Praise for Bush in Terri S Case....
 

I seldom have anyting positive to say about GWB. I admit it.

In the case of Terri S, Bush is doing what he thinks is right despite a
great political cost to himself and his party.
That's commendable.

According to a credible poll, about 2/3 of the people who self-identify
as conservatives and evagelicals (Bush's base) *oppose* congressional
intervention in the situation. As Bush cut short his vacation and flew
in his pajamas to sign the Sciavo bill at 1 AM, he rather obviously
supports federal intervention. Partially as a result, Bush's approval
rating has nosedived 6 points (from 49 percent to 43 percent). Good for
Bush, he's upholding his principles. When he does something admirable,
it should be noted just as much as his many screw-ups.



(March 24) -- More than two-thirds of people who describe themselves as
evangelicals and conservatives disapprove of the intervention by
Congress and President Bush in the case of the Terri Schiavo, the
brain-damaged woman at the center of a national debate.

A CBS News poll found that four of five people polled opposed federal
intervention, with levels of disapproval among key groups supporting
the GOP almost that high.

Bush's overall approval was at 43 percent, down from 49 percent last
month.

Over the weekend, Republicans in Congress pushed through emergency
legislation aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life by allowing the case to
be reviewed by federal courts. That bill was signed by the president
early Monday.

Most Americans say they feel sympathy for family members on both sides
of the dispute over the 41-year-old Schiavo, according to a CNN-USA
Today-Gallup poll.

More than eight in 10 in that poll said they feel sympathy for Bob and
Mary Schindler, parents of Schiavo, who want to keep her alive. And
seven in 10 said they're sympathetic for Michael Schiavo, the husband
of Schiavo who says she should be allowed to die.

The CBS News poll of 737 adults was taken Monday and Tuesday and the
CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 620 adults was taken Tuesday. Both have
margins of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.


03/24/05 08:32 EST

wrote in message
ups.com...
I seldom have anyting positive to say about GWB. I admit it.

In the case of Terri S, Bush is doing what he thinks is right despite a
great political cost to himself and his party.
That's commendable.

According to a credible poll, about 2/3 of the people who self-identify
as conservatives and evagelicals (Bush's base) *oppose* congressional
intervention in the situation. As Bush cut short his vacation and flew
in his pajamas to sign the Sciavo bill at 1 AM, he rather obviously
supports federal intervention. Partially as a result, Bush's approval
rating has nosedived 6 points (from 49 percent to 43 percent). Good for
Bush, he's upholding his principles. When he does something admirable,
it should be noted just as much as his many screw-ups.



(March 24) -- More than two-thirds of people who describe themselves as
evangelicals and conservatives disapprove of the intervention by
Congress and President Bush in the case of the Terri Schiavo, the
brain-damaged woman at the center of a national debate.

A CBS News poll found that four of five people polled opposed federal
intervention, with levels of disapproval among key groups supporting
the GOP almost that high.

Bush's overall approval was at 43 percent, down from 49 percent last
month.

Over the weekend, Republicans in Congress pushed through emergency
legislation aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life by allowing the case to
be reviewed by federal courts. That bill was signed by the president
early Monday.

Most Americans say they feel sympathy for family members on both sides
of the dispute over the 41-year-old Schiavo, according to a CNN-USA
Today-Gallup poll.

More than eight in 10 in that poll said they feel sympathy for Bob and
Mary Schindler, parents of Schiavo, who want to keep her alive. And
seven in 10 said they're sympathetic for Michael Schiavo, the husband
of Schiavo who says she should be allowed to die.

The CBS News poll of 737 adults was taken Monday and Tuesday and the
CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 620 adults was taken Tuesday. Both have
margins of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.


03/24/05 08:32 EST


A public opinion poll determines if this lady is to die or not? How utterly
ridiculous.

Contrary to your conclusion about the Republicans taking a beating on this
because of their positions come the next election, I think those who took an
opposing view will be the losers.

Question: Do you agree that those on death row should be allowed to take
their case to the ultimate extent of the law via appeals before they are put
to death?

I'll bet Bush wished that Congress had stayed totally away from Schiavo.
Passing that bill merely cornered him, he could not refuse to sign it for
fear of ****ing off the Christian Right. Had he refused, he might have taken
a bigger approval hit the other way. His last comments indicates he just
wants this to go away.

-W



wrote in message
ups.com...
I seldom have anyting positive to say about GWB. I admit it.

In the case of Terri S, Bush is doing what he thinks is right despite a
great political cost to himself and his party.
That's commendable.

According to a credible poll, about 2/3 of the people who self-identify
as conservatives and evagelicals (Bush's base) *oppose* congressional
intervention in the situation. As Bush cut short his vacation and flew
in his pajamas to sign the Sciavo bill at 1 AM, he rather obviously
supports federal intervention. Partially as a result, Bush's approval
rating has nosedived 6 points (from 49 percent to 43 percent). Good for
Bush, he's upholding his principles. When he does something admirable,
it should be noted just as much as his many screw-ups.



