TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- WTF Is Congress Doing???
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by johnyiscool you know the world has gone to hell when people start calling people who want to keep people alive are called evil and people who people dead are called good

Oh? So you're against the death penalty in any and all circumstances than? Also it's "good" to keep a person artificially alive agianst their own will because we know what's good for them? Try rephrasing your statement to somthing that's applicable to this case.

its just a observation I am not offering no judgement on the case

althought something can be said about innocents and guilty

quote:

Originally posted by johnyiscool its just a observation I am not offering no judgement on the case althought something can be said about innocents and guilty

Huh? And something can be said about two toed sloths. What exactly are you saying that has any relevance to this case whatsoever? If you have an opinion, speak your mind. Abstract arguments are fun and all, but they leave very little to debate much less contemplate to the cognitive.

Federal appeals court just made its decision:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/...iavo/index.html

Short of SCOTUS intervening (who had already declined to do so) it looks like common sense shall prevail.

quote:

Originally posted by johnyiscool its just a observation I am not offering no judgement on the case althought something can be said about innocents and guilty

Has the Electronicmaji returned again?

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Has the Electronicmaji returned again?

LOL that's what i thought, but then again, he didn't end his post with 'boom chaka laka'

Pull up a chair. Here's a rundown of events:

There�s really some funny fucking things going on here. Ultimate hypocricy, weekend wannabe doctors, political wagging the dog bullshit (that�s right Tom Delay � this means you, you fucking hypocritical turdbag), and a bit of media gloss to boot.

First things first � Occ astutely pointed out the previous court�s decisions. Occ is a bit more objective and tends to sway away from the fun political stuff, so I think it�s time to mention some political motives here. I think the history of this case is pretty interesting � first her husband pulled it out, then Jeb Bush intervened and put the tube back in. The courts viewed JB�s actions unconstitutional and the husband was allowed to put the tube back out. Then the Florida legislature led the charge to create a bill forcing the tube back in. They won and the tube was placed back in. Then once again the courts came in and rightly said the Florida legislature�s bill was unconstitutional, and the husband was allowed to place the tube out.

Now someone can help me out here if I�m wrong, but then it went to the Florida Supreme Court, which during that time the tube had to be placed back in. Then the Florida SC ruled in favor of the husband and the tube was finally taken out.

So then our Federal Congress and Senate stepped in, way over their boundaries in order to do something about it all. 3 Senators stepped in, snuck in, whatever, and ruled on the Senate Floor to pass a special bill for Terry Shciavo. Let�s just forget the fact that the 3 Senators were all Republicans, and that one of the Senators just so happened to be a close personal friend of Jeb Bush �his old college roommate, no less. Then the House went into special session where we heard Tom �I�m a fucking crook from Hell� Delay attempt to play doctor and moral authority on all of us when he said in a press conference on March 19th:

quote:

Question from Reporter: Mr. Schiavo and his lawyer and his lawyer, and a lot of other people, actually, have been highly critical of you and Congress, saying that this was really none of Congress' business and that you were pretty heavy-handed with the subpoenas and how do you respond to that? Tom Delay: Well I've got to tell you, I don't have a whole lot of respect for a man that has treated this woman in this way. He has refused to allow her to have therapy. He has refused to even let her have an MRI. For the last five years, five years, she's been kept in a hospice and every time they've asked just to take her outside, which they can do, he has refused. She's not been outside, I think, for the last three years. Um..uh, I think his abuse and neglect of his position as guardian is outrageous. And, and,...and partnered with this judge that has allowed him to treat Terry like this for the last eleven years is outrageous. And my question is, what kind of man is he? Question from Reporter: Why is this a Congressional issue? Tom Delay: 'Cause the United States Constitution protects the lives of human beings from being taken by other human beings needlessly.

Or when he spoke at the Family Research Council, playing both victim and mouthpiece to God Himself:

quote:

"One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America," Mr. DeLay told a conference organized by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group. A recording of the event was provided by the advocacy organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," Mr. DeLay said. Mr. DeLay complained that "the other side" had figured out how "to defeat the conservative movement," by waging personal attacks, linking with liberal organizations and persuading the national news media to report the story. He charged that "the whole syndicate" was "a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/politics/22cong.html?

Please hold your snickers and gut-busting laughters �till the end.

Now I�m really hoping most of you, including Republicans have been following our boy Tom Delay lately. You damn well should � he is the absolute epitomy of hypocrisy, corruption, and behind-the-scenes-under-the-table scandalous asswipe. A true embarrassment to any political party.

The House ethics committee has formally swiped at his actions not once, not twice, but 3 times, something that�s quite unheard of historically. So what did Delay the House GOP whip do? Why he first tried to change House ethics rules, allowing anyone being legally indicted to keep their Congressional position. That didn�t go over well publicly as well as Congressionally, so instead they tweaked the ethics rules a bit creating a stalemate situation with the House Ethics committee, which is split 5 Dems. and 5 Repubs. Essentially the new rule states that there has to be a majority of Ethics Committee members ruling in favor for any investigation to take place. Well before that was problematic because 2 of the GOP Ethics Committee members were part of the criticizers of Delay in his 3 formal rebukes. Well good ol� Tom simply had those members booted for 2 of his favorites, 2 guys who actually CONTRIBUTED to his PAC from which he was cited for ethical problems and 3 formal rebukes in the first place! That�s right folks, this is how the GOP runs and handles ethical internal affairs. If it sounds a bit familiar to those ethically challenged Democrats of the �70�s and �80�s, then I think we�re on the right track to conclude and agree with that old clich�:

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This is so bad, in fact, that the Senate is having investigations of their own on Delay � Senator Grassly/Grassman (I can�t remember) running one investigation, while Senator McCain is running another. They�re doing this because of the absolute INCOMPETENCE and CORRUPTION of the GOP House Ethics Committee members who continue to hold this stalemate and refuse to look into the matter any further.

For a rundown on Delay�s shenanigans, please read this article:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

So bad, in fact, that David Brooks of all Bush apologists chimes in and demonstrates just how corrupt Delay and some of his cronies are (free subscription req�d � get it man, it�s the NYTimes!):

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/o...html?oref=login

Good for Brooks � he might actually be learning to separate true Conservatives and Republicans from these sleezebucket Christian fundie wingnuts and neocons who are corrupt as fuck. I�m sure it won�t last from Brooks, but here�s to hoping.

And Schiavo�s husband has some real balls to call Delay exactly what he is:

quote:

He said U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is leading a charge to extend Terri Schiavo's life, is a "little slithering snake" pandering for votes. http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/20/T...me_down__.shtml

But back to the real issue at hand, so our GOP-led Congress and Senate led a charge to create a very special statute that was, as Shakka points out, NOT a precedent, i.e. does not pertain or stretch out to any other instance other than this particular event. They did this because the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case as well, and rightfully so considering as Occ pointed out this is solely a states issue, NOT a federal issue. Now they did make this a precedent because if we were to take the GOP rationale here and expand it out � if we were to believe that the federal government has a right to intervene and assure medical care at any time they deem arbitrarily fit, then we have just opened up a lovely can of worms for:

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!!!

