” is the Latin name for a special procedure, dating back to England in the Middle Ages, by which a court can review whether someone is being unlawfully deprived of liberty. It was used by English courts long before Parliament gave it statutory form in the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. Brought over to the American colonies, it was considered such a fundamental source of protection of liberty that it was protected from suspension, except in cases like rebellion or invasion, by the U.S. Constitution.

Under “habeas corpus,” how does a federal court review a state court decision?

When every state court effort has failed, the person denied liberty files a petition in federal district court, which considers whether federally protected rights have been violated and which, in appropriate circumstances, can conduct fact-finding procedures. The losing party in federal district court can appeal to a federal circuit court of appeals. The Supreme Court can choose to hear an appeal from the appellate court.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Terri’s case. Does that mean lower federal courts can’t do so?

No. When the Supreme Court chooses not to hear a particular appeal, that is not a ruling on the merits and sets no precedent. In fact, most habeas corpus proceedings in federal district court come after the Supreme Court has refused to consider a “direct” appeal from the highest state court.

Isn’t habeas corpus for people who are in jail?

Habeas corpus began as a means for prisoners to get court review of their detention, and the law refers to those who are “in custody.” However, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted in a 1968 case, “[T]he use of habeas corpus has not been restricted to situations in which the applicant is in actual, physical custody. ... n the state courts, as in England, habeas corpus has been widely used by parents disputing over which is the fit and proper person to have custody of their child .... History, usage, and precedent can leave no doubt that, besides physical imprisonment, there are other restraints on a man's liberty, restraints not shared by the public generally, which have been thought sufficient in the English-speaking world to support the issuance of habeas corpus.”

Why does Congress need to act?

Although Terri’s case fits well conceptually with habeas corpus, it is unclear that the current statutes and precedents give her a right to it. Since the Constitution went into effect, Congress has frequently expanded, contracted, and modified both who has a right to habeas corpus and the standards for habeas corpus review. It has the clear constitutional authority to amend the law to make provision for cases like Terri’s.

When a case like Terri’s has been considered by the state courts, why should we add an extra layer of federal court review?

To avoid the danger that an innocent person might be put to death, those whom state courts have convicted of mass murder or other capital crimes have long had the recognized right to federal court habeas corpus review. If we accord that right to someone like John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy, shouldn’t we give at least equal protection to someone with a disability, charged with no crime, who is at risk of being starved and dehydrated to death?

TerrisFight
 

Anne

New member
Press Release

For Immediate Release
March 5, 2005 - 3.30pm ET (GMT-5)

Attorneys for Bob and Mary Schindler have filed 17 affidavits in support of their motion asking Judge Greer to let medical evaluations be performed on Terri in light of recent advances in medical technologies. The affidavits are from various experts in the medical field. They are urging that Terri be evaluated based on the fact that new evaluation and therapeutic technologies can significantly impact brain damaged and disabled persons. Many of them have stated that there is strong likelihood that Terri is in a minimally conscious state.

More affidavits are expected to be filed next week in support of the Schindler's motion.

Affidavit of Dr. Ralph Ankenman, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Pamela Hyikn, SLP
Affidavit of Dr. Beatrice Engstrand, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Jill Joyce, Phd
Affidavit of Dr. Alyse Eytan, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Philip Kennedy, MD, Phd
Affidavit of Dr. Harry Sawyer Goldsmith, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Kyle Lakas, MS, CCC, SLP
Affidavit of Dr. Jacob Green, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Richard Neubauer, MD, PA
Affidavit of Dr. Carolyn Heron, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Ricardo Senno, MD, MS, FAAPMR
Affidavit of Dr. David Hopper, PhD
Affidavit of Dr. Stanley Terman, MD, Phd
Affidavit of Dr. Lawrence Huntoon, MD
Affidavit of Dr. J. Michael Uszler, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Richard Weidman, MD
See her website for details: TerrisFight
 

Anne

New member
Important Action Items

March 7, 2005 – As you may already know, Terri’s case has reached a critical point. Judge George W. Greer has ordered that her nutrition and hydration be removed on March 18, 2005. This will begin a long and painful death process for Terri if his order is carried out.