(March 24) -- More than two-thirds of people who describe themselves as
evangelicals and conservatives disapprove of the intervention by
Congress and President Bush in the case of the Terri Schiavo, the
brain-damaged woman at the center of a national debate.

A CBS News poll found that four of five people polled opposed federal
intervention, with levels of disapproval among key groups supporting
the GOP almost that high.

Bush's overall approval was at 43 percent, down from 49 percent last
month.

Over the weekend, Republicans in Congress pushed through emergency
legislation aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life by allowing the case to
be reviewed by federal courts. That bill was signed by the president
early Monday.

Most Americans say they feel sympathy for family members on both sides
of the dispute over the 41-year-old Schiavo, according to a CNN-USA
Today-Gallup poll.

More than eight in 10 in that poll said they feel sympathy for Bob and
Mary Schindler, parents of Schiavo, who want to keep her alive. And
seven in 10 said they're sympathetic for Michael Schiavo, the husband
of Schiavo who says she should be allowed to die.

The CBS News poll of 737 adults was taken Monday and Tuesday and the
CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 620 adults was taken Tuesday. Both have
margins of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.


03/24/05 08:32 EST

A public opinion poll determines if this lady is to die or not? How
utterly
ridiculous.

**********

The lady died 15 years ago. Her vegetative body remains behind. Aside
from one doctor who admits he is "religiously motivated", the best
medical minds on the planet all agree that she will never advance
beyond a few involuntary and reflexive movements. The human part of her
brain is dead, and without miraculous, supernatural intervention cannot
be restored.


**********

Question: Do you agree that those on death row should be allowed to
take
their case to the ultimate extent of the law via appeals before they
are put
to death?


*********

Yes. And Terri's parents have always had the same option of appealing
the 19 previous rulings all the way to to Supreme Court, just like a
convicted murderer.

As in the case of Terri S, the Supreme Court may or may not decide to
even consider the convicted person's arguments. After examining the
judicial records in the Terri S case, the Supremes have elected not to
hear it.

When a convicted murderer appeals to the SC, there are rare cases where
a person is actually discovered to be "not guilty" (sometimes even
innocent) and it is best to err on the side of life if there is a
question.

In the case of the poor, brain dead woman there is *no* question. It is
medically impossible for her to regain even the most minimal human
existence. No wonder most people (who can do so) state they would
rather die than hang on for year after year as a vegetable.

wrote in message
oups.com...
A public opinion poll determines if this lady is to die or not? How
utterly
ridiculous.

**********

The lady died 15 years ago. Her vegetative body remains behind. Aside
from one doctor who admits he is "religiously motivated", the best
medical minds on the planet all agree that she will never advance
beyond a few involuntary and reflexive movements. The human part of her
brain is dead, and without miraculous, supernatural intervention cannot
be restored.


**********

Question: Do you agree that those on death row should be allowed to
take
their case to the ultimate extent of the law via appeals before they
are put
to death?


*********

Yes. And Terri's parents have always had the same option of appealing
the 19 previous rulings all the way to to Supreme Court, just like a
convicted murderer.

Not true.



As in the case of Terri S, the Supreme Court may or may not decide to
even consider the convicted person's arguments. After examining the
judicial records in the Terri S case, the Supremes have elected not to
hear it.

When a convicted murderer appeals to the SC, there are rare cases where
a person is actually discovered to be "not guilty" (sometimes even
innocent) and it is best to err on the side of life if there is a
question.

In the case of the poor, brain dead woman there is *no* question. It is
medically impossible for her to regain even the most minimal human
existence. No wonder most people (who can do so) state they would
rather die than hang on for year after year as a vegetable.


According to Dr. Baden it is possible that Terri was physically abused by
her husband causing her present condition:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...9/100629.shtml

Without the ability to conduct an autopsy (which will not be permitted based
on a judicial order) there is no way to investigate this allegation.

According to several doctors, including Dr. William Hammesfahr, there is
still a chance of rehabilitation:

http://www.rense.com/general63/tshav.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1358965/posts


What is the hurry in killing her? Why not let all avenues be explored,
especially since the allegations of Michael Shiavo's abuse causing her
condition.

We give that right to those on death row. Why not Terri?

In article . net,
says...
I'll bet Bush wished that Congress had stayed totally away from Schiavo.
Passing that bill merely cornered him, he could not refuse to sign it for
fear of ****ing off the Christian Right. Had he refused, he might have taken
a bigger approval hit the other way. His last comments indicates he just
wants this to go away.

-W

Completely agree.

jps

Gould,
I have been trying to find medical information concerning Terri S. All I
can find is info about why she should not be removed from feeding tubes,
which seems to be based upon emotion, not medical facts.

Do you have any links?


wrote in message
oups.com...
A public opinion poll determines if this lady is to die or not? How
utterly
ridiculous.