Thank you so much, GOPers, for pressing our Democratic talking point here! As John Arovosis at Americablog points out, this would entail them to cover:

quote:

- poor people, the homeless, the underemployed, illegal immigrants who can't afford to pay for their medical help - the elderly who don't have enough money to pay for the kind of expensive medical attention they may need later in life - parents of newborns facing catastrophic illness - regular Americans who can't afford health insurance, have no health insurance for any other reason, or who have health insurance that doesn't cover their current major or catastrophic illness. - any American who ends up facing any kind of major illness or threat to their health and who can't afford to pay for adequate treatment. STRIKE THAT, money is irrelevant, this is the Culture of Life we're talking about. That should read "any American facing any kind of major illness or health threat, period - regardless of ability to pay" - in Schiavo's case, money isn't the issue, yet they're still guaranteeing federal help. And after all, isn't the Culture of Life more important than dollars anyway? http://americablog.blogspot.com/200...y-american.html

But obviously the GOP hypocrisy wouldn�t go that far, so we limit it to grandstanding on this case only. Cute, huh? Nevermind that they are completely overstepping their constitutional boundaries in doing so. And we must also point out a small but important discrepancy in how exactly the 3 Senators went about passing this on the Senate floor. Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

quote:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.(emphasis added) http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

IOW, what the 3 GOP Senators did was likely unconstitutional in the first place. Go figure, right? I mean, who woulda thunk the GOP overstepping the Constitution, ever?

Anyways, moving on, as Wolverine pointed out, Bush had signed a bill back in �99 as Governor of Texas giving the absolute authority to the hospitals on patients such as Terry. The contradiction really shouldn�t be missed at all. His bill, called the Texas Futile Care Law states:

quote:

Section 166.046, Subsection (e): If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/stat...0.000166.00.htm

Now let�s take a look at what Scott McClellan stated yesterday, attempting to support Bush�s actions and saying they were somehow �consistent� with his �99 law:

quote:

The legislation he signed is consistent with his views. You know, this is a complex case and I don�t think such uninformed accusations offer any constructive ways to address this matter�Prior to the passage of the �99 legislation that he signed, there were no protections�The legislation was there to help ensure that actions were being taken that were in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient�s family. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20050321-2.html

No, Scott, the law did not ensure that actions were taken �in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient�s family.� In fact it codifies and legalizes the ability of doctors to stop treatment even if it goes against the explicit directive of the patient or the patient�s family.

(thanks to thinkprogress.org for pointing that out).

And let�s also take a good hard look at the GOP platform in the past:

The 2000 Republican Platform:

quote:

"Medical decision-making should be in the hands of physicians and their patients." http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/co...es/platform.00/

The 2004 Republican Platform:

quote:

"We must attack the root causes of high health care costs by: ... putting patients and doctors in charge of medical decisions." http://www.soc.washington.edu/users...rm_abridged.pdf

And if you think for some strange reason that the GOP�s effort is well supported by the public or even the majority of people voting for them, please think again:

quote:

- 70% of Americans say it is inappropriate for Congress to involve itself in the Schiavo case. - 67% of Americans �think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.� (Just 19% believe the elected officials are acting out of concern for her or their principles.) - 58% of Republicans, 61% of independents and 63% of Democrats oppose federal government intervention in the case. - 50% of evangelicals oppose federal government intervention in the case, just 44% approve of the intervention. - 63% of Catholics and a plurality of evangelicals believe Schiavo�s feeding tube should be removed. http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/978a1Schiavo.pdf

Just to recap, the majority of Catholics, Republicans, and Evangelicals think the GOP and Delay�s bullshit tactics are wrong. Go figure that one, right?

Now some may be a bit uncomfortable with this poll. I just heard Michael Savage last night roll around in anger at that darn liberal media bias by ABC. Well we can also take a look at the CNN/USAToday/Gallup Poll, even though Gallup almost always tends to lean towards Republicans by polling more Republicans than Dems. in almost every damn poll they use:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/allp.../content.1.html

Just hit the �next� button to look at a breakdown in political affiliation and church attendance. The majority of Democrats, Repubs., Independents, and church goers all agree the feeding tube should be removed. So again, the vocal fundie nutbags are the highly vocal minority.

So what other hypocritical points could we bring up by the GOP�s actions on this case? Digby points a few more out:

quote:

Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country. Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far. Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schivos because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming. http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005...134934659869241

That�s right � this runs 180 degrees from the GOP drum beating on malpractice claims, medicaid cuts, and bankruptcy filing. Very interesting, huh?

And I must say that lining oneself up with this Randall Terry fucknut is not the way to go:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220001

I had some personal experience with this fuck back in my hometown in Wichita when he did his �Operation Rescue� picketing back in the early �90�s. Definitely not the bedfellow you want, but who�s stopping Santorum, Frist, and Delay?

Speaking of Frist, I�m really getting fucking sick and tired of this guy giving his medical opinion on shit he knows nothing about. Or what�s worse, giving an opinion based on a fucking video tape? WTF here people?:

quote:

"I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli." His comments raised eyebrows in medical and political circles alike. It is not every day that a high-profile physician relies on family videotapes to challenge the diagnosis of doctors who examined a severely brain-damaged patient in person. Democrats were quick to note that Frist was getting rave reviews from conservative activists who will play a major role in the 2008 presidential primaries he is weighing. Some medical professionals questioned the appropriateness of Frist challenging court-approved doctors who have treated Schiavo. Laurie Zoloth, director of bioethics for the Center for Genetic Medicine at Northwestern University, said she was surprised to hear Frist weigh in, given that he has not examined Schiavo. "It is extremely unusual -- and by a non-neurologist, I might add," Zoloth said in an interview. Were Frist rendering an official medical judgment, she said, relying on an "amateur video" could raise liability issues. After 15 years, "there should be no confusion about the medical data, and that's what was so surprising to me about Dr. Frist disagreeing about her medical status," Zoloth said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Mar18.html

And as the Post article further explains, this isn�t the first time Dr. Frist has given some extremely dubious information:

quote:

It is not the first time that Frist has created a stir in medical and political circles. In December, on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," he repeatedly declined to say whether he thought HIV-AIDS could be transmitted through tears or sweat. A much-disputed federal education program championed by some conservative groups had suggested that such transmissions occur. After numerous challenges by Stephanopoulos, Frist said that "it would be very hard" for someone to contract AIDS via tears or sweat. The Web site of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says: "Contact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV."

Now what does the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics State? 2 of the 9 principles state as follows:

quote:

2. A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions , and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities. 5. A physician shall continue to study, apply, and dvance scientific knowledge, maintain a commitment to medical education, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when indicated. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2512.html

Emphasis mine above.

For information on �tears and sweat�, take a look at the CDC fact sheet:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/transmission.htm

For a doctor to state that he doesn�t know if tears and sweat can transmit HIV and AIDS clearly demonstrates utter ignorance and does not �advance scientific knowledge� in any fucking way.

Or his assertion that condoms have a 15% failure rate. This is stated when it comes to pregnancy, though you wouldn�t know that from his statements. Furthermore, he failed to mention that when used properly � the failure rate in avoiding PREGNANCY drops to 2-3%:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/bc/condom.htm
http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html

Which is why we have sex education courses, but I�m digressing as hell. You can read more on this in the Waxman report:

http://www.democrats.reform.house.g...02153-50247.pdf

The point being is that Frist is not only being extraordinarily intellectually dishonest (what politician isn�t, right?), but very PROFESSIONALLY dishonest not once but twice. This calls for nothing shy of a revoke of his medical license.

