|
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 cliché:
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:
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:
The 2004 Republican Platform:
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?
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