**********

The lady died 15 years ago. Her vegetative body remains behind. Aside
from one doctor who admits he is "religiously motivated", the best
medical minds on the planet all agree that she will never advance
beyond a few involuntary and reflexive movements. The human part of her
brain is dead, and without miraculous, supernatural intervention cannot
be restored.


**********

Question: Do you agree that those on death row should be allowed to
take
their case to the ultimate extent of the law via appeals before they
are put
to death?


*********

Yes. And Terri's parents have always had the same option of appealing
the 19 previous rulings all the way to to Supreme Court, just like a
convicted murderer.

As in the case of Terri S, the Supreme Court may or may not decide to
even consider the convicted person's arguments. After examining the
judicial records in the Terri S case, the Supremes have elected not to
hear it.

When a convicted murderer appeals to the SC, there are rare cases where
a person is actually discovered to be "not guilty" (sometimes even
innocent) and it is best to err on the side of life if there is a
question.

In the case of the poor, brain dead woman there is *no* question. It is
medically impossible for her to regain even the most minimal human
existence. No wonder most people (who can do so) state they would
rather die than hang on for year after year as a vegetable.

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...
I'll bet Bush wished that Congress had stayed totally away from Schiavo.
Passing that bill merely cornered him, he could not refuse to sign it for
fear of ****ing off the Christian Right. Had he refused, he might have
taken
a bigger approval hit the other way. His last comments indicates he just
wants this to go away.


He's not running for anything. Why should he care about how the Schiavo
case affects his poll ratings? The man is standing on principle, as is his
brother (who *may* be running for something). Republicans (at the state and
the federal level) who voted against any life-sustenance bill have sold out
to insurance companies and hospital administrators.

In article , says...

wrote in message
oups.com...
A public opinion poll determines if this lady is to die or not? How
utterly
ridiculous.

**********

The lady died 15 years ago. Her vegetative body remains behind. Aside
from one doctor who admits he is "religiously motivated", the best
medical minds on the planet all agree that she will never advance
beyond a few involuntary and reflexive movements. The human part of her
brain is dead, and without miraculous, supernatural intervention cannot
be restored.


**********

Question: Do you agree that those on death row should be allowed to
take
their case to the ultimate extent of the law via appeals before they
are put
to death?


*********

Yes. And Terri's parents have always had the same option of appealing
the 19 previous rulings all the way to to Supreme Court, just like a
convicted murderer.

Not true.



As in the case of Terri S, the Supreme Court may or may not decide to
even consider the convicted person's arguments. After examining the
judicial records in the Terri S case, the Supremes have elected not to
hear it.

When a convicted murderer appeals to the SC, there are rare cases where
a person is actually discovered to be "not guilty" (sometimes even
innocent) and it is best to err on the side of life if there is a
question.

In the case of the poor, brain dead woman there is *no* question. It is
medically impossible for her to regain even the most minimal human
existence. No wonder most people (who can do so) state they would
rather die than hang on for year after year as a vegetable.


According to Dr. Baden it is possible that Terri was physically abused by
her husband causing her present condition:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...9/100629.shtml

Oh yeah. That's a good one. I believe everything in Newsmax.

The far more likely answer is that she caused her own demise through her
eating disorder.

Good detectives normally look at the most obvious clues for answers.
Not the case at Newsmax, where the political agenda overrules logic.

jps

In article . net,
says...

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...
I'll bet Bush wished that Congress had stayed totally away from Schiavo.
Passing that bill merely cornered him, he could not refuse to sign it for
fear of ****ing off the Christian Right. Had he refused, he might have
taken
a bigger approval hit the other way. His last comments indicates he just
wants this to go away.


He's not running for anything. Why should he care about how the Schiavo
case affects his poll ratings? The man is standing on principle, as is his
brother (who *may* be running for something). Republicans (at the state and
the federal level) who voted against any life-sustenance bill have sold out
to insurance companies and hospital administrators.

You're forgetting one little item.

He's the supposed head of his political party. Unless you count Karl
Rove as that person. In that case, Bush was acting on orders.

jps

On 24 Mar 2005 08:18:34 -0800, wrote:

I seldom have anyting positive to say about GWB. I admit it.

In the case of Terri S, Bush is doing what he thinks is right despite a
great political cost to himself and his party.
That's commendable.

According to a credible poll, about 2/3 of the people who self-identify
as conservatives and evagelicals (Bush's base) *oppose* congressional
intervention in the situation. As Bush cut short his vacation and flew
in his pajamas to sign the Sciavo bill at 1 AM, he rather obviously
supports federal intervention. Partially as a result, Bush's approval
rating has nosedived 6 points (from 49 percent to 43 percent). Good for
Bush, he's upholding his principles. When he does something admirable,
it should be noted just as much as his many screw-ups.



(March 24) -- More than two-thirds of people who describe themselves as
evangelicals and conservatives disapprove of the intervention by
Congress and President Bush in the case of the Terri Schiavo, the
brain-damaged woman at the center of a national debate.

