Straight Outta Crawford

If you thought the USA PATRIOT Act was the new standard in legislative non-deliberation, you must be in a persistent vegetative state. President Bush is zipping back to Washington to sign the compromise bill that will allow Terri Schiavo's case (and, I'm taking a wild guess, lots of other, unrelated cases in the future) to be dragged through the federal courts.

"We're elated primarily that they put politics to one side and they're concentrating on the issue of saving Terri's life," says Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler.

The new bill will give jurisdiction over the case to a federal district court.

I can't find the text of either the House or Senate version, but the final bill should show up here at some point. Silver lining: It's said to be only two pages long.

Comments

Warren | March 20, 2005, 12:01am | #

Fucktards
The thought of being kept in a perpetual vegetative state, subjected to the tender mercies of our federal government is as depressing as anything GW&Co. has done to us thus far.

God I need a fix.

Akira MacKenzie | March 20, 2005, 12:24am | #

Proving, once again, the Right's respect for federalism and the seperation of powers.

One thing is for sure, the first oppertunity I have, I'm making out a living will with a DNR. I'm just afraid that if Right had their way, such documents would be rendered useless and the Shiavo case maybe the backdoor the bible-beaters need to take away that right from us. They've already have taken away our right to die quickly via euthanasia, it's only a matter of time before they take the rest of it.

On a side note: This and other issues are really causing me to loose whatever patience and tolerance have remaining for religion and it's followers. How can you live-and-let-live when
there is a well-motivated, well-funded, and well-conected group that wishes to run your life and punish you for not beleiving as they do? Do we have to tolerate intolerance?

I don't really know anymore?

Akira MacKenzie | March 20, 2005, 12:26am | #

Sorry, hit post instead of preview. Let's try that again:

Proving, once again, the Right's respect for federalism and the separation of powers.

One thing is for sure, the first opportunity I have, I'm making out a living will with a DNR. I'm just afraid that if Right had their way, such documents would be rendered useless and the Shiavo case maybe the backdoor the bible-beaters need to take away that right from us. They've already have taken away our right to die quickly via euthanasia, it's only a matter of time before they take the rest of it.

On a side note: This and other issues are really causing me to loose whatever patience and tolerance have remaining for religion and it's followers. How can you live-and-let-live when
there is a well-motivated, well-funded, and well-connected group that wishes to run your life and punish you for not believing as they do? Do we have to tolerate intolerance?

I don't really know anymore.

Jim Walsh | March 20, 2005, 12:39am | #

So let me get this straight: Rep. DeLay et al stand for the sanctity of marriage unless a husband makes a decision that doesn't coincide with the rest of their agenda.

Bastards.

Rob D. | March 20, 2005, 12:40am | #

Radley Balko gives a good & detailed response to the Schiavo case...

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/019790.php#019790

Akira MacKenzie | March 20, 2005, 12:49am | #

"So let me get this straight: Rep. DeLay et al stand for the sanctity of marriage unless a husband makes a decision that doesn't coincide with the rest of their agenda."

Yeah, isn't "the-man-is-the-head-of-the-woman" and all that Promise Keeper bullshit?

thoreau | March 20, 2005, 1:02am | #

This thing is never going to end, is it?

It will undoubtedly go all the way to the US Supreme Court. Even if one wants to argue (however rightly or wrongly) that the law is unconstitutional, that would also mean it goes all the way to the Supreme Court.

Well, now we have 2 litmus tests for future Supreme Court nominees: Abortion and Schiavo.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 1:14am | #

There are a lot of accusations that the action amounts to a bill of attainder. I don't myself find much merit in the claim, but it is an interesting theory nonetheless.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 1:17am | #

thoreau,

Its already gone to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to grant cert.

Akira MacKenzie | March 20, 2005, 1:19am | #

From Balko's blog:

"What the hell is wrong with us? Why is it that when it get to the point of letting someone go, we force terimally sick people to die in one of the most agaonizing ways possible? Why is starving someone to death by removing a feeding tube considered humane, but injecting a terminal, pain-ridden patient with a solution designed to let them die painlessly forbidden?"

I've often wondered why Christians are so willing to let people suffer without granting them the release of death. If "heaven" is so damn wonderful, wouldn't they be better off there than wasting away, connected to life support? Why delay their transition to that alleged place of joy?

I have a theory: They are expecting a miracle. They think that somehow, at the last minute, a brilliant doctor will find a cure for PVS--just as long as it doesn't involve stem cells. Or, less likely, they are hoping against all hope that God's angels (because the omnipotent one is far too busy to do it himself or even to have prevented Terri's heart attack in the first place) will come down from on high and somehow heal her. They want a miracle, no matter what straws they have to grasp to prove it, not just for Shiavo's sake, but to prove to themselves and the world that their god exists and is merciful (despite the fact he didn't seem to give a fuck earlier in this affair).

Of course, the one suffering to confirm this world view--if she can indeed suffer--is Terri Schiavo. However, Christians seem to be big on the suffering-is-holy nonsense. Too bad no one asked Terri if she wanted to play Jesus.

thoreau | March 20, 2005, 1:21am | #

Gary-

Well, it will undoubtedly go there again.

Here's what I want to know: At what point could this thing reach a final resolution where one side has no more recourse for appeal? Or is this one of those things where the losing party can just file a new suit based on (allegedly) different grounds?

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 1:30am | #

thoreau,

Well, technically speaking, it could go until she dies. Even if the Supreme Court makes a final disposition (and that's maybe years away), the Congress could just pass another law that the federal courts would have to slog over. What I don't see is how the federal courts will deal with the res judicata aspects of the state court rulings.

To be frank, it doesn't matter whether the tube is in or out; the chick has a cerebral cortex made of mush.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 1:33am | #

Shit, maybe the bill requires a new federal trial on the merits; if that is the case, well, that could a year or two to conclude given all the motions, cross-motions, requests for discovery, etc. that are possible. What a fucking nightmare that would be.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 1:35am | #

Moby - Natural Blues

[Refrain:]
oh lordy,
trouble so hard
oh lordy,
trouble so hard,
don't nobody know my troubles but God [x2]

went down the hill,
the other day
my soul got happy
and stayed all day

[Refrain]

went in the room,
didn't stay long,
looked on the bed
and brother was dead

[Refrain]

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 1:59am | #

What's sad about the whole case is that if the tube is re-introduced this woman's body will be kept alive for many years to come and if the parents win Schiavo will languish in some hospice somewhere until she atrophies and dies. By that time jack-offs like Hastert and Frist will have garnered their political from the case and will likely not even remember the woman's name.

thoreau | March 20, 2005, 2:19am | #

To be frank, it doesn't matter whether the tube is in or out; the chick has a cerebral cortex made of mush.