And I�m not fucking done with you, Frist. What the fuck is this that you wrote back in �89?:

quote:

Frist wrote a book in 1989 called Transplant where he advocated changing the definition of "brain dead" to include anencephalic babies. Anencephalic babies are in the same state as Terri Schiavo except that she suffered a physical trauma that put her into a vegetative state while the anencephalic babies are born that way. This remarkable discovery buttresses the argument that Frist's advocacy for Schiavo is wholly political. How does he explain this remarkable inconsistency? Here is the relevant passage on Frist as quoted by the New Republic in 2003: "And, although Frist writes frequently about the ethical issues surrounding transplants--for example, the question of when death begins--he approaches these issues in starkly scientific terms, with little patience for religious objections. "Near the end of the book, for example, Frist suggests changing the legal definition of 'brain death' to include anencephalic babies, who are born with a fatal neurological disorder but show just the slightest hint of brain-stem activity. Such a change would make it possible to harvest their organs for transplant--something the Catholic Church and pro-life groups oppose. 'Three thousand anencephalic babies were born a year, enough to solve our demand many times over--but we never used them.'" http://dcinsidescoop.blogspot.com/2...inition-of.html

Fucking contradict yourself much you slimy asswipe? I really do hope you try to run in �08. The Dems. have got the fucking goods on you. Pleeeeeease run!

But that�s not all on these doctor reports. If anyone�s been keeping up, Faux News along with Frist and others have relied heavily on a lone dissenter who believes he can cure Schiavo - Dr. William Hammesfahr. Needless to say, this guy is a fucking quack with absolutely no solid evidence to support his bullshit assertions. His evidence is purely anecdotal at best, and is likely completely unfounded and a bold-face lie. And rather shockingly, this guy has a bit of a checkered past:

quote:

In February 2003, the Florida Board of Medicine ruled that (Dr. Hammesfahr) violated state law by charging a patient for services that were not provided (Finding of Fact No. 71, PDF p. 40). The board fined Hammesfahr $2,000, placed him on probation for six months, and ordered him to pay approximately $52,000 in administrative costs and to perform 100 hours of community service. While the board also ruled that Hammesfahr's treatment of stroke patients, using a procedure he has claimed could help Terri Schiavo, was "not within the generally accepted standard of care" (Finding of Fact No. 55, PDF p. 33), it declined to rule that the treatment was harmful to his patients and noted that some patients improved after treatment. http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220002

Here�s a really good rundown by quackwatch.org � a website of peer-reviewed doctors and researchers on Hammesfahr�s Ultrasound Monitoring of Stroke Patients:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quacker.../Tests/tcd.html

IOW, he�s a fucking quack, period. More info. on this quack can be found here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220002

And his �Nobel Prize nominee� falsity:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220009

Of course that doesn�t stop Hannity touting this fraud now, does it? I must say that this doctor is not only dangerous, but giving such a false sense of hope to the victim�s patients is nothing shy of unethical and evil. Thanks, conservative mouthpieces, for showing just how far you�re willing to go by promoting shitheads like this. Oh, and the nurse that Faux News promoted as saying Schiavo was talking to her � the courts found her evidence not credible (real shocker!):

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503230001

Had enough, yet? Too bad � this is a developing story. So the Federal judge turned the case down Monday night wasn�t it? And sure as shit � the whacko fundie pundits were trying to knock the guy down, mainly for being a Clinton appointee. Well let�s take a look at his record and you decide for yourself just how �liberal� he is:

quote:

�In a high-profile case in Tampa, he ruled a "county can regulate nudity in private clubs to protect residents from an increase in crime and prostitution as well as the degradation of women." Sarasota Herald-Tribune, January 15, 2003. �He "denied an adult business owner's attempt to bar the State Attorney's Office from prosecuting him under a state racketeering law if he sets up shop in Polk County." Lakeland Ledger, February 5, 2003. �He refused to find Polk County's use of antiracketeering laws and high bail unconstitutional. Tampa Tribune, March 2, 2003. �He ruled that "Manatee County nudity ordinances do not infringe on exotic dancers' constitutional rights of expression." Sarasota Herald-Tribune, April 3, 2002 . �He "dismissed a lawsuit filed against the Polk school board by parents and students who said the mandate to wear uniforms violated their civil rights." Tampa Tribune, November 20, 2002, �He sent a former publicist for the National Baptist Convention USA back to prison for nine months for violating the terms of her probation. The reason: she had forged the signature of a church minister and made a false statement on a lease application for an apartment. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 29, 2002 �In a religious investment scam case, he sentenced Greater Ministries Founder Gerald Payne to 27 years in prison and called him him a "wolf in sheep's clothing." St. Petersburg Times, August 13, 2001. �He upheld Florida's law prohibiting interstate shipment of wine from out of state to Florida consumers. The state had argued the law, which is a felony, is "justified because they address a "threat to the public health, safety, and welfare; to state revenue collections; and to the economy of the state." Broward Daily Business Review, July 30, 2001. On the other side: He did rule against the State of Florida and Jeb Bush when he "blocked the state from forcing 249 poor people out of three nursing homes owned by Vencor Inc." He held a hearing to determine if Gov. Jeb Bush "overstepped his authority in cutting off Medicaid funding to the three homes, along with three others." "It is not acceptable to me that anyone, especially the most defenseless among us, should be forced to endure consistently poor living conditions." St. Petersburg Times, October 16, 2000. In that case, he issued an emergency temporary restraining order prohihibiting "curtailment of Medicaid funds at three Vencor facilities and halting "state efforts to relocate 249 Medicaid patients from the three nursing homes." St. Petersburg Times, October 11, 2000. He was nominated and confirmed with bipartisan support. �He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on May 25, 2000. St. Petersburg Times, May 25, 2000. The Senate Wednesday unanimously confirmed James D. Whittemore, a circuit judge from Hillsborough County, to serve as a judge on the federal bench in the Middle District of Florida. Although Democrats have long complained that Republicans intentionally stalled many of President Clinton's judicial nominations for political reasons, Whittemore did not have much of a wait. He was nominated in October 1999 after Florida Sens. Bob Graham, a Democrat, and Connie Mack, a Republican, recommended him. Whittemore, 47, has been a judge in the 13th Circuit in Hillsborough County since 1990. He was named Jurist of the Year by the Hillsborough County Bar Association in 1998. Whittemore, of Temple Terrace, received his law degree from Stetson University in 1977. A former private attorney and public defender, he will replace retiring judge Terrell Hodges on the Middle District bench. Before that, �Whittemore received a bachelor's degree with honors in business administration from the University of Florida in 1974. Tampa Tribune (Florida) May 25, 2000. �A press release from the day of his nomination says (M2 PRESSWIRE October 21, 1999): James D. Whittemore, of Temple Terrace, Florida, has served as a Circuit Court Judge on the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, Florida since 1990. Prior to his appointment to the court, Whittemore was a sole practitioner in Tampa from 1987 to 1990; an associate at Whittemore & Campbell, P.A. from 1982 to 1987; and an associate at Whittemore & Seybold, P.A. from 1981 to 1982. He also served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Office of Federal Public Defender from 1978 to 1981 and as a law clerk and associate at Bauer, Morlan & Wells, P.A. in 1977. Whittemore received his B.S. in Business Administration, with honors, from the University of Florida in 1974 and his J.D. from Stetson University College of Law in 1977. http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010117.html#010117

So kindly stick any partisan accusations up your ass, Mr. Hannity. And Santorum needs to shut his fucking propaganda trap. Congress merely asking for a statute does not entail the judge is OBLIGATED to grant the statute as requested. He made a sound decision that the evidence supporting Congress is completely absent. So fucking deal with it, prick. Go fucking live in the fucking state where you�re supposed to live to be a Senator before you come back to us on legal matters, prick.