A CBS News poll found that four of five people polled opposed federal
intervention, with levels of disapproval among key groups supporting
the GOP almost that high.

Bush's overall approval was at 43 percent, down from 49 percent last
month.

Over the weekend, Republicans in Congress pushed through emergency
legislation aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life by allowing the case to
be reviewed by federal courts. That bill was signed by the president
early Monday.

Most Americans say they feel sympathy for family members on both sides
of the dispute over the 41-year-old Schiavo, according to a CNN-USA
Today-Gallup poll.

More than eight in 10 in that poll said they feel sympathy for Bob and
Mary Schindler, parents of Schiavo, who want to keep her alive. And
seven in 10 said they're sympathetic for Michael Schiavo, the husband
of Schiavo who says she should be allowed to die.

The CBS News poll of 737 adults was taken Monday and Tuesday and the
CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 620 adults was taken Tuesday. Both have
margins of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.


03/24/05 08:32 EST

The only intervention was allowing the case to be reviewed by federal courts. To
me this is only providing due process of law.

It is surely not the 'family matter intervention' that the liberal media and
individuals are calling it. Hopefully the public will hear the correct story one
day without all the liberal hype.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Gould,
I have been trying to find medical information concerning Terri S. All
I
can find is info about why she should not be removed from feeding
tubes,
which seems to be based upon emotion, not medical facts.


Do you have any links?


*********

I doubt that you will find many medical records on line while she is
still (sort of) "living".

The medical case has been presented at least 20 times now, in various
state and federal courts, and judges who have been presented with the
medical evidence and implored by advocates for Terri S to find some
reason to keep her dead body breathing have all, without exception,
agreed that medical evidence supporting the possibility of recovery is
not available.

You sort of have to side with the doctors on the medical issues, and
the judges on the legal issues in cases such as this.

wrote:

Gould,
I have been trying to find medical information concerning Terri S. All
I
can find is info about why she should not be removed from feeding
tubes,
which seems to be based upon emotion, not medical facts.


Do you have any links?


*********

I doubt that you will find many medical records on line while she is
still (sort of) "living".

The medical case has been presented at least 20 times now, in various
state and federal courts, and judges who have been presented with the
medical evidence and implored by advocates for Terri S to find some
reason to keep her dead body breathing have all, without exception,
agreed that medical evidence supporting the possibility of recovery is
not available.

You sort of have to side with the doctors on the medical issues, and
the judges on the legal issues in cases such as this.


References re the Terri Schiavo Case

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html -- Best summary IMHO

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4358877.stm

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Schiavo...=531907&page=1

http://www.topix.net/news/terri-schiavo

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7231440/

Persistent Vegetative State --- not specific to TS

http://www.thalidomide.ca/gwolbring/pvsilm.htm

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/921394859.html

http://www.xenos.org/ministries/cros.../donal/pvs.htm

wrote in message
oups.com...
Gould,
I have been trying to find medical information concerning Terri S. All
I
can find is info about why she should not be removed from feeding
tubes,
which seems to be based upon emotion, not medical facts.


Do you have any links?


*********

I doubt that you will find many medical records on line while she is
still (sort of) "living".

The medical case has been presented at least 20 times now, in various
state and federal courts, and judges who have been presented with the
medical evidence and implored by advocates for Terri S to find some
reason to keep her dead body breathing have all, without exception,
agreed that medical evidence supporting the possibility of recovery is
not available.

You sort of have to side with the doctors on the medical issues, and
the judges on the legal issues in cases such as this.


Why? What is the rush? If there is a question about Michael Schiavo
possibly abusing her (scans previously noted broken bones) what is the hurry
in letting her die? Why did Michael Schiavo note her wishes not to be kept
alive some 10 years after her hospitalization and only after he received his
share of the punitive damage award from a jury trial?

Something is rotten in Denmark, especially since the court has blocked any
possibility of an autopsy.

Jim,
Thanks that is exactly what I was looking for.

Hopefully everyone will now realize the importance of a Living Will. If you
don't have a Living Will, you leave yourself open for this mess.


"Jim," wrote in message
...
wrote:

Gould,
I have been trying to find medical information concerning Terri S. All
I
can find is info about why she should not be removed from feeding
tubes,
which seems to be based upon emotion, not medical facts.


Do you have any links?


*********

I doubt that you will find many medical records on line while she is
still (sort of) "living".

The medical case has been presented at least 20 times now, in various
state and federal courts, and judges who have been presented with the
medical evidence and implored by advocates for Terri S to find some
reason to keep her dead body breathing have all, without exception,
agreed that medical evidence supporting the possibility of recovery is
not available.

You sort of have to side with the doctors on the medical issues, and
the judges on the legal issues in cases such as this.