Ironically, that may be the best argument for both sides. If her brain isn't really there anymore, then she isn't in any sort of agony, so why not keep her alive and avoid this trouble?

And if her brain isn't really there anymore, why go to the trouble of keeping her alive?

Henry | March 20, 2005, 2:29am | #

In other fucking nutty Christer news, end-times delusional fantasies become prime-time network fare:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/arts/television/20cott.html

Ah, I remember the good ol' days when these crazy bastards would have been deservedly marginalized as the nutjobs they are. Now, every pandering politician and producer wants to perpetuate this lunacy.

What the fuck ever happened to the US I grew up in? When were the pods unleashed?

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 2:51am | #

Henry,

I love this part of the article:

Mr. Polone says his personal interest in religion and Armageddon stems from a long-ago summer spent at an evangelical Christian youth camp, where he was encouraged to read Hal Lindsey's apocalypse-themed treatise "The Late, Great Planet Earth." "It scared the hell out of me," he said.

Its too bad all of Hal Lindsey's predictions have been shown to be BOGUS! Note for example that in 1970 he explicitly predicted that Christ’s visible Return would occur by 1988!!!

And check this out:

To help avoid such backlash, the creators of "Revelations" say, they took great pains with all the biblical aspects of the series. "Everybody wants to make sure no rock has been left unturned," said Bill Pullman. "They're looking at everything - the credibility of every character, each choice." Scripts are reviewed by a theological consultant, as will be all marketing efforts, Mr. Reilly said. And Ms. Zanuck said each scriptural citation is checked against multiple versions of the Bible.

I'm curious how that is remotely possible given the way Revelations was written.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 3:06am | #

More Hal Lindsey crapola:

A new Roman Emporer is supposed to rise out of the ten member EC. Hmm, how many member states does the E.U. have now? Twenty-five? Note that Lindsey (according to an a recent article I read by him) has changed his story and has stopped naming the number of member states.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 3:12am | #

Speaking of the Bush Adminstration....


Bush Administration Untruthful About N. Korean Nuclear Material Sales: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7245019/

Dynamist | March 20, 2005, 4:42am | #

As an individualist, it seems that to willingly participate in a chain of events leading to a person's death would require explicit consent of that person. Otherwise it's homicide/manslaughter. Absent explicit concent or willing violation of contract, removing life support is criminal. If you really want to see your wife's silent wish honored, do the time for pulling the plug.

A separately defined law might except the executioner from prosecution, the convict having knowledge of the societal rules by breaking them has given consent to be judged.

Dave | March 20, 2005, 4:49am | #

Thoreau makes a good point here: If her brain really is gone, why does it matter to the "let her die" side if she is kept alive or not? I hadn't really thought of it in those terms, and I think this whole issue is a farce that revolves around her parents' understandable but unhealthy inability to let her go, but that certainly is an issue the other side should consider. If she's gone and should be allowed to die, then what we're arguing over here essentially comes down to how much money should be spent on her body, no? What is in the patient's best interest is irrelevant, because the patient's interests ceased to exist years ago. What we are arguing here then is which is more important, allowing her parents to continue to think she's coming back some day, or allowing her former husband to put her body in the ground. Seeing as how he has moved on with his life, we are chosing between something that won't make a difference and something that won't make a difference. Great choice.
As far as the starving to death vs lethal injection goes, I've always thought this was a huge issue of intellectual dishonesty. Somehow taking away life support a patient can't possibly live without to intentionally inflict a long drawn out death is morally not murdering them, but giving them a quick painless death is. Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where the kids were fighting, but using the logic of "I'm just going to walk around kicking my leg out like this, and if you happen to be in front of it it's not my fault". Give me a fucking break. "I'm just going to withold the only source of food you have, and if you happen to starve that's not my fault".

Jadagul | March 20, 2005, 5:35am | #

I think it has something to do with the belief that a lot of religious people, Christians especially, have that suffering is good/noble/a sign of holiness/whatever. I know many Catholics are encouraged simply to accept their troubles and "bear them as their personal crosses." Suffering is good because it emulates Christ's suffering on the cross and brings you closer to God. A desire to avoid suffering is selfish and shows a preoccupation with making your life in this world more comfortable, which is unhealthy. In this world you should be concerned with others and not worry about yourself, and pain is good because it reminds you of this (see self-flagellation; many of the saints got their names partly by coming up with more and more extreme forms of self-torture). There's a certain amount of belief that anything pleasurable must ipso facto be bad.

I'd like to emphasize that this doesn't apply to all religious, and not even to all Catholics; but lots of people really believe this. It explains a lot of very silly laws and taboos, especially in the right to live/right to die conflict.

moonbiter | March 20, 2005, 5:53am | #

Thoreau makes a good point here: If her brain really is gone, why does it matter to the "let her die" side if she is kept alive or not?

Because the let her die "side" is her husband, who -- one would assume -- loves her and wants her to get what he believes was her wish. If it were just a simple matter of letting her live as a vegetable and letting other people pick up the tab, he has had ample opportunity to allow that to occur. It is not beyond imagination that she would not have wanted to live like this. In fact, it is quite a common sentiment.

If the parents are hoping for a miracle, then take her off the life support and let God do his work. There is no other option, because medical science will never, ever be able to replace what is no longer there: Even if it were possible to regenerate the cortex, it would essetially be a blank slate with all traces of the woman's previous personality wiped clean.

Phil | March 20, 2005, 8:09am | #

Ah, the level of naivete under which one must live to believe that what the House and Senate Republican leadership, and the President, are doing here involves "[putting] politics to one side." Breathtaking.

Ron Hardin | March 20, 2005, 8:32am | #

I haven't kept abreast of all the necessary details, but is this person by any chance white, blonde and blue-eyed? Women love that. It's a woman-in-peril story.

Will Terri find soap-opera happiness, and live the good soap-opera kind of life?

Tune in tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow.

Why that's enough to attract politicians, I can't say.

It's enough to attract Peggy Noonan, but I put that down to hormones and Catholicism.

Politically, I'd guess the vast majority goes the other way. Anyway I hope so.

Ron Hardin | March 20, 2005, 8:43am | #

You can follow along with a Shiavo bingo card here
http://isfullofcrap.com/oldcrap/2005/03/terri_schiavo_b.html
http://isfullofcrap.com/oldcrap/2005/03/keeping_score.html#000796

Pavel | March 20, 2005, 10:24am | #

According to the 2nd District ruling:

"Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state"

According to a Newsweek Poll:

* 84 percent of Americans said that God performs miracles;

* 79 percent accept the accounts of miracles in the Bible as accurate;

* 72 percent said that "People who face death in accidents or natural disasters can be saved by a miracle"

It's been pretty obvious what this is all about from the very start. It isn't about Terri Schaivo or her family. It's about the religious right staking out a braindead woman as a battleground against science and Godless materialism. The idea that neurology has something to say about the end of conscious life is as offensive to these people as Darwinism is to creationists.