And just today, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals just turned them down in a 2-1 decision. Let�s keep in mind that the 2 judges ruling against them were Clinton and Bush Sr. appointees. The dissenting judge, Wilson, IS A CLINTON APPOINTEEE, so please stick that in your fucking pipe, dear conservative pundits:

quote:

In a 2-1 ruling early Wednesday, a panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said the parents, who have battled with their son-in-law for years over the woman's fate, "failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims" that Terri's feeding tube should be reinserted immediately. "There is no denying the absolute tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo," the ruling by Judges Ed Carnes and Frank M. Hull said. "We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children. However, we are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law." In his dissent, Judge Charles R. Wilson said Schiavo's "imminent" death would end the case before it could be fully considered. "In fact, I fail to see any harm in reinserting the feeding tube," he wrote. Wilson and Hull were appointed to the appeals court by President Clinton, while Carnes was appointed by former President Bush. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...n_damaged_woman

What�s also interesting about this 11th Circuit Court ruling is the Schindlers not only wanted to force the feeding tube back in, but also asked the court to force the doctors to perform �"...any medical treatment necessary to sustain her life..."

Let�s also keep in mind that Congress actually MANDATED that the feeding tube NOT to be reinserted during the process of obtaining their statute to the Federal courts. And what the 2 judges agreed upon is that they were merely maintaining the status quo GIVEN BY THE GOP CONGRESS THEMSELVES! Congress also did not issue a mandated stay, despite what Kristol on Faux News wants everyone to believe, as was argued:

quote:

"Mr. FRIST. I share the understanding of the Senator from Michigan, as does the junior Senator from Florida who is the chief sponsor of this bill. Nothing in the current bill or its legislative history mandates a stay. "

Fuck me � what the hell have I done? Okay, almost finished here. There remains the one last question � why in God�s name is the GOP fucking doing this? Here�s your answer:

quote:

S. 529., The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act * Teri Schiavo is subject to an order that her feeding tubes will be disconnected on March 18, 2005 at 1p.m. * The Senate needs to act this week before the Budget Act is pending business, or Teri's family will not have a remedy in federal court. * This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue. * This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida - has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats. * The bill is very limited and defines custody as "those parties authorized or directed by a court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment." * There is an exemption for proceeding "which no party disputes, and the court finds, that the incapacitated person while having capacity, had executed a written advance directive valid under applicably law that clearly authorized the withholding or withdrawal of food or fluids or medical treatment in the applicable circumstances." * Incapacitated persons are defined as those "presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding or withdrawal of food fluids or medical treatment under applicable state law." * This legislation ensures that individuals like Teri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Schiavo/story?id=600937

That would be the GOP talking points circulating among Senate Republicans that ABCNews obtained pertaining to this matter, emphasis mine above. As for the anti-abortion folks:

quote:

Christian evangelicals, a key component in President Bush's Republican Party, believe the case of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo may help inject new life into their long campaign against abortion. "The right-to-life issue has been with us for over 30 years but never has it dominated the news headlines day after day as it is doing now," said Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition. "This case has generated a kind of inspirational activism. It is giving revival and renewal to millions of people who feel strongly about the culture of life and the protection of life," he said. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...avo_politics_dc

Strange coincidence? Don�t you Republicans feel proud of your GOP fundie fucknuts politicizing this woman, her husband and family? Boy I sure would!

Thank God there are some true Conservatives out there that are not buying into this:

quote:

Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the sole Republican to oppose the Schiavo bill in a voice vote in the Senate, said: "This senator has learned from many years you've got to separate your own emotions from the duty to support the Constitution of this country. These are fundamental principles of federalism." "It looks as if it's a wholly Republican exercise," Mr. Warner said, "but in the ranks of the Republican Party, there is not a unanimous view that Congress should be taking this step." In interviews over the past two days, conservatives who expressed concern about the turn of events in Congress stopped short of condemning the vote in which overwhelming majorities supported the Schiavo bill, and they generally applauded the goal of trying to keep Ms. Schiavo alive. But they said they were concerned about what precedent had been set and said the vote went against Republicans who were libertarian, advocates of states' rights or supporters of individual rights. "My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. "This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility." "This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy," Mr. Shays said. "There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/p...ner=rssuserland

Another good story on this here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...o_conservatives

So how�s that pandering to these fundie extremists going for you Republicans? Are you as uncomfortable as Congressman Shays is about this whole thing, or are you still believing this is truly a case of �compassionate� conservatism?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 David Brooks of all Bush apologists chimes in and demonstrates just how corrupt Delay and some of his cronies are (free subscription req�d � get it man, it�s the NYTimes!): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/o...html?oref=login

http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=newyorktimes.com

Jesus Christ, Opus. How long you been typing up that little jewel? I pulled up a chair but it broke about halfway through reading that mother of a post. I will repeat my statement that if her husband wasn't such a douche and hadn't gone off and had kids with another woman while still married to the vegetable, he would probably carry a lot more weight in this whole clusterfuck.

Going back to an earlier post, and knowing a thing or two about Catholicism, I think there may be more to this statement than meets the eye.

quote:

And in Terri's case, they are playing God when they do not have to. Her parents have begged to become her guardians. Her husband has refused. We do not know for certain why the husband has refused. I doubt that he wishes to receive for himself the money that still exists from her insurance settlement and, apparently, he has offered to donate that money to charity. Perhaps, being a Catholic, he would like her death to make him free to marry the woman with whom he is now living. Or perhaps (and I think this is the most likely case) he does not want his wife to live what strikes him as an intolerable life.

Anyway, I am pretty tired of this. They should've given her a lethal injection and ended this long ago. Just because she cannot physically express pain does not mean that she cannot feel pain, and IMO, starving her to death vs. leaving her in a permanent vegatative state is six of one and a half dozen of the other. Euthanize this poor woman, and then give her family some privacy to grieve out of the public spotlight.

great post Opus, thanks alot

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I will repeat my statement that if her husband wasn't such a douche and hadn't gone off and had kids with another woman while still married to the vegetable, he would probably carry a lot more weight in this whole clusterfuck.

Well I certainly don't argue the fact that the guy is a douchebag. However, both legally and politically that really is irrelevant. And I do agree with the statement you posted:

quote:

Or perhaps (and I think this is the most likely case) he does not want his wife to live what strikes him as an intolerable life.

Given the fact that she expressed this to him and at least 2 others. The parents simply have refused to let her go. My heart goes out to them, and it really goes out to them to listen to these quack doctors and fucks like Frist thinking he's a fucking expert in neurology based on examining her via TAPE. It's truly cruel to keep their hopes alive, but as Occ pointed out earlier, her parents were willing to keep her alive under any and all conditions, which is really a bit whacko in their own right.

But I have a bit of some more information. Who exactly is supporting the Schindlers financially? Who is behind the money?