There are still some things that can spare Terri, and disabled people like her, from this type of forced death. Some of them require your help.

1. Florida’s House and Senate are considering a dehydration and starvation protection act that would require stronger evidence of informed consent prior to removing assisted food and fluids from an incapacitated patient. If you are a Floridian, a disability advocate or an elder care advocate, you can let Florida’s lawmakers know that you want them to consider such an act.

Contact Florida’s Lawmakers here.
www.flsnate.gov – Senate
www.myfloridahouse.com - House

2. The US Congress will consider a bill titled the Incapacitated Person’s Legal Protection Act on Tuesday, March 8, 2005. This bill, if signed into law, would entitle incapacitated persons to the federal review of their rights (known as habeas corpus) and would help ensure that they have been fairly represented. You can encourage your representative to give favorable consideration of this act. Habeas corpus protections are currently available to the worst convicted criminals; this new law would make it clear that disabled Americans are entitled to at least as much legal protection.

Contact your representative here.
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ - US House of Representatives
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ - US Congress

3. Seventeen doctors – neurologists, physicians and pathologists, have signed statements in Terri Schiavo’s guardianship proceedings to support new neurological testing protocols for her. This is important because of recent findings that may support the position that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state and can be trained to communicate in spite of her limitations. Disability advocates across North America are calling for an immediate moratorium on deprivation deaths for disabled people like Terri until these new protocols can be enacted as an updated avenue of testing. We ask that you contact your state representatives and ask that they consider such a moratorium.

Contact your state house and senate.
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ - US House of Representatives
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ - US Congress

4. The Justice Coalition has petitioned the Governor of the State of Florida to invoke statutory protections for Terri Schiavo pending an investigation into abuse, neglect and exploitation against her.

Sign the petition here.
http://www.justicecoalition.org/petition2.htm

5. Terri’s family have filed a number of motions and petitions to the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Pinellas and Pasco Counties and continue to process several different appeals in the Florida courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read the latest here.
http://www.terrisfight.org

6. National press and media continue to misreport and misrepresent Terri’s situation. Such reporting does a tremendous disservice to vulnerable people and elderly and disabled persons throughout the United States. You can help by contacting the editors of your local newspapers and letting the truth be known.

Download the talking point list here.
http://www.terrisfight.org/talk.pdf

7. Over 200 internet bloggers have joined forces to support Terri Schiavo by publishing articles, commentary and information about her situation and legal case. You can join their ranks, read their updates and pass the information along to your friends.

Check out the blog sites here.
http://www.blogsforterri.com

Finally, on behalf of the family and legal team working hard to protect Terri Schiavo and vulnerable citizens like her, we thank you for your time and compassion and we hope that you will contact us with links, suggestions and your personal stories. Your continued support is beyond value.
 

Anne

New member
NOW IS THE TIME TO CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN 1-202-224-3121

switchboard will direct you to your rep

Tell them to enact the Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act
 

Nineveh

Merely Christian
Is there any news about how it's going?

I saw this blurb from FL... but that's about it :(

(CNSNews.com) - Florida state lawmakers Wednesday added a provision to a measure designed to prevent Terri Schindler Schiavo's feeding tube from being removed that would require the guardian of an incompetent person to spend a certain amount of time with a patient before ordering the removal, the Associated Press reports. The amendment states that a guardian must spend at least two hours per week over 12 weeks with the patient, or an average of 10 hours a month over a three-month period. The measure, which was approved by the House Health Care Regulation committee, presumes that an incompetent person wants to be given food and water, unless that person has signed an advance directive indicating otherwise.
 

Anne

New member
Wednesday March 9, 2005
Updates on Terri Schiavo

TALLAHASSEE, Florida, March 9, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Florida legislature subcommittee passed a bill 7-4 today that seeks to limit the ability of a guardian to withdraw food and fluids from an incapacitated person. It must still pass to the House floor for a vote. A similar measure was also proposed in the Senate.