Pavel | March 20, 2005, 10:37am | #

If her brain isn't really there anymore, then she isn't in any sort of agony, so why not keep her alive and avoid this trouble?

For the same reason we bury our dead instead of

Pavel | March 20, 2005, 10:40am | #

Let me try that again:

By taking them to the beach with us.

Jaybird | March 20, 2005, 10:45am | #

The State has decided that this woman is brain dead, The State has decided that it has the Legal Right to withhold food and water from her.

Glad that's settled.

Let's eat.

Jennifer | March 20, 2005, 10:57am | #

Gary-
Lindsey wrote a sequel to "Late Great Planet Earth;" I forget the title, but I found it in a thrift store for 25 cents and couldn't resist buying it.

Did you know that the increase in UFO sightings is due to demons PRETENDING to be space aliens to accomodate people to the idea that there are non-human, non-Godly intelligences in the universe? Did you also know that American AND Russian astronauts in orbit have all reported seeing angelic beings, larger than jet liners, who "smiled at us in an evil way, as if they knew something we didn't?" It's because the Antichrist is coming soon, you see.

The people trying to force their values down our throats are the same people who take this shit seriously. It really is scary. I'd say now there's a forty percent chace that in my lifetime my boyfriend and I will be FORCED to marry, necause the Christian Taliban will take over and make it illegal for adults to live together without a marriage license.

Ron Hardin | March 20, 2005, 12:13pm | #

As I remember from an interview on Southwest Radio Church, UFO's are piloted by fallen angels trying to get the attention of the media. This was deduced by the ``process of logical elimination.'' Some book or other was involved.

Unfortunately Southwest Radio Church is a shadow of its former self in the 80s, when Artificial Intelligence (AI, pronounced ``A one'') figured often in Bible in the News, and ``the savings and loan industry, once a leading economic indicator, now lies in ruins.''

Now Bible in the News is done by somebody's daughter from Jerusalem and isn't worth listening to. Nobody does prophecy and fire and brimstone properly anymore.

I put it down to the passing of Brother Bernardi (``a retired pharmacist in perfect health''), no longer inspiring high standards on the AM radio dial.

Nowadays they just want contributions and have no entertaining fixations

Jennifer | March 20, 2005, 12:27pm | #

Well, demons ARE fallen angels, after all. It's a shame Lindsey went into the field of Biblical prophecy, because he could have been a great horror-movie writer. That bit about the 747-sized demons orbiting the Earth and freaking out our astronauts even creeped ME out when I read it, and I don't think that's just because I was stoned at the time.

Akira MacKenzie | March 20, 2005, 12:38pm | #

Ahhhh.... Hal Lindsey, the Paul Erhlich of the Right.

thoreau | March 20, 2005, 12:40pm | #

Whoah, let's not get too upset over religious entertainment. A TV series on NBC is no more a threat to a secularist's way of life than "Queer Eye For the Straight Guy" is a threat to a fundamentalist's way of life. It's just entertainment, and if you start reading too much power into it you're implicitly granting the premise that the fundies use to call for censorship.

Ron Hardin | March 20, 2005, 12:54pm | #

Brother Bernardi is referenced in exactly one page on the web. Proof that I'm not imagining him but sort of sad. It really was a weird show. http://www.kingdomlife.com/kingdom/latest.htm ``The Perfect Way'' was the name of the show, and he would send you free on loan ``The Dove Book'' a transcription of messages from God, but you had to promise to return it. He would carefully enunciate his address, including ``High--wood, that's all one word.''

It was made more entertaining because, I think, he used to stutter, and avoided it when he sensed a hard word coming up with wild jumps to alternative phrases. I think Wm Buckley is the same, by the way, but Buckley sees it further away and knows more words. Just a feeling.

BillyRay | March 20, 2005, 1:01pm | #

I like Mark Levin's attitude. From the corner

RE: FEDERALISM, HYPOCRISY, ETC. [Mark R. Levin]
I second Ramesh's point. The idiocy of the Left with their phony federalism arguments cannot be overstated. It underscores how completely devoid of arguments they are to support government-ordered starvation. And Ramesh is exactly right on another score, i.e., the issue of death (or life) is already a federal matter, as highlighted by the Left's favorite institution -- the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Did the New York Times reverse course today and argue that Roe usurped state authority? Not the last time I checked. The Florida legislature and governor attempted to resolve this some time ago. The Florida Supreme Court stopped them. As I see it, Congress is coming to the aid of state elected officials. Moreover, Congress can and should say that the federal constitutional issue here is the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and it need not cite foreign law to prove that government-ordered starvation meets the test. I am, however, unconvinced that federal court jurisdiction, which is what Congress is fighting for, is the answer.
Posted at 04:53 PM

BillyRay | March 20, 2005, 1:19pm | #

Jenny writes:The people trying to force their values down our throats are the same people who take this shit seriously. It really is scary.

You mean like that TV show, Sodomite Eye for the Straight Guy???

Henry | March 20, 2005, 1:43pm | #

I didn't know gays were delusional maniacs with a 2000 year-old-track record demonstrating their intent on running the lives of those around them, at the point of a sword if necessary--the Western version of the "72 virgins await me in heaven" crowd.

Thanks for the clarifying where your head is, BR.

BillyRay | March 20, 2005, 1:48pm | #

So Henry, state ordered starvation is A-Okay.. Talk about running lives. My gawd.. More idocy from the Reasonaniacs.

Jaybird | March 20, 2005, 1:49pm | #

"I didn't know gays were delusional maniacs with a 2000 year-old-track record demonstrating their intent on running the lives of those around them, at the point of a sword if necessary--the Western version of the "72 virgins await me in heaven" crowd."

Dude, have you *SEEN* Straight Eye?

jaybird | March 20, 2005, 1:50pm | #

I meant "Queer eye".

And now I've ruined my joke.

Twba | March 20, 2005, 2:22pm | #

We need straight eye for the queer guy. "Put down the froufrou blender drink. It's time to butch up and drink a can of Miller High Life. Don't let your pinkie finger stick out. Grab that can like a real man, Carson."

Henry | March 20, 2005, 2:30pm | #

Uhh, Billy, "the state'" didn't "order" anything--the person legally reasonable for care, her husband, did. "The state" (i.e. the judicial system--and now a grandstanding fraudulently "conservative" Congress) was dragged in by her crackpot parents who can't face reality, like all the other Christers. They should just be happy that they will see her way up in hebben while the rest of roast in hell.