References re the Terri Schiavo Case

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html -- Best summary IMHO

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4358877.stm

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Schiavo...=531907&page=1

http://www.topix.net/news/terri-schiavo

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7231440/

Persistent Vegetative State --- not specific to TS

http://www.thalidomide.ca/gwolbring/pvsilm.htm

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/921394859.html

http://www.xenos.org/ministries/cros.../donal/pvs.htm

JimH,
You would have to believe all the medical doctors and courts are involved in
this cover-up. If you read the judges decision, it appears to be based upon
medical information and the wishes of Terri.

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



"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Gould,
I have been trying to find medical information concerning Terri S. All
I
can find is info about why she should not be removed from feeding
tubes,
which seems to be based upon emotion, not medical facts.


Do you have any links?


*********

I doubt that you will find many medical records on line while she is
still (sort of) "living".

The medical case has been presented at least 20 times now, in various
state and federal courts, and judges who have been presented with the
medical evidence and implored by advocates for Terri S to find some
reason to keep her dead body breathing have all, without exception,
agreed that medical evidence supporting the possibility of recovery is
not available.

You sort of have to side with the doctors on the medical issues, and
the judges on the legal issues in cases such as this.


Why? What is the rush? If there is a question about Michael Schiavo
possibly abusing her (scans previously noted broken bones) what is the
hurry in letting her die? Why did Michael Schiavo note her wishes not to
be kept alive some 10 years after her hospitalization and only after he
received his share of the punitive damage award from a jury trial?

Something is rotten in Denmark, especially since the court has blocked any
possibility of an autopsy.

No rush at all. This case is already YEARS too long. No matter what day it
finally gets over - I'tll be spun as a "rush".

-W

"JimH" wrote in message news:ds6dnZAp1JkOk97fRVn-

Why? What is the rush?

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...
I'll bet Bush wished that Congress had stayed totally away from Schiavo.
Passing that bill merely cornered him, he could not refuse to sign it
for
fear of ****ing off the Christian Right. Had he refused, he might have
taken
a bigger approval hit the other way. His last comments indicates he just
wants this to go away.


He's not running for anything. Why should he care about how the Schiavo
case affects his poll ratings? The man is standing on principle, as is
his
brother (who *may* be running for something). Republicans (at the state
and
the federal level) who voted against any life-sustenance bill have sold
out
to insurance companies and hospital administrators.

I dissagee..... when Bush is standing on principle, he's adament and "on
about it". Best we got out of him here was "If we're going to err, we
should err on the side of life." That's hardly an "activist" position on the
matter. And just today he was quick to come out with a set of comments that
more or less equels "well that's that then" today when the Supreme Court
shot it down.

I'll bet like a lot of people, Bush is unsure exactly how to feel about
this, except that it sucks all around. While I personally feel that she's a
breathing cadaver, I don't (too much) care if they leave her hooked up as a
living science project for the next 10 years either. I don't think he has a
real adament horse in this fight, anyone with 1/2 a brain knows that she has
none at all. He just can't go against the parties general "right to life"
dogma when it runs up and bites him in the ass (like this case).

There's a difference between the Christian Right - and the Radical Christian
Right. And this case kinda shows who's vocalizing where. Bush has a couple
agendas (like the SS reform bill) that's he wants to move on - Terry Schiavo
is a side show he does not need when he has chosen his battles to fight. He
understood that his election bought him some "political capitol" to spend.
And he seems to know it's limits. I don't think he wants to squander it on
high profile circus issues like this.

-W

Clams Canino wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
hlink.net...

I'll bet Bush wished that Congress had stayed totally away from Schiavo.
Passing that bill merely cornered him, he could not refuse to sign it

for

fear of ****ing off the Christian Right. Had he refused, he might have
taken
a bigger approval hit the other way. His last comments indicates he just
wants this to go away.


He's not running for anything. Why should he care about how the Schiavo
case affects his poll ratings? The man is standing on principle, as is

his

brother (who *may* be running for something). Republicans (at the state

and

the federal level) who voted against any life-sustenance bill have sold

out

to insurance companies and hospital administrators.


I dissagee..... when Bush is standing on principle, he's adament and "on
about it". Best we got out of him here was "If we're going to err, we
should err on the side of life." That's hardly an "activist" position on the
matter. And just today he was quick to come out with a set of comments that
more or less equels "well that's that then" today when the Supreme Court
shot it down.

I'll bet like a lot of people, Bush is unsure exactly how to feel about
this, except that it sucks all around. While I personally feel that she's a
breathing cadaver, I don't (too much) care if they leave her hooked up as a
living science project for the next 10 years either. I don't think he has a
real adament horse in this fight, anyone with 1/2 a brain knows that she has
none at all. He just can't go against the parties general "right to life"
dogma when it runs up and bites him in the ass (like this case).

There's a difference between the Christian Right - and the Radical Christian
Right. And this case kinda shows who's vocalizing where. Bush has a couple
agendas (like the SS reform bill) that's he wants to move on - Terry Schiavo
is a side show he does not need when he has chosen his battles to fight. He
understood that his election bought him some "political capitol" to spend.
And he seems to know it's limits. I don't think he wants to squander it on
high profile circus issues like this.