Lead sponsor, Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, said he hopes the bill will save Terri Schiavo. “If I have my way, we'll get it passed by the 18th (of March),” he said, as reported by orlandosentinel.com. March 18 is the date set by Florida Judge George W. Greer to have Terri’s feeding tube removed.

Greer meanwhile will decide today whether to grant a stay of Terri Schiavo’s starvation order, to allow the state’s Department of Children and Families to investigate abuse allegations against Terri’s husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo.

The World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC) issued a warning Sunday that allowing Terri’s starvation to proceed would “open the floodgates” to euthanasia of the disabled.

“If Terri, an innocent person, can be condemned to death, every person whose life will be considered of insufficient ‘quality’ by a guardian or the court will be in danger of euthanasia performed by withdrawal of basic and ordinary care,” warned FIAMC spokesman Gian Luigi Gigli, M.D., in a release.

“The importance of this case goes beyond this deplorable circumstance,” he said. “It will open the floodgates to euthanasia in the United States, at all ages, without even a legislative decision.”

“Following the teaching of Pope John Paul II and the evidence of medical sciences, we believe that no human being, including those in the permanent vegetative state, can be denied the respect due to a human person by provision of food and water, without which any person, regardless of his/her state of health, would be condemned to death.”

“Such a perversion of medicine will be the source of discrimination against other human beings, with enormous risks for human rights and democracy,” said the FIAMC statement.

In addition, an Empire Journal analysis pointed out that the legal firm representing the St. Petersburg Catholic diocese where Terri lives financially supported Judge Greer’s campaign for re-election to the bench.

Life Decisions International (LDI) President Douglas Scott criticized the Florida Catholic Conference and St. Petersburg bishop Robert N. Lynch for not being more vocal in support of Terri’s bid to live.

“Where is this Catholic ‘leader’ when one of his parishioners needs him the most”, Scott said. “Every member of the clergy, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, should be pounding the pulpit every Sunday, insisting that Terri’s life be spared. Every member of the clergy should be speaking out about Terri every day until this matter is resolved in Terri’s favor. This is not the time for cowardice, complacency or weakness. Terri’s life depends on it. Any member of the clergy who does not do all he can to save Terri’s life is party to any disaster that befalls her”.

Terri Schiavo, the subject of an ongoing legal battle between her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, and Terri’s estranged husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, is slated for starvation beginning March 18.

See the Empire Journal coverage: http://www.theempirejournal.com
Alan Keyes on the G. Gordon Liddy Show ~~~ March 7, 2005

G. GORDON LIDDY, HOST: All right, ladies and gentlemen, we are back here at the G. Gordon Liddy Show. I want to tell you that one of the people I admire most in American political life is Dr. Alan Keyes. He is an American politician, a diplomat, considered one of the leading African Americans in the Republican Party. He served in the U.S. foreign service, was appointed Ambassador to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, then became a United States Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations under President Reagan. He has run for the presidency--and I think it's too bad that he didn't get it. He is an absolutely brilliant man.

Dr. Keyes, welcome to the G. Gordon Liddy Show again.

ALAN KEYES: Hi. How are you? I'm glad to be with you.

LIDDY: I'm fine. I'm really pleased to have you on again.

One of the things that we have been following here on the show is this horrible situation down in Florida, where a woman who is not being kept alive by heroic, technical means is being permitted by a judge to be killed by her husband--to death by starvation and thirst. I know you as a highly ethical person. What do you make of this? This is a terrible situation.

KEYES: First of all, I think it is a travesty, obviously. When we start defining giving food and water to somebody as extraordinary medical procedure, parents could put their children in the closet and starve them to death, and we would call it natural death. That's ridiculous.

The very idea of what is involved here ought to be repellant to the common sense and moral logic of everybody who hears about it--and I think it does have that effect on most people.

This is not a case, by the way, where you have got clear medical determination that this is a Persistent Vegetative State. All of that is mythical. In point of fact, there is a tremendous dispute, and what is clear is that the husband has refused any kind of therapy, any kind of effort, despite medical advances that have taken place dealing with patients who are in comas. We are in a situation where, to a certain extent, all of that is being ignored, and there are a lot of ins and outs to the particulars.