I will agree, however, that he should be able to chose a simple injection over feeding tube removal, but that lack of choice is due to the crazy Christers influence over "the state", not his volition.

But it's nice of you to change the subject, again.

BillyRay | March 20, 2005, 2:36pm | #

Sorry Henry, the husband is shacking up with another woman now. Her parents are willing to take care of her with no expense to the state. The state has ordered her starvation. No ands ifs and buts about it. Again, more idocy from Reasonaniacs.

David Levy | March 20, 2005, 2:53pm | #

Billy Ray-

In what way has the state ordered Shiavo to be starved to death? The courts have simply agreed with medical testimony that she is essentially brain dead and that her husband has the right to refuse care. The house isn't even disputing that someone has the right to speak for her they've just decided that ruling on who has that right is a matter for federal courts not state ones because they don't like what the state courts decided.

Is it you're position that under no circumstances can then next of kin refuse medical care on the part of a comatose patient? If so perhaps you could get youre freinds in washington to actually pass a law saying so instead of just mucking around with judges they disagree with.

David Levy | March 20, 2005, 2:58pm | #

Hm... Henry basically said the same thing I did while I was writing but since Billy Ray really didn't respond in any meaningful way I don't feel bad for repeating it.

Billy Ray-

If I wanted to be cremated after my death and my court determined legal guardian attested to that I'd want that wish carried out even if some other guy felt I should really be buried in a casket as was willing to foot the bill to see that happen.

BillyRay | March 20, 2005, 3:25pm | #

Levy, did Terri ever say that she wanted to be put down??? If not, what business is it of the states? Anyone who has seen the videos of her recognizes that she does respond to people, especially family members. I'd hardly call that a vegetated condition. Her quality of life might not be very good, but it seems to me, her husband has given up his right to decide if she lives or dies. He's off the reservation now.

And what in the world does being burried in a casket have to do with the state ordering the starvation of someone?

David Levy | March 20, 2005, 3:40pm | #

I don't know what Terri ever said. Her Husband claims she would not have wanted to remain like this. Maybe he's telling the truth maybe he's lying, again I don't know. And as for the videos again I don't know, but I do know that several doctors, including court appointed ones have testified that everything above the brain stem is toast. There are many things neither I nor you know about this case which is why I tend to trust a court system that has had about 7 years to hear both sides and decide who can speak for Terri.

Again by claiming that her husband has lost the right to speak for Terri you are implicitly admitting that some one has that right. How has the husband relinquished his role as legal guardian other than coming to a decision you don't like? More importantly why is a federal court in a better position than a state one to decide who Terri's legal guardian is? And even more importantly why in Gods name doe Congress think it can switch venues just because it doesn't like what the state courts decided!?

Congress | March 20, 2005, 3:43pm | #

why in Gods name doe Congress think it can switch venues just because it doesn't like what the state courts decided!?

Because we felt like it. That's why.

Next question?

Poustman | March 20, 2005, 3:48pm | #

Whew! An unusual amount of vitriol against not only religion, but individuals who for whatever reason hold to/believe in (any) religion.

There is pedigree for this, Voltaire coming to mind (not picking on V., just saying) but it doesn't persuade.

Perhaps some with strong feelings need to vent; I can understand that even if I don't think this is the best forum for it. But speaking as someone who is a believer in Christ, and who has been persuaded by argument to be against the denial of rights for gay marriage and adoption, for example, I suggest that the fury is counterproductive. If you want to change people's opinions.

Akira Mackenzie is often quite abrasive in this way; nevertheless in spite of how bitchslapped I often feel by his posts, I found in one, above, something I think is very true and important:

"How can you live-and-let-live when
there is a well-motivated, well-funded, and well-connected group that wishes to run your life and punish you for not believing as they do?"

I think that those forces political who take the tack of what I call 'power politics' in order to pursue the enforcement of their agenda(s) are in the wrong. I think they are ill-advised, even looking solely at their own pragmatic, long-term interests. I think they violate the law. I think that they cannot rewrite the law to make their violation Constitutional without rewriting the Constitution. I think they should stop an enormous portion of what they are doing-- and I generalize deliberately.

I also think that this applies not only to the Religious and/or Right, but possibly it applies to them the most urgently.

So here's a question: what do you do with a drunken sailor, er, a person, like me? Am I just a fucktard, a 'Christer' who should be dismissed out of hand, denounced and insulted? Are my opinions wrong (or plausible, or even possibly right) in spite of, because of, or unrelated to my faith?

I put this to the Reason forum because I believe that a truly reasonable response would avoid the generalization that a given opinion is contemptible because of its source, or those who hold it. Or (to skip a few obvious steps) that every member of a given group is contemptible because many members of that group are (let's call it granted) contemptible.

Akira, I'd urge you not to abandon your own credentials by losing any patience and tolerance, for anyone. Tolerating intolerance? Perhaps it needs to be tolerated as much as anything you or anyone else dislikes. Not protected by law, but also not discriminated against anymore than any other behavior. Perhaps. I'm not completely sure.

Henry, much 'Christian' news is indeed fucking nutty. I assert that this portion is no more actually Christian than it is wise.

Garry Gunnels, Ron Hardin, et al: Hal Lindsay's writings that I know of were and are ridiculous. They are no more definitively Christian than Dubya's views are definitively American, however. To an outsider, Dubya may seem to embody America, just as Lindsay, or a given nut or group of nuts, even the RC church, may seem to embody Christianity. But they do not.

I'd urge every American here (I suspect the vast majority) who would be appalled to be lumped together with Dubya to not make the same mistake with regard to any other set of persons. Your often very telling points will be the stronger.


However, I did shit my own pants yesterday, so who knows?

thoreau | March 20, 2005, 4:03pm | #

As long as we're in a festival of bashing religious people, what's the one thing that atheists and fundamentalists agree on?

Answer: Catholics aren't going to heaven.

joe | March 20, 2005, 4:11pm | #

My heart goes out to the parents. I can understand everything they're do, and sympathize. Of course parents should act like this.

What's unforgiveable is the phalanx of political buzzards exploiting their situation to push their "life" jihad. Grieving people, setting them up like that, enlisting them. We can fight for your your daughter! Disgusting.

BillyRay | March 20, 2005, 4:16pm | #

Levy, in 2003 the Florida legislature passed and Bush signed Terri's Law. The Florida Supremes said it was unconstitutional. Strange, but I can't fathom anything in the Florida constitution about state ordered starvation. The Florida supremes have a well deserved reputation for being off the deepend. As I said earlier, it is obvious the woman isn't brain dead. If she were, I wouldn't have any problems with the Hospice giving her an opiate overdose which is a humain death. But this state torture needs to be recognized for what it is.