Answer:

quote:

Schindler lawyer Pat Anderson "was paid directly" by the anti-abortion Life Legal Defense Foundation, which "has already spent over $300,000 on this case," according to the foundation's Web site. Much of the support for Life Legal Defense Foundation, in turn, comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-gay rights group which collected more than $15 million in private donations in 2002 and admits to having spent money on the Schiavo case "in the six figures," according to a recent article in the Palm Beach Post. Mediatransparency.org states that between 1994 and 2002, the Alliance Defense Fund received $142,000 from Philanthropy Roundtable members that include the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation. Wesley Smith and Rita Marker also work for organizations that get funding from Roundtable members. Smith is a paid senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that advocates the teaching of creationist "intelligent design" theory in public schools. Between 1993 and 1997, the Discovery Institute received $175,000 from the Bradley Foundation. Marker is executive director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia, which lobbies against physician-assisted suicide. In 2001, Marker's organization received $110,390 from the Randolph Foundation, an affiliate of the Smith Richardson family. Roundtable members also played a role in financing the Bush v. Schiavo litigation. The Family Research Council, which uses its annual $10 million budget to lobby for prayer in public schools and against gay marriage, filed an amicus curiae brief in Bush v. Schiavo supporting Gov. Bush, at the same time its former president, attorney Kenneth Connor, was representing the governor in that litigation. Between 1992 and 2000, the council received $215,000 from the Bradley Foundation. Another amicus brief backing Bush was filed by a coalition of disability rights organizations that included the National Organization on Disability and the World Institute on Disability. The former received $810,000 between 1991 and 2002 from the Scaife Family Foundations, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, and the JM Foundation; the latter received $20,000 in 1997 from the JM Foundation. These connections may be just the tip of the iceberg. I'm no Woodward or Bernstein. I got this information using only the most rudimentary Google skills. I imagine that a thorough search by a seasoned investigator would yield quite a bit more. http://blog.bioethics.net/2005/03/h...-bioethics.html http://www.mediatransparency.org/re..._roundtable.htm

Jesus Christ, what area isn�t fucking funded by these wingnuts? And it possibly sheds a bit more light on why the Republicans have pushed this through Congress and continue to support it � they had to. A great amount of the top donors and architects of their propaganda and media mouthpiece machine is behind it and they likely had a few demands of their own to the Republicans. A bit speculative, admittedly, but the shoe seems to fit nicely.

quote:

Anyway, I am pretty tired of this. They should've given her a lethal injection and ended this long ago. Just because she cannot physically express pain does not mean that she cannot feel pain, and IMO, starving her to death vs. leaving her in a permanent vegatative state is six of one and a half dozen of the other. Euthanize this poor woman, and then give her family some privacy to grieve out of the public spotlight.

I'm not versed enough on this to know whether or not she experiences pain in the cognitive sense that we know of it. Regardless, I do agree with your sentiment that she should have been euthenized long ago.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Thank God there are some true Conservatives out there that are not buying into this: Another good story on this here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...o_conservatives So how�s that pandering to these fundie extremists going for you Republicans? Are you as uncomfortable as Congressman Shays is about this whole thing, or are you still believing this is truly a case of �compassionate� conservatism?

Here Opus, this should get you drooling :

quote:

Comment: Andrew Sullivan: Bush�s triumph conceals the great conservative crack-up It should be the best of times for American conservatism. Republican majorities in the House and Senate, a re-elected Republican president, an increasing number of Republican governors and a rightwards tilt in the judiciary. While the British Tories and German Christian Democrats flounder, America�s right seems to flourish. Well, that�s the cover story. Beneath the surface, however, American conservatism is in increasing trouble. The Republican coalition, always fragile, now depends as much on the haplessness of the Democrats as on its own internal logic. On foreign and domestic policy alike the American right is splintering. With no obvious successor to George W Bush that splintering will deepen. Take foreign policy. At the moment Bush is riding high as his democratisation push seems to have made some modest progress in the Middle East. But the Iraq war was deeply controversial among conservatives before the war and it has become more so since. Old school conservatives � or �realists�, as they call themselves � had no time for nation building or for wars of liberation among cultures they viewed as irredeemably undemocratic. Neoconservatives � many of them former Democrats and liberals � saw spreading liberty as integral to a successful foreign policy. The Iraq war brought the two wings together on the threat from Saddam�s weapons of mass destruction. When the WMDs failed to appear, the insurgency grew, and the commitment of 140,000 troops to secure freedom among Arabs seemed to stretch endlessly ahead, restlessness on the right revived. It was suppressed for political reasons before polling day but Bush�s re-election and his lack of any obvious successor have allowed the divisions to blossom. If you look at the magazine The American Conservative, for example, you will find Patrick Buchanan�s Stone Age conservative isolationism almost indistinguishable from the hard left�s in its loathing of Middle East policy. Last week a more mainstream conservative journal, The National Interest, saw a slew of editors quit because it published a tough realist article criticising the Iraq invasion. The neocons left to form a rival journal, The American Interest. Francis Fukuyama of �end of history� fame, was one of them. Back home the differences over fiscal policy are also profound. President Bush has added $1 trillion (�520 billion) to the national debt in only four years and is proposing to add at least another $2 trillion with his social security reform. With his Medicare prescription drug benefit, about whose massive expense he deceived Congress, he has enacted the biggest new entitlement since Lyndon Johnson. Bush has increased spending on medical care for the poor by 46%. He has doubled education spending in four years; federal housing spending has gone up 86%. Compared with Bill Clinton, he�s an extreme, big government liberal. In fact the only real difference between the Democrats and Republicans at this point is that the Democrats believe in big, solvent government and the Republicans believe in an even bigger, insolvent government. Conservatives are complaining. Two powerful think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, have published critiques of Bush�s fiscal policies. Heritage called for an outright repeal of the new healthcare entitlement. Bush�s social security reform plan appears all but dead in the Senate, because he is now trying to flatline some minor but sensitive domestic spending, veto any attempt to rein in the far more expensive entitlement explosion while keeping his tax cuts. Moderates and fiscal conservatives are finally saying no. Unless the Republicans are going to add even more trillions to the national debt, something has to give. Tax rises are off the table. And the divisions are so deep among Republicans that they may not be able to pass a budget this year at all. On social policy the rifts are not as deep, largely because the religious right now all but owns the Republican party. Gone are the days when Ronald Reagan said: �The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralised authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.� The Republicans have plans to intervene directly in many people�s lives � spending billions on sexual abstinence education, marriage counselling, anti-drug propaganda, a war on steroids, mentoring programmes for former prisoners, and on and on. Got a problem? Bush�s big government is here to help. Where Republicans once believed that states should have priority over the federal government, Bush has pushed in the opposite direction. Last week the religious right wanted a federal ruling to prevent a Florida woman in a persistent vegetative state from having her life-support cut off. This is a job for the federal government? They have overruled state laws on medical cannabis and tried to prevent states from making their own policies on gay civil marriage. In the 1980s Republicans wanted to abolish the federal Department of Education, believing local control was best. Bush has all but ended local control, introduced national standards and added a huge increase in federal spending. No wonder Ted Kennedy, the arch liberal Democratic senator, voted for the bill. How these contradictions can be resolved is hard to see. Is conservatism now paternalist, spending huge amounts of federal money to guide people into more moral lives? Or is it about restraining government so people can make up their own minds how to live? Do deficits matter? Is the point of foreign policy the pursuit of national interest or the spread of human freedom? Or are they inextricable? Are tax cuts defensible if accompanied by big spending rises? Is American libertarianism dead? Bush�s four years have put all these questions on the table. In my view if a Democratic president had Bush�s record, the Republican party would have come close to impeaching him for his adventures in big government, fiscal insanity and foreign policy liberalism. But it swallowed its principles and covered up its differences to keep him (and itself) in power. The consequences are slowly becoming clear. The race to succeed Bush will become, in part, a battle for the future of American conservatism. I have no idea how it will turn out. But I do have one clear prediction: the Republican internal battle in the next four years is going to be bloody. After the mid-term elections in 2006 it will be brutal. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...33089_2,00.html

Wow check out the entitlements part. I always told you guys Bush was more of a democrat than the democrats .