The thing that really intrigues me about this, though, and the question that I keep asking people right now--because you've got a question of life and death at stake--why is it that we are simply allowing the arbitrary judgment of this judge to prevail in a situation where the life and death right of an individual is at stake? The judge is pursuing, willy-nilly, to go down a road and claim that he has this judicial power. Meanwhile, the legislature has expressed its view. The courts struck it down, but the legislature feels like this is a travesty and ought not to take place.

LIDDY: And I know the governor does.

KEYES: And the governor feels this way.

Here is the simple question: why have we come to a situation where [we have] three equal branches, and we look at a situation like this and conclude that even though the other two branches believe that a travesty and a violation of basic, fundamental, constitutional, and human rights is taking place, and we act as if they can't do anything?

That is not true, by the way. The separation of powers leaves the judges in a position where they have their opinions but where those opinions on these fundamental matters do not have to be acted upon by the executive.

Why doesn't anybody remember this?

The executive has an independent will and judgment, responsible before God and under the Constitution of the United States and Florida for what he does with that executive power. He is like somebody who cannot plead "the judges made me do it," because the judges have no right to make the chief executive do anything.

I was rereading recently this simple passage that is there in the Federalist Papers. They are talking about the nature of judicial power, right?

LIDDY: Yes, they are.

KEYES: And it says, "The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgment."

LIDDY: Yes, but Dr. Keyes, we have seen, in numerous cases now, where the judiciary has ordered the state legislatures to impose taxes for schools and things like that. We have seen a situation where, up in Massachusetts, they said, "You must issue marriage licenses to persons of the same sex." I don't see why the people are so reluctant just to say no.

KEYES: Exactly. A matter of fact, what everybody is forgetting, we have separation of powers. You cannot have separation of powers if thewill of one branch is subordinate to the will of another branch. If there is a difference of view between the executive and the courts, or the legislature and the courts, the other branches can look the court in the eye and say, "No. . . ."

LIDDY: Exactly.

KEYES: "We have a separate will, we make a separate determination. We won't do what you say."

That is especially true of the executive, who, as an individual, takes an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution, and who has a separate, individual, moral obligation to act in a conscientious fashion--rather than in this case, for instance, to allow a judicial murder to take place.

Jeb Bush is, I think, under a deep, personal, moral, and constitutional responsibility. If he sits on his hands and lets a judicial murder take place, he cannot plead that somebody else made him do it. He has a position that gives him the independent will and authority, and if a judge is doing something he regards as a travesty, he is under an obligation not to allow it to take place.

LIDDY: Indeed. And when we consider the relative authorities of the legislative branches and the judiciary, if we look to the federal situation in our federal Constitution, the Congress has the constitutional right to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts. So, if anyone should be superior, it would be, I would think, the legislature, which expresses the will of the people and is responsive to them.

KEYES: Well, the argument that was made in the Federalist Papers--and I was reading, by the way, from Federalist 78, in case anybody in your audience wants to take a look at it--but the argument that was made in the Federalist Papers was very clear, in terms of there being three separate and, in the sense of will and independence, equal branches, in the sense that the legislature has its own independent authority to determine the nature of the laws, and ultimately even to impeach the judges, and so forth; and the executive has the sole and separate responsibility for action, that is, for using the active arm of the state to do anything.

The judiciary does not have a share in that executive power. And under our systems of separation of powers, to give the judiciary that share--which some people have been doing tacitly and by argument--is to establish a clear and direct tyranny.

And this where I think we have come. We are dealing right now with a tyranny of the judges, in which they get to make decisions, force the execution of those decisions, just as if they had been elected to wield the executive power.

This is destroying the fundamental concept of separation that guarantees our liberty as a free people. And I think it is being done across the board, in Ten Commandments cases, in all kinds of cases, where executives need now to revisit the question of the separation of powers and wake up to the truth that they have a separate obligation--it is not just a right--they have a separate obligation to exercise their conscientious, independent judgment when the judiciary is ordering something or it issues an opinion that they believe is in contravention of basic constitutional law and right.