David Levy | March 20, 2005, 4:31pm | #

BillyRay-

Why is it so obvious that she isn't brain dead? I've read that several doctors have testified that she has no mental activity outside of the brain stem which runs the autonomic function and yes can make her blink and stare blankly and what not. What's more they claim that a large portion of her cerebral cortex is liquefied. Are you debating this medical determination (it is possible that they're wrong but again that's a matter for the courts to decide) or is it you position that this amount of brain activity still constitutes personhood?

BillyRay | March 20, 2005, 4:37pm | #

Brain dead people don't respond. It's obvious she does. That's why this is so troubling. And it's the reason her parents and family are fighting the state so hard.

natho | March 20, 2005, 4:42pm | #

My understanding of what the Florida court determined is a little different than what has been expressed. I understand that Schiavo's husband asked the court to determine that it was her wish to not be kept alive in the state that she seems to find herself. The court examined evidence and found that she had expressed a desire not to live in a vegetative state and also that she had no realistic chance of recoverying to a different state.

I Googled a nice little website on it: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Personally, I think Thoreau makes an excellent point about her already being brain dead.

I'm frankly surprised that so many people have joined the cause to keep a brain dead woman alive. Of course, they disagree with the assessment of court appointed attorneys and prefer accepting what the woman's parents (and the doctors hired by them) say.

David Levy | March 20, 2005, 4:48pm | #

Again you avoid the question. Is it your position that the doctors who testified in court are wrong or is it that the amount of brain activity she was determined to have constitutes personhood?

And again this is not the issue we should be debating. If congress wanted to pass a law pertaining to any of the issues we've talked about that would be fine. At least it would be within the proper constitutional role of the congress. But that's not what they're doing. They’re trying to rush a law through that would bump this matter up to federal court when there only argument for doing so is that the lower courts didn't rule the way they wanted. The abuse is flagrant!

And for god's sake it's not the state that wants her feeding tube removed it's her husband!

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 4:59pm | #

Akira MacKenzie,

*score*

Man, that was funny! :)

_________________________________________

Anyway, the videotape, etc. is a scam. Its cleverly cut so as to make it appear that she is responding. But hey, what is anyone afraid of? Have your circus and in a few years the results will be the same. You'll still have a woman with a liquified cerebral cortex.

_____________________________________

BillyRay is a known troll here. Its pointless to argue with him because he us unwilling to address any argument which might undercut his claims. Don't feed the cowardly scumbag.

thoreau | March 20, 2005, 5:12pm | #

Have your circus and in a few years the results will be the same. You'll still have a woman with a liquified cerebral cortex

Which may be the best argument in favor of keeping her "alive", ironically enough: If she isn't thinking then she isn't suffering, so let the parents continue to pump food into a body that can move and make noises now and then.

Of course, that's also the best argument for removing the feeding tube.

If this fight moves to the federal courts, my best guess is that she'll die of some other causes before the husband gets permission to remove the feeding tube.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 5:15pm | #

David Levy,

Avoiding the question, contrary evidence, etc. is BillyRay's forte.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 5:18pm | #

thoreau,

The problem is that it avoids the wishes of this woman. Indeed, that's the only problem I have with the case. If the woman had expressed a desire to "live" as she does now, I'd say let her. But the court has found that she expressed a desire exactly opposite such.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 5:20pm | #

thoreau,

And let's not forget the real agenda of individuals like Christopher Rake here (and likely BillyRay as well). Its to foreclose via government mandate any end of life choice that an individual might make that conflicts with their religious dogma.

Mo | March 20, 2005, 5:27pm | #

I love th nutjobs trying to bring her bread and water. What would happen if they fed her the bread and she choked? She obviously can't eat solid food, which is why she's on a freakin' tube!!! I agree 100% with the sentiment that it's cruel that she is forced to starve away as a way to let her pass on rather than a lethal injection that we would give to murderers.

BillyRay,
So you support the federal government overstepping its bounds here, but not regarding Roe v. Wade? Well, at least we know that you, the NRO staff and the Republican party are just as principled and supportive of the separation of powers as the Democrats are. Maybe it's me, but the guy that says he's going to rob my house and goes through with it is preferable to the guy that says that you can trust him, he opposes theft and then robs my house. Maybe that's just me.

cdunlea | March 20, 2005, 5:32pm | #

Sorry Henry, the husband is shacking up with another woman now...[blah blah] Again, more idocy from Reasonaniacs

None of which has a scintilla of bearing on the case. Unless you propose we should throw out the whole corpus of the law and run things the way you see fit, of course.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 5:33pm | #

Bob Schindler said he visited his daughter Sunday morning at her hospice and she seemed to be doing well as supporters maintained a vigil outside.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7212079/page/2/

From the Amy Wellborn blog:

Dave Weldon of Florida was just interviewed on FOX and said that the President would now have to intervene with an executive order. Calls to the pres everyone??

Have you seen the report given by attorney Weller about the scene with Terri when explaining to her that her feeding tube was being removed? She said Terri cried and said!! "I want to live" several times and that it took some time to quiet her down. This Hospice is a real hell hole. It needs to be exorcised. It has the spirit of death everywhere. Pray the St. Michael prayer. I've e-mailed or called cable stations to try to get attorney Weller on.

Another attorney on CNN claimed that from Felos stated, there are 2 new filings in federal court and that he thought the federal court could then order the tube replaced.

Felos claimed that communion was given before her feeding tube was removed. He said that was by a Hospice priest....not her priest.

Poor Terri....and this happened at the 3:00 hour...the hour of Mercy.

http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2005/03/keep_praying.html#comments


____________________________________________

If the woman is indeed speaking, why the hell don't they sneak a camera into the room?

cdunlea | March 20, 2005, 5:34pm | #

What I don't get is why this case has any traction at all in Florida, the state with the hiest percentage of people likely to feel the need for the right to die. The elderly, after all, were Kevorkian's biggest support group.

Mo | March 20, 2005, 5:47pm | #

One other thing. How do those that call removing the feeding tube torture, but believe that if she left behind a living will, removing the feeding tube would be hunky dory square that belief with their opposition to death with dignity laws? All I know if I, God forbid, were in the same situation as Terri, I would want my family driving my PVS ass to Oregon and killing me softly rather than starving my body. I don't know if Terri (or the hypothetical PVS Mo) feels the pain, but I'd rather not take my chances.