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Here Opus, this should get you drooling : Wow check out the entitlements part. I always told you guys Bush was more of a democrat than the democrats .

I think it's a given that the Republicans are going to lose some seats in the '06 election. It's the inevitable for 2nd term majorities and Presidents. The question is how many? When hacks like Sullivan and Brooks can smell the blood in the water, you know there's trouble a brewing. And as much as I can't stand this ultimate HACK of conservative hacks, Bob Novak, he does admittedly have an ear to the wall in D.C., and his connections are well known (ahem, Valerie Plame anyone?). So it's no surprise he states similar notions:

quote:

WASHINGTON -- Analysts at the Republican National Committee (RNC) have sent this warning to the House of Representatives: the party is in danger of losing 25 seats in the 2006 election and, therefore, of losing control of the House for the first time since the 1994 election. Although some Republicans on Capitol Hill believe the RNC is just trying to frighten them, concern about keeping the present 232 to 202 edge pervades GOP ranks. The second mid-term election of an eight-year presidency often produces heavy congressional losses for the party in power. A footnote: Rep. Christopher Shays, re-elected from his Connecticut district last year with 52 percent, is considered by colleagues as the most vulnerable Republican incumbent. Other especially shaky GOP House members include Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania and Rob Simmons of Connecticut. http://www.suntimes.com/output/nova...t-novak201.html

Also take note the part about Shays. Interesting, to say the least.

Well the full 11th Circuit of Appeals court have handed down the decision in a 10-2 ruling. So now we see Jeb Bush trying to pull a little magic out of his ass and grab yet another dissenting doctor out of the woodwork (wonder why they didn't use the same quack?):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...vo-ruling_x.htm

And the Florida Senate who've been Jeb's bitch in the past denied an initial bill by Jeb that forces the tube back in (21-18 ruling):

quote:

Meanwhile, the Florida Senate rejected a bill that would restart food and hydration for 41-year-old Terri Schiavo, whose feeding tube was removed Friday. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/23/schiavo/index.html

So now Jeb's trying to get another bill passed that essentially takes custody of Terry by this doctor's assessment, even though he has not been able to fully examine her:

quote:

The doctor reviewed Schiavo's medical records, watched videotapes and observed her at the hospice, but was not able to personally examine her, state officials said.

And you'll also note that Bush is wisely starting to back off here, probably noting just how unpopular his position is here.

You can't write scripts better than this shit!


Edit: Update - oops, the same article in the NYTimes explains a state judge shoves Jeb's request up his ass:

quote:

In Florida, meanwhile, a state judge rebuffed the latest efforts by Gov. Jeb Bush to intervene in the case by taking custody of Ms. Schiavo so that another doctor could review her condition. The governor said earlier today that a "renowned neurologist" who visited with Ms. Schiavo for an hour recently does not agree that she is in a "persistent vegetative state," as other doctors testified to the courts. ...Attorneys for the state filed a motion to take custody of Ms. Schiavo, but the judge, George W. Greer of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court, the same one who ordered the tube removed on Friday, turned down the request after a brief hearing late this afternoon. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/national/23cnd-schiavo.html?ex=1269234000&en=0afe9735539a477b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Woohoo, keep 'em comin' govna!

Spot on commentary:

quote:

A Violation I'm going to pile on to what larre writes, because the actions of the republican dictated Congress cannot be allowed to just stand w/o pointing out the danger it represents. Terry Schiavo has, literally, nothing to do with this case, but this case has everything to do with you and I. Megan�s Law was written because of Megan, not for her, but for Society as a whole. Laws are written for Society, not for, and I know this comes as a shock to big corporations or businesspeople that seek to get laws written just to benefit themselves, individuals. While the bugkiller can claim his piety, while bush can claim his complications, while the righteous can claim their divinity, what remains is that the freaking republicans have conspired to reach out and violate the Courts, the States, and the Citizens of this country. Our adherence to the laws of the land is somewhat voluntary you know, but bushco seeks to make it un-precedented as well, just like the broker that reminds you that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Just like the dice at the craps table. From this non-precedent case, how long will it be before they try to force a woman to carry that fetus to term? How long before they tell you where you can live? How long before they tell you what kind of education you can get and where? How long before they tell you what god to worship? How long before Guantanamo moves Stateside? And what in hell happened to the freaking Sanctity of Marriage crap that these world class hippocritters have been so orgiastically railing about since rove decided it would stimulate the base? They can hold you prisoner without any Constitutional Protections, if they so choose. They can torture you if they so choose, so what makes this case any different, except in degree? They can deny some the same right as others to marry, but deny the married the same rights as an un-responsible adult parent. The law is supposed to be equal to all, remember Gore vs Shrub and "equal protection;" the notion that exceptions prove the rule is just an absurd palliative (sorry larre) to ease our consciences and the bitter burning sensation that reality can and does produce. But now, the republican dictated Congress has said otherwise. They have said that some are more equal than others. And that's supposed to be okay, and a fair swap to save the life of this truly messed up woman. But it's not okay. It's as wrong as you can get. Sure, the circumstances make it appealing and appalling, troubling and tragic, emotional and cerebral (how ironic is that?), and gosh golly, good teevee, but the circumstances can't obviate the fact that this decision, this reprehensible action by the republican Congress (and don't tell me about the Democrats, it's frist and delay and rove and santorum el al, as sanctimonious as ever) is a direct assault on the very basic tenets that this country was founded on, and that millions have died for, and bled for, and sacrificed for, the notion that we are all equal under the eyes of the state, that no one person is above the law, or below the law. The Federal State has no business in this case, because this case has no business with the State. It's a personal tragedy, and it�s only the gross selfishness of the parents that has made it the spectacle that it has become. Or does the Catholic Religion have more primacy in this country than the Constitution? Maybe that's the crux of the matter. Maybe that's why the republican controlled Congress has decided to trample all over the laws and rights of this nation, so that they can push their stinking religiosity on the people of this land? Could that be it? Or could their abuse of this woman and this families extremis be cover for something else, something uglier and dirtier? We've heard about the talking points circulating in gopper circles, and we�ve noticed that bush's approval ratings stink, and Social Security Privatization is having a rough go, maybe the faithful need a pep talk? Maybe this is just a cold, crass manipulation by rove to prop up the ol� bush family evil empire? I repeat, Terry Schiavo has, literally, nothing to do with this case; this case has everything to do with you and I. Megan�s Law was written because of Megan, not for her, but for Society as a whole. Laws are written for Society, not for, and I know this comes as a shock to big corporations or businesspeople that seek to get laws written just to benefit themselves, individuals. Laws don't dictate our behaviors, they dictate the consequences of our behaviors on our Society. Run a stop sign, pay a fine; it's a monetary reminder that hurts a little, but warns us that we might kill somebody Mr. Janklow and suffer a much larger hurt. This is my rant, it�s not about Terri Schiavo, it�s about the cowardly bullies in the republican party led by the biggest coward of the lot, tom delay, who usually gets lots, and I mean LOTS, of cover hiding behind the spineless gym coach and 3rd in line in succession to the bush throne denny hastert, it�s about the assault and battery these traitors to their oaths are conducting on this nation, this perversion of governance whose sole intent is to perpetuate their choke hold on my country for their benefit and self aggrandizement into perpetuity. And it must not stand. http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/003970.php#more

quote:

