Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has
struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to
match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W.
Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the
tragic case of Schiavo
(http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0321/p01s03-uspo.html) -- a severely
brain-damaged woman who has been incapacitated for the past 15 years --
as an opportunity for political grandstanding. A memo, which the AP
reports was distributed by Senate leadership
(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...28_memo20.html)
to right-wing members, called Schiavo "a great political issue" and
urged senators to talk about her because "the pro-life base will be
excited." Over the weekend, DeLay and Frist held special sessions of
Congress to facilitate passage of a bill that would allow a federal
court to overturn years of Florida jurisprudence
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines)
-- encompassing seven courts and 19 judges -- and intervene in the
Schiavo case. (Underscoring that this was about the politics of the
Schiavo case and not policy, the bill was written explicitly to apply
only to Terri Schiavo
(http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3094136) .) President
Bush played his part in the spectacle, flying to Washington from his
ranch in Crawford to sign the bill, even though waiting a few hours for
the bill to be flown to him would likely " have made no difference
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/21/politics/21bush.html) in whether Ms.
Schiavo lives."



BUSH SIGNED LAW ALLOWING HOSPITALS TO DISCONTINUE LIFE SUPPORT: In a
statement released early this morning, President Bush said he will
"continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all
Americans
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20050321.html) ." But
the facts make it hard to believe that Bush is standing on principle. In
1999, then Gov. Bush signed a law that " allows hospitals [to]
discontinue life sustaining care
(http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/3084934) , even
if patient family members disagree." Just days ago the law permitted
Texas Children's Hospital to remove the breathing tube from a
6-month-old boy named Sun Hudson. The law may soon be used to remove
life support (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7201470/) from Spiro
Nikolouzos, a 68-year-old man. Bush has not commented on either case.



DELAY VOTED TO SLASH FUNDING THAT PAID FOR SCHIAVO'S CA At every
opportunity, Tom DeLay has sanctimoniously proclaimed his concern for
the well-being of Terri Schiavo, saying he is only trying to ensure she
has the chance " we all deserve
(http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=44638) ." Schiavo's
medications are paid for by Medicaid
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGPVBSH331.DTL)
.. Just last week, DeLay marshaled a budget resolution through the House
of Representatives that would cut funding for Medicaid by at least $15
billion (http://www.cbpp.org/3-10-05health.htm) , threatening the
quality of care for people like Terri Schiavo. Because the Senate voted
to restore the funding, DeLay is threatening to hold up the entire
budget process
(http://washingtontimes.com/national/...0425-5793r.htm) if he
doesn't get his way.



FRIST FIGHTING AGAINST FINANCIAL RECOVERY FOR PEOPLE LIKE SCHIAVO: Bill
Frist has been positioning himself in the media as a champion for
Schiavo's interests. Yet, much of Schiavo's medical care has been
financed by $1,000,000 from two medical malpractice lawsuits
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ck=1&cset=true)
Schiavo won after her heart attack 15 years ago. Frist has been
leading the charge to limit recovery
(http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fu...il&Issue_id=30)
for people like Schiavo who are severely debilitated. If Frist is
successful, people like Schiavo would not be able to recover any
punitive damages no matter how severe their injuries.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has
struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to
match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W.
Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the
tragic case of Schiavo

You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure (in the
House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the Senate. Any
good reason for that?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has
struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to
match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W.
Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the
tragic case of Schiavo

You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure (in
the
House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the Senate.
Any
good reason for that?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

It was some of the Democrats who chose to make it political. The same sort
of thing was seen here in this NG when I posted about her demise on Friday.

It is a shame some see this as a political thing when it should be simply
seen as trying to save a life by affording a person their Constitutional
rights.

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has
struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to
match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W.
Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the
tragic case of Schiavo

You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure (in
the
House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the Senate.
Any
good reason for that?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

It was some of the Democrats who chose to make it political. The same
sort of thing was seen here in this NG when I posted about her demise on
Friday.

It is a shame some see this as a political thing when it should be simply
seen as trying to save a life by affording a person their Constitutional
rights.


Which constitutional rights would those be, moron?

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has
struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to
match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W.
Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the
tragic case of Schiavo

You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure (in the
House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the Senate. Any
good reason for that?


****ing pussies.

jps

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:50:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has
struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to
match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W.
Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the
tragic case of Schiavo

You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure (in
the
House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the Senate.
Any
good reason for that?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

It was some of the Democrats who chose to make it political. The same
sort of thing was seen here in this NG when I posted about her demise on
Friday.

It is a shame some see this as a political thing when it should be simply
seen as trying to save a life by affording a person their Constitutional
rights.


Which constitutional rights would those be, moron?


Would this one cover it?

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the
14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Of course, one may ask, "What is 'due process of law'?"
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

:)

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:50:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has
struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to
match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W.
Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the
tragic case of Schiavo

You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure
(in
the
House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the
Senate.
Any
good reason for that?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

It was some of the Democrats who chose to make it political. The same
sort of thing was seen here in this NG when I posted about her demise on
Friday.

It is a shame some see this as a political thing when it should be
simply
seen as trying to save a life by affording a person their Constitutional
rights.


Which constitutional rights would those be, moron?


Would this one cover it?

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2
of the
14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.

Of course, one may ask, "What is 'due process of law'?"

One may also ask how long we will put up with people interfering in family
decisions. If you had communicated to your wife what that woman told her
husband, but you had not put it in writing yet, and you were in her
condition, your wife would be going through this exact same bull****. And
that's EXACTLY what it is.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:50:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has
struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to
match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W.
Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the
tragic case of Schiavo

You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure
(in
the
House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the
Senate.
Any
good reason for that?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

It was some of the Democrats who chose to make it political. The same
sort of thing was seen here in this NG when I posted about her demise on
Friday.

It is a shame some see this as a political thing when it should be
simply
seen as trying to save a life by affording a person their Constitutional
rights.


Which constitutional rights would those be, moron?


Would this one cover it?

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2
of the
14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.

Of course, one may ask, "What is 'due process of law'?"
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John, thanks for answering Kanter. He has once again shown why he lives
with the catfish and other bottom feeders by showing his ignorance of the
Constitution and replying with an insult.

I have him killfiled. You can now see why.

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:50:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has
struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to
match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W.
Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the
tragic case of Schiavo

You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure
(in
the
House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the
Senate.
Any
good reason for that?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

It was some of the Democrats who chose to make it political. The same
sort of thing was seen here in this NG when I posted about her demise
on
Friday.

It is a shame some see this as a political thing when it should be
simply
seen as trying to save a life by affording a person their
Constitutional
rights.


Which constitutional rights would those be, moron?


Would this one cover it?

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2
of the
14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws.

Of course, one may ask, "What is 'due process of law'?"
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John, thanks for answering Kanter. He has once again shown why he lives
with the catfish and other bottom feeders by showing his ignorance of the
Constitution and replying with an insult.

I have him killfiled. You can now see why.


Bull****. You have killfiled me and other plenty of times, but you keep
coming back to eat the insects off our asses, you dolt.