Coarsetad | March 20, 2005, 5:58pm | #

Has anybody here EVER, had a conversation with a person and they stated that if they were reduced to a vegatable that they would want to be hooked up to machines for years and years?
Is there a double standard for not wanting to be a veggi, but ok to force others to be so?

Ernest Brown | March 20, 2005, 6:09pm | #

"The courts have simply agreed with medical testimony..."

which other medical experts, including a Nobel nominee, state to be insufficient to determine PVS.

The judge involved has persistently refused to look at contrary evidence, I'm glad to see you venerate the infallible workings of state justice, according to your statist creed.

BillyRay | March 20, 2005, 6:11pm | #

What about Roe Wade? Judges overstepping their bounds? As they're doing in Florida right now.

BillyRay | March 20, 2005, 6:16pm | #

Poor ol Grunnels. After his attempt to have me banned from the forum failed, he's just reduced to name calling. Hilarious.

Dave | March 20, 2005, 6:17pm | #

Pavel-
My point is that if her brain is gone, are her wishes really being harmed by keeping her body alive? I too find it a rather disturbing spectacle, but as far as Schiavo herself goes, anyway you look at it she's beyond all this. If you take the religious angle (which I do not), one would have to think that god admits the brain dead into heaven upon brain death rather than making their souls stay trapped in bodies they aren't allowed to control, and if you take the non-religious viewpoint, she's gone and not suffering at all from this. I think the whole right to die argument is way more important in cases like Christopher Reeve-type injuries, where the patient still has a mind but no functional body anymore. Should they be forced to live that way if they do not wish it? In the case of those already brain dead, their right to die has been carried out, it's the rights of the survivors to do what the wish with the body that we're really arguing.

BillyRay | March 20, 2005, 6:19pm | #

Levy writes:Again you avoid the question. Is it your position that the doctors who testified in court are wrong or is it that the amount of brain activity she was determined to have constitutes personhood?

I've heard other doctors say the exact opposite. They do all agree that she won't get any better though.

What I find amazing is libertarians agreeing with state sanctioned torture.

Phil | March 20, 2005, 6:32pm | #

Boy, if BillyRay ever finds out that George W. Bush -- yes, that George W. Bush -- signed a law in Texas that allowed the state to remove feeding tubes and other life support from PVS/comatose patients, even if the family didn't want them to, if there wasn't sufficient money to continue paying for the support, his head will explode. Of course, that law only killed niggers and spics, so I doubt ol' BillyRay cares too much.

joe | March 20, 2005, 6:33pm | #

BillyRay, you keep asserting that the poor woman is obviously aware, responds, acts happy...have you seen any footage besides the quick cuts we've all seen on the teevee nooz - that is, the ones that the parents' lawyers' lobbyists' publicists have sent to media outlets? Those aren't clips from footage created by the news crews - those are the entirety of the release put out by the publicists - moments carefully edited to make it appear that her twitches and movements are conscious reactions to her parents.

Do you have anything other than those same few clips to suggest that she is conscious and responsive, or are you just a particularly unsophisticated media consumer?

joe | March 20, 2005, 6:35pm | #

I don't think they ban people here, BillyRay. Gillespie, do you ban people?

Coarsetad | March 20, 2005, 6:36pm | #

"What I find amazing is libertarians agreeing with state sanctioned torture"

That a dishonest statement. The judicary is enforcing the will of her legal gauardian. The "rest of the state" is forcing the woman to stay alive despite her intentions.

Besides, even if you think that she still has the ability to make a thought, how do you know that thought isn't.... "keeping me alive like this is torture, let me die."

BillyRay | March 20, 2005, 6:48pm | #

Joe

attorney Weller about the scene with Terri when explaining to her that her feeding tube was being removed? She said Terri cried and said!! "I want to live" several times and that it took some time to quiet her down.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 6:50pm | #

BillyRay,

When did I ever attempt to "ban" you? Link please.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 6:52pm | #

BillyRay,

And Attorney Weller's claim is wholly unsubstantiated. If she were actually talking they could get a camera in there and film it.

Please provide any proof that I tried to have you banned.

BillyRay | March 20, 2005, 6:54pm | #

the will of her legal gauardian.

How long does one remain a legal guadian? It seems like to me he's moved on with a new woman and her parents and family are responsible for her now.

That said, why the long process of starvation. If the state has ordered her death, why not give her an overdose of opiates

BillyRay | March 20, 2005, 6:55pm | #

Grunnels, back on one of those marriage threads in FEB.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 6:56pm | #

The great thing about libertarians is that we even tolerate assholes and liars like BillyRay.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 6:58pm | #

BillyRay,

That won't do asshole. Link to it. You know, actually substantiate a claim of yours for once in your life.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 6:59pm | #

You know, BillyRay once stated that he likes to fuck chickens. Just believe me on that one. :)

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 7:02pm | #

I love BillyRay's response to "Link please." :)

So we are either left to conclude the fucker is (a) too lazy to provide the link or (b) lying. Either way he feels that he can smear anyone with unsubstatianted claims just because he disagrees with them.

Coarsetad | March 20, 2005, 7:05pm | #

BillyRay

She has been a vegetable for something like 15years! Thats longer than his marriage to her!!! I think the reason he wants to let her die (yes, they are only letting her die, if she picks up a burger and starts eating it nobody is going to force her to stop), is that he has (probally in order to keep his sanity) moved on emotionally, that doesnt mean; however, that he doesnt have the right to fulfill her wishes not live as a vegetable.
If you ask me her husband is the only one who really cares for her. Everybody else is just being selfish or pushing an agenda.

BillyRay | March 20, 2005, 7:05pm | #

Grunnels, I'm gonna wade back through an entire months worth of posts to find it. But you did . Get over it.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 7:12pm | #

BillyRay,

Then I will take your claim with the grain of salt that it deserves. After all, its not up to me to substantiate your claims, its up to you. I have to admit, for a Christian, you certainly do lie a lot.

And its not "entire months" worth of posts; at best it is a month and a half (note that you are the one claiming that it was sometime in February). There weren't that many marraige threads in the last 45-50 days after all. Furthermore, Hit n' Run has a search function and you could of course Google it as well. So your claim that you would have to wade through a lot of material is at best specious, and at most a dishonest avoidance technique. Like I wrote earlier, you're a troll and should be treated as such. That you are avoiding substantiating your claim is clear enough reason to simply ignore anything and everything you might say.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 7:21pm | #

You know, BillyRay once stated that he likes to fuck chickens. He wrote it sometime in January. Just believe me on that one. :)

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 7:22pm | #

Coarestand,

BillyRay's greatest triumph is thinking of putting an "r" in my last name. :)

blah | March 20, 2005, 7:24pm | #

I want to go back to the comment that the Schindlers are willing to pay for her care. Yeah right, Medicaid would be paying the rehab and it would cost a fortune. Regular people cant afford that kind of perpetual care.