-W

Sure does take the heat off DeLay for a few days though.

Perhaps no one expected it to get to this point. After all she was living
with a feeding tube without problem for years. And news of possible
physical abuse by her husband Michael, thus causing her condition, was only
recently discovered.

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial settlement
from the original court case.

One has to wonder why her husband will not allow an autopsy. What harm is
there in that.

Broken bones and an uncaring, money grabbing husband.....the smoking gun
being Terri. How best to get rid of the evidence than to let her die and
deny an autopsy.

It is too late to save her. I only hope she is without pain.

Michael won. I hope he can live with his *victory*.


"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...
No rush at all. This case is already YEARS too long. No matter what day
it
finally gets over - I'tll be spun as a "rush".

-W

"JimH" wrote in message news:ds6dnZAp1JkOk97fRVn-

Why? What is the rush?

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially
since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially
since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial
settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

And perhaps not. So why not err in the favor of life? What harm was there
keeping her alive, especially since her parents accepted all responsibility
for her welfare, including costs. Why not let these latest allegations be
investigated?



At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation
she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W


I agree. She is now dead. But she wasn't on March 18th, 2005.

So how about an autopsy? Why is Michael refusing one?

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:56:55 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Clams Canino" wrote in message
link.net...

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially
since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial
settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

And perhaps not. So why not err in the favor of life? What harm was there
keeping her alive, especially since her parents accepted all responsibility
for her welfare, including costs. Why not let these latest allegations be
investigated?



At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation
she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W


I agree. She is now dead. But she wasn't on March 18th, 2005.

So how about an autopsy? Why is Michael refusing one?


If foul play was suspected by the authorities, couldn't they just *order* one?
Who is requesting an autopsy? If I were the husband I'd say leave the body alone
whether I'd done anything or not.

What harm was there? Suppose she had had a living will. Would that same question
still apply?

In Florida the living will can be written or verbal (from what I've seen). She
made a verbal living will. This is apparently what many judges have believed.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:56:55 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Clams Canino" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially
since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial
settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

And perhaps not. So why not err in the favor of life? What harm was
there
keeping her alive, especially since her parents accepted all
responsibility
for her welfare, including costs. Why not let these latest allegations
be
investigated?



At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation
she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there
by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W


I agree. She is now dead. But she wasn't on March 18th, 2005.

So how about an autopsy? Why is Michael refusing one?


If foul play was suspected by the authorities, couldn't they just *order*
one?
Who is requesting an autopsy? If I were the husband I'd say leave the body
alone
whether I'd done anything or not.

Nope. Michael says no. Circuit Judge George Greer says no.

I wonder why? What is the harm?



What harm was there? Suppose she had had a living will. Would that same
question
still apply?

Nope, especially if not signs of physical abuse were observed on her body.

JimH wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:56:55 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Clams Canino" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-


One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially

since

he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial
settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

And perhaps not. So why not err in the favor of life? What harm was
there
keeping her alive, especially since her parents accepted all
responsibility
for her welfare, including costs. Why not let these latest allegations
be
investigated?



At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation
she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there
by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W


I agree. She is now dead. But she wasn't on March 18th, 2005.

So how about an autopsy? Why is Michael refusing one?


If foul play was suspected by the authorities, couldn't they just *order*
one?
Who is requesting an autopsy? If I were the husband I'd say leave the body
alone
whether I'd done anything or not.


Nope. Michael says no. Circuit Judge George Greer says no.

I wonder why? What is the harm?



What harm was there? Suppose she had had a living will. Would that same
question
still apply?


Nope, especially if not signs of physical abuse were observed on her body.



There were x rays in 91, and bruises and minimal bone damage was
attributed to the fall and the efforts of the EMTs

Been there -- done that.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:47:33 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:56:55 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Clams Canino" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially
since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial
settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

And perhaps not. So why not err in the favor of life? What harm was
there
keeping her alive, especially since her parents accepted all
responsibility
for her welfare, including costs. Why not let these latest allegations
be
investigated?



At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation
she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there
by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W


I agree. She is now dead. But she wasn't on March 18th, 2005.

So how about an autopsy? Why is Michael refusing one?


If foul play was suspected by the authorities, couldn't they just *order*
one?
Who is requesting an autopsy? If I were the husband I'd say leave the body
alone
whether I'd done anything or not.

Nope. Michael says no. Circuit Judge George Greer says no.

I wonder why? What is the harm?



What harm was there? Suppose she had had a living will. Would that same
question
still apply?

Nope, especially if not signs of physical abuse were observed on her body.



If there are no grounds to suspect foul play, then there are no grounds for an
autopsy. If it were my wife, I'd say no also.