CANYON LAKE, Texas � A family tragedy unfolding in a Texas hospital during the fall of 1988 was a private ordeal -- without judges, emergency sessions of Congress or the raging debate outside Terri Schiavo's Florida hospice. The patient then was a 65-year-old drilling contractor, badly injured in a freak accident at his home. Among the family standing vigil at Brooke Army Medical Center was a grieving junior congressman -- U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas. More than 16 years ago, far from the political passions that have defined the Schiavo controversy, the DeLay family endured its own wrenching end-of-life crisis. The man in a coma, kept alive by intravenous lines and a ventilator, was DeLay's father, Charles Ray DeLay. Then, freshly re-elected to a third term in the House, DeLay waited all but helpless for the verdict of doctors. Today, as House Majority Leader, DeLay has teamed with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to champion political intervention the Schaivo case. He pushed emergency legislation through congress to shift the legal case from Florida state courts to the federal judiciary. And he is among the strongest advocates of keeping the woman, who doctors say has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, connected to her feeding tube. DeLay has denounced Schiavo's husband, as well as judges, for committing what he calls "an act of barbarism" in removing the tube. In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly joined the sad family consensus to let his father die. "There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old mother, recalled in an interview last week. "There was no way he (Charles) wanted to live like that. Tom knew, we all knew, his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way." Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay. When the man's kidneys failed, the DeLay family decided against connecting him to a dialysis machine. "Extraordinary measures to prolong life were not initiated," said his medical report, citing "agreement with the family's wishes." His bedside chart carried the instruction: "Do Not Resuscitate." On Dec. 14, 1988, the senior DeLay "expired with his family in attendance." "The situation faced by the congressman's family was entirely different than Terri Schiavo's," said a spokesman for DeLay, who declined requests for an interview. "The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water we all need to survive. His father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain him," said Dan Allen, DeLay's news aide. There were also these similarities: Both stricken patients were severely brain damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without continuing medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared life sustained by machine. And neither left a living will. This previously unpublished account of the majority leader's personal brush with life-ending decisions was assembled from court files, medical records and interviews with family members. It was a pleasant late afternoon in the Hill Country of Texas on Nov. 17, 1988. At the home of Charles and Maxine DeLay, set on a limestone bluff of cedars and live oaks above Turkey Cove, it also was a moment of triumph. Charles and his brother, Jerry DeLay, two avid tinkerers, had just finished work on a new backyard tram -- an elevator-like device to carry passengers from the house down a 200-foot slope to the blue-green waters of Canyon Lake. The two men called for their wives to hop aboard. Charles pushed the button and the maiden run began. Within seconds a horrific screeching noise echoed across the still lake, "a sickening sound," said a neighbor. The tram was in trouble. Maxine, seated up front in the four-passenger trolley, said her husband repeatedly tried to engage the emergency brake but the rail car kept picking up speed. Halfway down the bank it was free-wheeling, according to accident investigators. Moments later, it jumped the track and slammed into a tree, scattering passengers and twisted debris in all directions. "It was awful, just awful," recalled Karl Braddick, now 86, the DeLays' neighbor at the time and a family friend. "I came running over, and it was a terrible sight." He called for emergency help. Rescue workers had trouble bringing injured victims up the steep terrain. Jerry's wife, JoAnne, suffered broken bones and a shattered elbow. Charles, hurled head-first into a tree, clearly was in serious condition. "He was all but gone," said Braddick, gesturing at the spot of the accident as he offered a visitor a ride down to the lake in his own tram. "He would have been better off if he'd died right there and then." But Charles DeLay hung on. In the ambulance on his way to the New Braunfels hospital 15 miles away, he tried to speak. "He wasn't making any sense; it was mainly just cuss words," recalled Maxine with a faint, fond smile. His grave condition dictated a short stay at the local hospital. Four hours later, he was airlifted by helicopter to the medical center at Fort Sam Houston. Admission records show he arrived with multiple injuries, including broken ribs and a brain hemorrhage. Tom DeLay flew to his father's bedside where, along with his two brothers and a sister, they joined Maxine. In the weeks that followed, the congressman made repeated trips back from Washington, D.C., his family said. Maxine seldom left her husband's side. "Mama stayed at the hospital with him all the time. Oh, it was terrible for everyone," said Alvina (Vi) Skogen, a former sister-in-law of the congressman. Neighbor Braddick visited the hospital and said it seemed very clear to everyone there was little prospect of recovery. "He had no consciousness that I could see," Braddick said. "He did a bit of moaning and groaning, I guess, but you could see there was no way he was coming back." Maxine DeLay agreed that she was never aware of any consciousness on her husband's part during the long days of her bedside vigil -- with one possible exception. "Whenever Randy walked into the room, his heart, his pulse rate would go up a little bit," she said of their son, Randall, the congressman's younger brother, who lives near Houston. Over a period of days, doctors conducted a series of tests, including scans of his head, face, neck and abdomen. They checked for lung damage, performing a bronchoscopy and later a tracheotomy to assist his breathing. But the procedures could not prevent steady deterioration. Then, infections complicated the senior DeLay's fight for life. Finally, his organs began to fail. The family and physicians confronted the dreaded choice so many other Americans have faced: to make heroic efforts, or to let the end come. "Daddy did not want to be a vegetable," said Skogen, one of his daughters-in-law at the time. "There was no decision for the family to make. He made it for them." The preliminary decision to withhold dialysis and other treatments fell to Maxine along with Randall and her daughter Tena -- and, his mother, said, "Tom went along." He raised no objection, she said. Family members said they prayed. Jerry DeLay "felt terribly about the accident," said his wife, JoAnne DeLay. "He prayed that if (Charles) couldn't have quality of life that God would take him -- and that is exactly what He did." Charles Ray DeLay died at 3:17 a.m., according to his death certificate, 27 days after plummeting down the hillside. The family then turned to lawyers. In 1990 the DeLays filed suit against Midcap Bearing Corporation of San Antonio and Lovejoy Inc. of Illinois, the distributor and maker of a coupling that they said failed and caused the tram to hurtle out of control down the steep bank. The family's wrongful death lawsuit accused the companies of negligence and sought actual and punitive damages. Lawyers for the companies denied the allegations and countersued the surviving designer of the tram system, Jerry DeLay. The case thrust Congressman DeLay into decidedly unfamiliar territory -- the list of plaintiffs on the front page of a civil complaint. He is an outspoken defender of business against what he calls the crippling effects of "predatory, self-serving litigation." The DeLay family litigation sought unspecified compensation for, among other things, the dead father's "physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and trauma," and the mother's grief, sorrow and loss of companionship. Their lawsuit also alleged violations of the Texas product liability law. The DeLay case moved slowly through the Texas judicial system, accumulating more than 500 pages of motions, affidavits and disclosures over nearly three years. Among the affidavits was one filed by the congressman, but family members said he had little direct involvement in the lawsuit, leaving that to his attorney brother, Randall. Rep. DeLay, who since has taken a leading role promoting congressional tort reform, wants to rein in trial lawyers to protect American business from what he calls "frivolous, parasitic lawsuits" that raise insurance premiums and "kill jobs." In September, he expressed something less than warm sentiment for attorneys when he took the floor of the House to condemn trial lawyers who, he said, "get fat off the pain (of plaintiffs and off) the hard work (of defendants)." Aides for DeLay defended his role as a plaintiff in the family lawsuit, saying he did not follow the legal case and was not aware of its final outcome. The case was resolved in 1993 with payment of an undisclosed sum of about $250,000, according to sources familiar with an out of court settlement. DeLay signed over his share of any proceeds to his mother, said DeLay aides. Three years later, DeLay cosponsored a bill specifically designed to override state laws on product liability such as the one cited in his family's lawsuit. The legislation provided sweeping exemptions for sellers of such products. The 1996 bill was rejected by President Clinton. In his veto message the president said he objected to the DeLay-backed measure because it "tilts against American families and would deprive them of the ability to recover fully when they are injured by a defective product."' After her husband's death, Maxine DeLay scrapped the mangled tram at the bottom of the hill and sold the family lake house. Today she lives alone in a Houston senior citizen residence. Like much of the country, she follows news developments in the Schiavo case and her congressman son's recently prominent role. She acknowledges questions that compare her family's decision in 1988 to the Schiavo conflict today with a slight smile. "It's certainly interesting, isn't it?" Like her son, she believes there might be hope for Terri Schiavo's recovery. That's what makes her family's experience different, she says. Charles had no hope. "There was no chance he was ever coming back," she said.