Anyway, it is absolutely reasonable that almost anyone would agree that they personally would not want to live like this. Why the Repubs are driving this madness now is obvious, but where were they three years ago, five years ago? Why not pass a law that forbids the pulling of tubes from anyone if its some fundamental right, even a requirement to live on a damn tube, brain dead or not?

If its wrong for Terri, every DNR contract should be disregarded nationwide. Pass a damn law for everybody if your so god-damned right to do this shit on a Sunday night at midnight. Its puny to pull this shit at the last second.

I am glad this at least is not passing on a f-ing voice vote, thank Yahweh for the Dems today for coming in to work.

Have a nice day folks

BillyRay | March 20, 2005, 7:26pm | #

Sorry Grunnels, but it was in one of your hissy fits when your were calling me a racist nazi loving slave loving KKK confederate sympathizer because I think the idea of 2 men getting married is absurd.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 7:32pm | #

BillyRay,

Index of February's write-ups:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/01/30-week/index.shtml

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/02/06-week/index.shtml

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/02/13-week/index.shtml

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/02/20-week/index.shtml

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/02/27-week/index.shtml

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 7:36pm | #

BillyRay,

Yeah, right. Substantiate these new claims then. Show me. :)

You can't of course and that's why are you are so unwilling to do it (btw, note that if I am wrong this would present you a great oppurtunity to show me up). That's right, I am daring you to substantiate your claims.

You know, BillyRay once stated that he likes to fuck chickens. He wrote it sometime in January. Just believe me on that one. :)

cdunlea | March 20, 2005, 7:38pm | #

BTW, just for the record: if I get into a horrible accident where my brain has the thinking capability of a cabbage, and the only way for me to regain consciousness if for a space monolith from "2001" to land on it, here are my wishes:

I want to be kept alive, hooked up to every machine modern medicine has to offer, and fed and groomed as necessary. I also wish to be provided with all medical treatments to keep the rest of me alive. If you could, please also roll me out for spring walks in the park from time to time, put fresh flowers by my bed so I can pretend to notice them, a trip to beach once or twice a summer wouldn't be bad either.

Oh, and I expect you taxpayers to foot the bill for me indefinitely after my grandchildren go broke paying for this.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 7:44pm | #

BillyRay,

Remember back when you claimed that the Northern states did nothing to aid the escaped slaves, and I fisked you up and down this blog over that claim? It took me about thirty-seconds to find that incident via Google: http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/02/aborting_gays.shtml

Here is the exchange:

Your statements -

As for slaves, why did the underground railroad stop in Canada intead of any free state? Simple. The northern states didn't want the runaway slaves.

...

Wrong Grunnels. The fugitive slave laws!

My response -

You are confusing a law's existance with its enforcement. And you're getting the historical record wrong (again!).

* In 1840 New York and Vermont extended the right of trial by jury to fugitives and provided them with attorneys.

* In Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) the SCOTUS stated that state authorities could not be forced to act in fugitive slave cases, but that national authorities must carry out the national law.

* Prigg was followed by legislation in Massachusetts (1843), Vermont (1843), Pennsylvania (1847) and Rhode Island (1848), forbidding state officials to help enforce the law and refusing the use of state gaols for fugitive slaves.

* Personal Liberty Laws were enacted in Vermont (1850), Connecticut (1854), Rhode Island (1854), Massachusetts (1855), Michigan (1855), Maine (1855 and 1857), Kansas (1858) and Wisconsin (1858). These Personal Liberty Laws forbade justices and judges to take cognizance of fugitive slave claims, extended the habeas corpus act and the privilege of jury trial to fugitives, and punished false testimony severely. The supreme court of Wisconsin went so far (1859) as to declare the Fugitive Slave Law unconstitutional.

Note that much of this legislation was inspired by Southern efforts to force - via the Federal government - non-slave states to do their bidding re: escaped slaves.

______________________________________________

Let's note that after this statement of mine you shut your fucking trap about the claim that northern states didn't care about fugitive slaves.

blah | March 20, 2005, 7:52pm | #

If you want to look at this as a righteous stand for the GOP, you may. This issue is not polling in their favor. There is a principle involved, its just that they are DEAD wrong.

I have just been reading some of the polls at Fox and at MSN. I would have thought it would be a closer split, but it really isn't that close. at msn 62-38 with 160000 voting in unscientific poll

Zogbys website has the ultimate man humping the floor.

Pollingreport.com(reporting a Wash Post ABC poll)65-25 for the spouse deciding, 87% saying they personally would not want to be kept alive like this, 8% saying that they would like to live like that(WTF).

And of course we know Terris wishes for her half-alive body, puh-lease

BillyRay | March 20, 2005, 8:30pm | #

Starving for a Fair Diagnosis

Josh | March 20, 2005, 8:34pm | #

What's unforgiveable is the phalanx of political buzzards exploiting their situation to push their "life" jihad. Grieving people, setting them up like that, enlisting them. We can fight for your your daughter! Disgusting.

Having examined the situation about as closely as I want to, I think that taking her off life support is probably the right decision here. I do not, think, though, that we should reserve our disgust over crass use of the situation for the pro-lifers -- the right-to-diers are equally guilty here.

Gary Gunnels | March 20, 2005, 8:49pm | #

BillyRay,

Still playing the coward's game I see. :)

________________________________________________

Let's note that this is the same NRO article that was significantly undermined in the thread prior to this concerning Schiavo. Here BillyRay presents it as if it were new evidence. Ever notice that when BillyRay's arguments are exhausted that he starts linking to discredited or wholly inapposite sites? :)

Drooling Richard | March 20, 2005, 9:06pm | #

cdulnea,

"I want to be kept alive, hooked up to every machine modern medicine has to offer, and fed and groomed as necessary."

Fine, just pay for that service YOURSELF in advance.

DR

Akira MacKenzie | March 20, 2005, 9:10pm | #

"I want to be kept alive, hooked up to every machine modern medicine has to offer, and fed and groomed as necessary."

Are we talking about life-support, or The Matrix?

Mr. B | March 20, 2005, 9:10pm | #

All life is sacred

http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/fs/food/images/broccoli.jpg

Coarsetad | March 20, 2005, 9:14pm | #

"Starving for a Fair Diagnosis"

I wonder how many from this army of doctors saying that Terri can improve, have ever examined her personally.

cdunlea | March 20, 2005, 9:20pm | #

Drool, given the for-rent nature of this Congress, I intend to ask them to give me the same free medical coverage they're extending to Terry Schiavo.