LIDDY: I am speaking with Dr. Alan Keyes. His doctorate is from Harvard University. And as I told you folks, he is one of the most articulate and accurate thinkers in the nation. Dr. Keyes, you mentioned the recent decisions of the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Kennedy's decision with respect to persons who commit crimes prior to reaching their 18th birthday [exempting them from] execution and so forth. It is intellectually incoherent. I don't see how any person who has any command of the English language and of logic can be other than just befuddled by what he is trying to do here.

KEYES: Two things happened in that case. You have a judge basically saying that he--or the judges, by their own authority--can impose laws that haven't been passed by our legislature, and practices that aren't respected by our legislature or in any way representative of our people, can impose them by judicial fiat. That is what happened in this case. And [they are ruling] that it can be in an area that has traditionally been regarded as the exclusive prerogative of the legislature. If they can determine particulars like this, at what age shall we apply this penalty or that penalty, why not have the courts deciding everything?

The people say these are issues of rights and equity. Anything can be construed as an issue of right. Even the question of what the tax rate ought to be could be argued to be an issue of equal right. And if that is the case, then the judges have the right to decide what the tax rate should be, and simply to take over the government. That is why we are going down a road here that is dangerous.

LIDDY: And in some instances, they have actually done that in some state courts.

Dr. Keyes, what do you make of the Supreme Court of the United States, which is supposed to be interpreting the United States Constitution, going abroad and saying, "Well, what do they do in Sweden? What does the U.N. like?" and actually averring to treaties which we have rejected! I don't understand that.

KEYES: I think it is quite clear that you have courts now that are running wild, and that are imposing their dictation on the country, without regard to the Constitution, without regard to the laws. Under our system, laws can only be made by representative legislatures.

LIDDY: Yes.

KEYES: And if you start imposing laws from the bench, you have destroyed our representative system of government.

I think people ought to be outraged. They ought to see that our whole system is being destroyed.

When you can take that abuse and apply it to the particular case where you are allowing an individual to be murdered--that is to say, by positive act of omission, to be done to death--I don't see how anyone in this country feels safe anymore. Because that means, if somebody gets a judge on their side and decides to target you for death, you have had it. And they are claiming that nobody else can intervene to stop that.

LIDDY: In ancient Rome, they would execute criminals by chaining them to a rock somewhere and letting them starve and thirst to death. And that is exactly what is being done down here.

KEYES: And I don't understand--in Florida, you have a lot of people going to Florida to retire, you have elderly folks. If we are in a situation now where a family member can get a determination from a judge and say, "OK, I now have the right to let this person who needs care starve to death," I don't know why anybody who has reached their senior years would feel safe. If somebody has a motive to do them to death, they could find the judicial process, and put some judge in their pocket, and they will get it done.

When you are in that situation, and you are telling me that, in the face of everybody looking at it and saying, "No, that's a travesty," we are helpless to intervene? That's nonsense.

A chief executive like Jeb Bush--who sees that going on in his state, who sees essentially what amounts to a kind of judicial lynching taking place, of an innocent person being done to death by a court decision--is under an obligation due to his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution to move in and do something.

He has the executive power. The judges do not have executive power. And he can use that executive power conscientiously to safeguard the integrity of constitutional right. That's what he ought to be doing in this case, not waiting on the courts to decide.

And if people say the chief executive could abuse that power--no. The legislature has the right to remove the chief executive when he gets abusive.

These are active obligations. We cannot have the separation of powers if the branches don't actively use their powers and act according to their responsibilities.

LIDDY: Dr. Keyes, once again you have very articulately spelled out what is at stake here. I want to thank you. We've run out of time. I want to thank you so much for visiting the show again.

KEYES: I'm glad to do it. Thank you.

http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/media/interviews/05_03_07liddy.htm
 

Nineveh

Merely Christian
Thanks Art :)

Here's something I found today (it's down at the bottom of the article) ...

So far, however, the court in Florida has not proven itself a friend to Terri Schiavo -- at least, not in the case of the Sixth Circuit Court of Judge George W. Greer. In fact, according to Pamela Hennessy, media director for the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation, Judge Greer has actually ignored the laws of the State of Florida in ordering the premeditated killing of the disabled Terri Schiavo by her husband.