Then all of the fuss is because some don't believe she made a verbal living
will. Apparently a bunch of judges believed she did. Not having the facts at my
disposal, I'm inclined to that also.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:47:33 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:56:55 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Clams Canino" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially
since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial
settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

And perhaps not. So why not err in the favor of life? What harm was
there
keeping her alive, especially since her parents accepted all
responsibility
for her welfare, including costs. Why not let these latest allegations
be
investigated?



At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the
occupation
she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out
there
by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W


I agree. She is now dead. But she wasn't on March 18th, 2005.

So how about an autopsy? Why is Michael refusing one?


If foul play was suspected by the authorities, couldn't they just
*order*
one?
Who is requesting an autopsy? If I were the husband I'd say leave the
body
alone
whether I'd done anything or not.

Nope. Michael says no. Circuit Judge George Greer says no.

I wonder why? What is the harm?



What harm was there? Suppose she had had a living will. Would that same
question
still apply?

Nope, especially if not signs of physical abuse were observed on her body.



If there are no grounds to suspect foul play, then there are no grounds
for an
autopsy. If it were my wife, I'd say no also.

But there is suspiscion of foul play. A doctor confirmed that yesterday. So
why no autopsy?



Then all of the fuss is because some don't believe she made a verbal
living
will. Apparently a bunch of judges believed she did. Not having the facts
at my
disposal, I'm inclined to that also
--
John H


The *verbal* living will was brought to the courts attention a full 10 years
after she was hospitalized and after Michael received his share of the court
settlement. How convenient.

And we don't know the *facts*. We cannot rule out foul play. What is the
rush? Why no autopsy if she is allowd to die?

Disturbing to say the least.

At this point let the poor woman die without any more suffering.

Score one for Michael. Score one against the US citizens.

"JimH" wrote in message news:VcSdnWdPBLqc9N7fRVn-

But there is suspiscion of foul play. A doctor confirmed that yesterday.
So
why no autopsy?

Because the authorities don't find that suspicion (or the rest of the smoke
screen) credible. If the DA ordered an autopsy, he'd get one. That simple.

-W

On 24 Mar 2005 08:18:34 -0800, wrote:

I seldom have anyting positive to say about GWB. I admit it.

In the case of Terri S, Bush is doing what he thinks is right despite a
great political cost to himself and his party.
That's commendable.

According to a credible poll, about 2/3 of the people who self-identify
as conservatives and evagelicals (Bush's base) *oppose* congressional
intervention in the situation. As Bush cut short his vacation and flew
in his pajamas to sign the Sciavo bill at 1 AM, he rather obviously
supports federal intervention. Partially as a result, Bush's approval
rating has nosedived 6 points (from 49 percent to 43 percent). Good for
Bush, he's upholding his principles. When he does something admirable,
it should be noted just as much as his many screw-ups.


This is an interesting development from an ideological perspective.
Many people, who are died in the wool conservatives, strongly oppose
government intervention in this private matter. While many liberals,
who normally oppose Bush, suddenly herald his decision to intervene
for Terri's "rights".

This issue is not dividing down the usual party and ideological lines.

Dave

What's admirable about this? It's pure politics. If bush gave a ****
about these kind of people, he would fund medicaid instead of cutting
it. If he cared about life he would have pardoned SOMEBODY instead of
executing a record number in Texas.

Sorry, I can't see any humanitarian part of the man. Hell, she can't
even vote, but all those in the conservative base that support her do.

Capt. Jeff

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...
I'll bet Bush wished that Congress had stayed totally away from
Schiavo.
Passing that bill merely cornered him, he could not refuse to sign it
for
fear of ****ing off the Christian Right. Had he refused, he might have
taken
a bigger approval hit the other way. His last comments indicates he
just
wants this to go away.


He's not running for anything. Why should he care about how the Schiavo
case affects his poll ratings? The man is standing on principle, as is
his
brother (who *may* be running for something). Republicans (at the state
and
the federal level) who voted against any life-sustenance bill have sold
out
to insurance companies and hospital administrators.

I dissagee..... when Bush is standing on principle, he's adament and "on
about it". Best we got out of him here was "If we're going to err, we
should err on the side of life." That's hardly an "activist" position on
the
matter. And just today he was quick to come out with a set of comments
that
more or less equels "well that's that then" today when the Supreme Court
shot it down.

I'll bet like a lot of people, Bush is unsure exactly how to feel about
this, except that it sucks all around. While I personally feel that she's
a
breathing cadaver, I don't (too much) care if they leave her hooked up as
a
living science project for the next 10 years either. I don't think he has
a
real adament horse in this fight, anyone with 1/2 a brain knows that she
has
none at all. He just can't go against the parties general "right to life"
dogma when it runs up and bites him in the ass (like this case).