Akira, if the Matrix is available, plug me in! Just don't send Morpheus over with the red pill...

cdunlea | March 20, 2005, 9:23pm | #

Now that I think about it, why is Congress determined to give Terry free medical coverage when they fought tooth and nail to deny it to rest of us??

gibbon | March 20, 2005, 9:58pm | #

Me, I read the original court order.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

Money Quote: "But the overwhelming credible evidence is that Terri Schiavo has been totally unresponsive since lapsing into the coma almost ten years ago, that her movements are reflexive and predicated on brain stemp activity alone, that she suffers from severe structural brain damage and to a large extent her brain has been replaced by spinal fluid, that with the exception of one witness whom the court finds to be so biased as to lack credibility, her movements are occasional and totally consistent with the testimony of the expert medical witnesses."

and also

"It is also interesting to note that Mr Schiavo continues to be the most regular vistor to his wife even thought he is criticized for wanting to remove her life support.""

Drooling Richard | March 20, 2005, 10:10pm | #

"... given the for-rent nature of this Congress, I intend to ask them to give me the same free medical coverage they're extending to Terry Schiavo."

'Them' would be the taxpayers or other members of the insurance plan Terry has. It's certainly not free.

Not that this carries much weight against the legal arguments, but does anyone know if the Schiavo parents are really going to pay for the care they are offerring ?

Pavel | March 20, 2005, 10:33pm | #

My heart goes out to the parents. I can understand everything they're do, and sympathize. Of course parents should act like this.

What's unforgiveable is the phalanx of political buzzards exploiting their situation to push their "life" jihad.

Parents should act like what, joe? Creepy zombie coddlers who keep their undead daughter alive for their own amusement?

Do you realize they've done everything in their power to amass this phalanx of political buzzards in the first place? I really don't like blaming politicians when its perfectly obvious that the public is getting what they asked for.

It seems like to me he's moved on with a new woman and her parents and family are responsible for her now.

No, he *was* the legal guardian until he willed that power over to the courts. Even if he wanted to grant guardianship to her parents, he couldn't at this point. Terri's fate is completely in the hands of the state.

joe | March 20, 2005, 11:01pm | #

"Parents should act like what, joe? Creepy zombie coddlers who keep their undead daughter alive for their own amusement?"

I'm sure they don't see it like that, Pavel. They're parents who don't want to see their daughter die. Of course they're going to be a little erratic. The see Terri sit up and grunt, and she's trying to talk to them. Poor bastards.

I don't they've been well served by the people giving them counsel.

joe | March 20, 2005, 11:02pm | #

"don't think"

heh.

Henry | March 21, 2005, 12:09am | #

Even more Christer lunacy:

http://snipurl.com/djys

Mr. Nice Guy | March 21, 2005, 8:15am | #

joe, I commend your compassion, but I think the 'rents in this case are completely betraying the dignity of their daughter. They are ultimately responsible for doing the correct thing, despite the constant pressure from the nutjobs.

My mother is a devote Catholic, and she thinks this is total bullshit. Common sense is common sense, and it's baffling why our nation is suffering this mass psychosis.

Notice how the right wingnuts are constantly attaching the word "life" to this issue? Bush said the other day about protecting the "life" of all Americans. Right to life. Trust me, this is just the beginning. Just the beginning.

Isaac Bartram | March 21, 2005, 8:35am | #

If the woman is indeed speaking, why the hell don't they sneak a camera into the room?

Hell, why doesn't somebody just give a sworn statement. Uhh, maybe 'cos they know if they did they'd end up in jail or hell.

Just heard a report on the radio that there's a huge increase in people wanting to make living wills.

Gary Gunnels | March 21, 2005, 8:38am | #

Isaac Bartram,

Not surprising. They don't want this government-created nightmare to happen to them.

Coarsetad | March 21, 2005, 8:58am | #

I just read a quote from DeLay (R-texas) that the "moral issues of this case are clear-cut". I think this pretty much sums up my sole reason for not being comfortable with conservatives. They have zero ability to see someone's point of view and then claim to be compassionate.

joe | March 21, 2005, 9:36am | #

"That said, why the long process of starvation. If the state has ordered her death, why not give her an overdose of opiates"

Because, BillyRay, the lifers have decided that that shouldn't be allowed.

There were a number of points above along the lines of "it's baffling why our nation is suffering this mass psychosis."

Our nation is NOT suffering from mass psychosis. Large majorities of the country side with the husband in every poll I've seen. The Republican Party has decided to pretend that they're in the mainstream on this, and the lapdog press has, as usual, gone along with them, but in reality, that just ain't so.

This episode is demonstrating to the country exactly how creepy the "life, life, life" drumbeat can become.

Mr. Nice Guy | March 21, 2005, 9:45am | #

joe:

I stand by the mass psychosis statement. Only half the house Democrats (if I understand correctly) voted against the bullshit bill. And it would've only taken one Senator to stall the initial process, and no one stepped up. These legislators, technically, represent the will of the masses.

Never has it been so apparent to me that we're ruled by hypocrits, lunatics, cowards, and liars.

Isaac Bartram | March 21, 2005, 11:52am | #

As near as I can tell there was no roll call on this vote. I haven't found one anyway. Can anyone else?

joe | March 21, 2005, 12:08pm | #

Isaac,

NRO's "The Corner" blog links to a roll call.

drf | March 21, 2005, 12:35pm | #

thoreau -

what is billyray's alterego here on hit and run? clothier? rc? dan? andrew? (oh wait, that was JB's alter ego with whom he argued)... or is it JB himself? aren't you, too?

thoreau | March 21, 2005, 12:35pm | #

All I know if I, God forbid, were in the same situation as Terri, I would want my family driving my PVS ass to Oregon and killing me softly rather than starving my body. I don't know if Terri (or the hypothetical PVS Mo) feels the pain, but I'd rather not take my chances.

I agree. My guess is that taking her to Oregon would mean a whole new round of appeals in Oregon courts. The family has basically exhausted all of their options in FL courts, but in OR they could start fresh. Even if OR courts are more sympathetic (quite possible), the process would still take time. I know, it probably shouldn't, given the assisted suicide law, but (1) anybody who really wants to can always drag things out in court and (2) Teri herself hasn't made her wishes explicit, so the FL courts had to deduce that her husband was legitimately and accurately representing her wishes. The OR courts would no doubt need time to make the same determination.

Isaac Bartram | March 21, 2005, 2:59pm | #

NRO's "The Corner" blog links to a roll call.

Thanks joe.

Actually I had found it at the House website, but I misread it as a procedural vote.

I wonder how the 174 congresscritters who didn't vote would have if they had made it to town.