Hennessy says the three orders the Sixth Circuit Court judge issued on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week all but assure Terri's death by slow starvation and dehydration beginning on March 18 -- one week from today. First of all, she notes, Judge Greer ordered that Terri's family may not introduce oral nutrition and fluids after Terri's gastric feeding tube has been removed.

Members of the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation feel that order clearly violates a Florida law stating that incapacitated persons cannot be deprived of necessary services, including food and water.

Also, the judge has refused to allow updated medical tests on Terri to determine her true medical condition. Such tests could help clarify whether the disabled woman's court-ordered starvation might be viewed as a mercy killing or assisted suicide, terminal actions that are both illegal in Florida. And another court orders from Greer denies Terri relief from a judgment based on his own error in dismissing pertinent testimony in 2000 -- testimony that would have assisted the court in determining the Florida woman's true "end of life" wishes.

The only testimony in support of removing Terri's feeding tube includes the self-serving testimony of her guardian, Michael Schiavo (which, according to the Foundation, is inadmissible under state law), and hearsay from members of his immediate family.

The Foundation's media director says the failure of the federal circuit court jurist to consider all the evidence of Terri's attitudes toward life pro-longing measures is, in the Foundation's opinion, a clear violation of Florida statutes. And she feels the judge should be held accountable to the law for his actions.

"If there is a single person following this who doesn't believe Judge Greer has legislated from the bench, trampled Florida's laws, and deprived Terri Schiavo of her retained rights, they are simply not paying attention," Hennessy says. She contends that citizens, -- disability and eldercare advocates especially -- need to be calling for Greer's immediate impeachment.
 

Anne

New member
WASHINGTON (BP)--Supporters of a federal legislative remedy that could save Terri Schiavo's life continued to push for quick action in Congress March 10.

At a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Sen. Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., said a new bill to aid the disabled Florida woman is on an expedited route and has the potential for immediate Senate passage. Senators are being asked if they object to the bill, the Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act, with the hope that a unanimous consent agreement might be reached on the bill, he said.

Schiavo's feeding tube is scheduled to be removed March 18 after which she would die within days of dehydration and starvation.

“If there is no objection to it, it could pass even yet today,” Brownback said. “That may or may not happen.”
Bills at federal and state level attempt to save Terri
 

Agape4Robin

Member
Saving Terri

Saving Terri

I have to put in my 2 cents worth here.
I live in Florida, and I know about this case almost personally. Let me explain........ my father was in hospice care last year and guess who his neighbor was??? You got it....Terri Schiavo. Her room was under 24 hour police guard. One day, I went into her room completely by accident.....I was looking for the nurses station........ the police officer abruptly asked me to leave..and I did, but I was stunned! I met her parents, Mary and Bob Schindler. They are very caring and devoted to their daughter.
I thought it strange that she would be placed in a hospice setting. Prior to that, she had been in a nursing home facility....but since the trial began, she was placed in hospice.....why? Seems to me that the plan was that she would die there! Amazing, huh? Before the final outcome of her "husbands" lawsuit....she lay in a hospice.
:think:

Did you know that before he was awarded the malpractice settlement, he went before the jury and swore to use the money to rehabilitate his wife?:rolleyes:

My question is this......if her will to die and not be kept in the current state she was in was so important to him, then why didn't he say so then? Why didn't he say so when they were trying to revive her? Why now? And why wasn't ONE PENNY of that malpractice award used to rehab Terri? I think Michael has something to hide.....like the real reason her heart was stopped for so long.........

Why hasn't there been any hearing to discuss the obvious conflict of interest as Michael being her "husband"?:confused:
If MY husband were living with another woman, and having kids with her, I CERTAINLY would NOT want him to make ANY decisions about MY LIFE and most certainly NOT my DEATH......NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!!!!!! :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:
Come on folks....where's the common sense here??:doh:
Any way....that's my 2 cents!!!
 