Source

Although it would be rather difficult to come back in this case as well if you look at the facts.

Oh there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around

It goes further than just Tom Delay. Remember that Franciscan Brother of Peace who's been a spokesman for the Schindler's? Well guess what they've done in the past with their dear old grand poobah?:

quote:

In 1982, Michael Gaworski founded the order. The fledgling group took over a former convent and the Brothers began collecting food and clothing for the needy, ministering to international survivors of torture, witnessing at a juvenile detention center and conducting sidewalk counseling at abortion clinics. Gaworski suffered a heart attack in 1991 that left him in a condition similar to that of Terri Schiavo - with severe brain damage and dependent on a feeding tube for nourishment. For the next 12 years, the friars cared for Gaworski in their downtown St. Paul friary. "Through his condition," Brother John Kaspari said Tuesday from St. Paul, "we came to embrace others in similar states." Gaworski contracted pneumonia and died in 2003 at age 45. "He would have required intubation to keep him alive," Kaspari said. "We chose not to go that route. His lungs were full of fluid." http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/23/T...hindlers_.shtml

Hmmmmmm.....

Oops, forgot one of my favorite Senator fundie nutbags from my neighbor state, Oklahoma - Tom Coburn:

Now:

quote:

Among them was Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma and a family practice doctor, who said in an interview, 'I don't think you have to examine her. All you have to do is look at her on TV. Any doctor with any conscience can look at her and know that she does not have a terminal disease and know that she has some function.' http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/p...ner=rssuserland

Before:

quote:

[In] an interview after [Coburn]'s panel appearance, he conceded the issue of caring for a terminally ill patient brings with it complex questions and is not always simple. For example, under certain circumstances when there is no hope of recovery, he said physicians should have the option of withholding nutrients and water from a dying patient. Coburn said he has done that in the past. 'If somebody does not want a feeding tube, I won't put a feeding tube down,' he said. Source: Tulsa World, 7/20/98

Hmmmmm......

Tom Delay is a lock for the...

Hypocrite of the Year Award

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwd...gtY3Nz/s/234582

Deciteful Conservative Republicans strike again!

Geez. JUST SHUT UP!
All I hear day in day out for the past week since I returned from vacaiton is Schaibo this Schaibo that! Its driving me insane

Who in their rights minds gives a damn?!

This is nothing new (vegitable wanting to die). Everybody should just shut up and let whoever and whatever be. Its ridicilous, its 24/7 on all the news shows (interrupted of course by Michael Jackson's trial updates).

US News simply sucks. Its horrible, you wouldn't even know we are at war or that there are "other issues" in this world.

Sad, sad, sad.

*end viscious rant*

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Geez. JUST SHUT UP! All I hear day in day out for the past week since I returned from vacaiton is Schaibo this Schaibo that! Its driving me insane Who in their rights minds gives a damn?! This is nothing new (vegitable wanting to die). Everybody should just shut up and let whoever and whatever be. Its ridicilous, its 24/7 on all the news shows (interrupted of course by Michael Jackson's trial updates). US News simply sucks. Its horrible, you wouldn't even know we are at war or that there are "other issues" in this world. Sad, sad, sad. *end viscious rant*

Ahem. It's Schiavo, which you would know if you were watching the news.

Windows Media

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus US News simply sucks. Its horrible, you wouldn't even know we are at war or that there are "other issues" in this world.

Robert McChesny, Co-founder Free Press
Subject: Goebbels model of the press


Bernie Sanders, Independent Representative of Vermont

(right click, save as...)

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus US News simply sucks. Its horrible, you wouldn't even know we are at war or that there are "other issues" in this world. Sad, sad, sad.

I completely agree with you there dude.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Geez. JUST SHUT UP! All I hear day in day out for the past week since I returned from vacaiton is Schaibo this Schaibo that! Its driving me insane Who in their rights minds gives a damn?! This is nothing new (vegitable wanting to die). Everybody should just shut up and let whoever and whatever be. Its ridicilous, its 24/7 on all the news shows (interrupted of course by Michael Jackson's trial updates). US News simply sucks. Its horrible, you wouldn't even know we are at war or that there are "other issues" in this world. Sad, sad, sad. *end viscious rant*

Yep, this should have never been an issue outside the family & courts. On a positive note, let's savor the bipartisan support we seem to have on this and pray that no semi-celebrities do anything suspicious in the near future and maybe we'll get a break after Jacko.

Wow, just wow:

quote:

The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups. "These compassionate pro-lifers donated toward Bob Schindler's legal battle to keep Terri's estranged husband from removing the feeding tube from Terri," says a description of the list on the Web site of the firm, Response Unlimited, which is asking $150 a month for 6,000 names and $500 a month for 4,000 e-mail addresses of people who responded last month to an e-mail plea from Ms. Schiavo's father. "These individuals are passionate about the way they value human life, adamantly oppose euthanasia and are pro-life in every sense of the word!" Privacy experts said the sale of the list was legal and even predictable, if ghoulish. [...] The message added: "We're asking you to give a donation to help with our activism efforts to save Terri's life. Battles cost money; resources cost money; media costs money; we could go on, but you get the picture." Mr. Sheldon - whose father, the Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, has also sent appeals urging support for Ms. Schiavo - apparently played a dual role as a partner in RightMarch.com, which is working with the anti-abortion activist Randall Terry, and as a broker for Response Unlimited. Mr. Sheldon did not respond to phone calls yesterday. "I think it sounds a little unusual right now because of the situation where she is in the process of dying," said Richard Viguerie, another major conservative direct-mail operator. "If you came across this information six months or a year from now, I don't think you would give it too much thought." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/p...ner=rssuserland

Whatever credibility the Schindlers think they had is now going, going, GONE! And this only bolsters Michael Schiavo's case that the Schindlers were only after the malpractice settlement money that went to him and estranged their relationship with him.

Unbelievable. Keep associating yourself with these fools, fundie nutbags. It only hurts the party you voted for that much more...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.