Art Deco

New member
Re: Saving Terri

Re: Saving Terri

Originally posted by Agape4Robin

I have to put in my 2 cents worth here.
I live in Florida, and I know about this case almost personally. Let me explain........ my father was in hospice care last year and guess who his neighbor was??? You got it....Terri Schiavo. Her room was under 24 hour police guard. One day, I went into her room completely by accident.....I was looking for the nurses station........ the police officer abruptly asked me to leave..and I did, but I was stunned! I met her parents, Mary and Bob Schindler. They are very caring and devoted to their daughter.
I thought it strange that she would be placed in a hospice setting. Prior to that, she had been in a nursing home facility....but since the trial began, she was placed in hospice.....why? Seems to me that the plan was that she would die there! Amazing, huh? Before the final outcome of her "husbands" lawsuit....she lay in a hospice.
:think:

Did you know that before he was awarded the malpractice settlement, he went before the jury and swore to use the money to rehabilitate his wife?:rolleyes:

My question is this......if her will to die and not be kept in the current state she was in was so important to him, then why didn't he say so then? Why didn't he say so when they were trying to revive her? Why now? And why wasn't ONE PENNY of that malpractice award used to rehab Terri? I think Michael has something to hide.....like the real reason her heart was stopped for so long.........

Why hasn't there been any hearing to discuss the obvious conflict of interest as Michael being her "husband"?:confused:
If MY husband were living with another woman, and having kids with her, I CERTAINLY would NOT want him to make ANY decisions about MY LIFE and most certainly NOT my DEATH......NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!!!!!! :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:
Come on folks....where's the common sense here??:doh:
Any way....that's my 2 cents!!!
Agape4Robin, You raise some interesting questions. I read today that her husband (sic) has turned down the $1 million offered for his wife's life. He also has turned down a privious $10 million as well. Guess what, this guy has something to hide. The thinking goes that if he released custody of his wife to her parents she would get medical help that just might allow Terri to tell the world that Michael was responsible for her present condition.

That's why he wants her dead and cremated. America's soul is on trial. If America allows this innocent women to be tortured to death at the hands of a federal judge and evil spouse, God will hammer Florida again for this aggravated evil. :madmad:
 

Nineveh

Merely Christian
Agape4Robin,
I have some of those same questions myself.... I hope to hear the answers when he's put on tirial ( hope springs eternal ) :)



In a personal telephone conversation yesterday with Terri Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler, actor-director Mel Gibson encouraged the Schindler family to "never give up and continue to pray."

Shortly after the telephone conversation Gibson sent a fax to the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation with the following statement to be read at today's rally in Pinellas Park, Fla.: "I fully support the efforts of Mr. & Mrs. Schindler to save their daughter, Terri Schiavo, from a cruel starvation. Terri's husband should sign the care of his wife over to her parents so she can be properly cared for."full story
 

Art Deco

New member
Originally posted by Nineveh

Agape4Robin,
I have some of those same questions myself.... I hope to hear the answers when he's put on tirial ( hope springs eternal ) :)
Another great article on Terri Schiavo:

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43283



Also: www.reclaimamerica.org They used 1000 roses delivered to the old Capitol courtyard in Tallahassee Florida to symbolize Terri's plight by allowing the roses to wither away.

Could we begin a War of the Roses by all concerned Americans sending one Rose via FTD to the hospice Terri is being confined in. All we need is a good address to get the Roses moving as a symbol of concern over Terri's life and the soul of America.

Again, we need a good address :help:
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Re: Re: Saving Terri

Re: Re: Saving Terri

Originally posted by Art Deco

Agape4Robin, You raise some interesting questions. I read today that her husband (sic) has turned down the $1 million offered for his wife's life. He also has turned down a privious $10 million as well. Guess what, this guy has something to hide. The thinking goes that if he released custody of his wife to her parents she would get medical help that just might allow Terri to tell the world that Michael was responsible for her present condition.

That's why he wants her dead and cremated. America's soul is on trial. If America allows this innocent women to be tortured to death at the hands of a federal judge and evil spouse, God will hammer Florida again for this aggravated evil. :madmad:

I look a good conspiracy theory, but how exactly could Michael been "responsible" for her condition? If I understand, what caused her brain damage was biological--something she was born with.
 
Top