There's a difference between the Christian Right - and the Radical
Christian
Right. And this case kinda shows who's vocalizing where. Bush has a couple
agendas (like the SS reform bill) that's he wants to move on - Terry
Schiavo
is a side show he does not need when he has chosen his battles to fight.
He
understood that his election bought him some "political capitol" to spend.
And he seems to know it's limits. I don't think he wants to squander it on
high profile circus issues like this.


That's a pretty good assessment. We know where he stands on the issue...but
he's certainly not going to the mat over it.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:50:02 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

On 24 Mar 2005 08:18:34 -0800, wrote:

I seldom have anyting positive to say about GWB. I admit it.

In the case of Terri S, Bush is doing what he thinks is right despite a
great political cost to himself and his party.
That's commendable.

According to a credible poll, about 2/3 of the people who self-identify
as conservatives and evagelicals (Bush's base) *oppose* congressional
intervention in the situation. As Bush cut short his vacation and flew
in his pajamas to sign the Sciavo bill at 1 AM, he rather obviously
supports federal intervention. Partially as a result, Bush's approval
rating has nosedived 6 points (from 49 percent to 43 percent). Good for
Bush, he's upholding his principles. When he does something admirable,
it should be noted just as much as his many screw-ups.


This is an interesting development from an ideological perspective.
Many people, who are died in the wool conservatives, strongly oppose
government intervention in this private matter. While many liberals,
who normally oppose Bush, suddenly herald his decision to intervene
for Terri's "rights".

This issue is not dividing down the usual party and ideological lines.

Dave

My thinking is that whoever took this case to court the first time has asked for
government intervention. The inclusion of the federal courts in the 'due
process' ladder seems only an extension of rights, not an intervention.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:59:38 -0600, Tamaroak wrote:

What's admirable about this? It's pure politics. If bush gave a ****
about these kind of people, he would fund medicaid instead of cutting
it. If he cared about life he would have pardoned SOMEBODY instead of
executing a record number in Texas.

Sorry, I can't see any humanitarian part of the man. Hell, she can't
even vote, but all those in the conservative base that support her do.

Capt. Jeff

A super example of a Bush-hating post. Little bearing on the subject, but lot's
of wrath. Harry K. would love this post!

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Tamaroak wrote:
What's admirable about this? It's pure politics. If bush gave a ****
about these kind of people, he would fund medicaid instead of cutting
it. If he cared about life he would have pardoned SOMEBODY instead of
executing a record number in Texas.

Sorry, I can't see any humanitarian part of the man. Hell, she can't
even vote, but all those in the conservative base that support her do.


What's really discouraging is that the religious right (actually, those
who depend on ignorant whackos for political support) are *already*
planning their campaign of outrage, based on the theory that "liberals"
are behind the "judicial activism" that let Terry Schiavo die.


John H wrote:
A super example of a Bush-hating post.

Really? Looks like simple fact to me.

Please post examples of President Bush's humitarian achievements.

... Little bearing on the subject, but lot's
of wrath.

Any minor criticism of President Bush, no matter how factual, looks to
you like "wrath."

DSK

He's pandering to the religious right.

He signed a bill that allows a 6 month old to be disconnected because
the parents can't pay. Was he doing "What he believes is correct" then?

The right is selling something they shouldn't be selling, interfering in
"people's private business", just like he campaigned against.


wrote:

I seldom have anyting positive to say about GWB. I admit it.

In the case of Terri S, Bush is doing what he thinks is right despite a
great political cost to himself and his party.
That's commendable.

According to a credible poll, about 2/3 of the people who self-identify
as conservatives and evagelicals (Bush's base) *oppose* congressional
intervention in the situation. As Bush cut short his vacation and flew
in his pajamas to sign the Sciavo bill at 1 AM, he rather obviously
supports federal intervention. Partially as a result, Bush's approval
rating has nosedived 6 points (from 49 percent to 43 percent). Good for
Bush, he's upholding his principles. When he does something admirable,
it should be noted just as much as his many screw-ups.



(March 24) -- More than two-thirds of people who describe themselves as
evangelicals and conservatives disapprove of the intervention by
Congress and President Bush in the case of the Terri Schiavo, the
brain-damaged woman at the center of a national debate.

A CBS News poll found that four of five people polled opposed federal
intervention, with levels of disapproval among key groups supporting
the GOP almost that high.

Bush's overall approval was at 43 percent, down from 49 percent last
month.

Over the weekend, Republicans in Congress pushed through emergency
legislation aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life by allowing the case to
be reviewed by federal courts. That bill was signed by the president
early Monday.

Most Americans say they feel sympathy for family members on both sides
of the dispute over the 41-year-old Schiavo, according to a CNN-USA
Today-Gallup poll.

More than eight in 10 in that poll said they feel sympathy for Bob and
Mary Schindler, parents of Schiavo, who want to keep her alive. And
seven in 10 said they're sympathetic for Michael Schiavo, the husband
of Schiavo who says she should be allowed to die.

The CBS News poll of 737 adults was taken Monday and Tuesday and the
CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 620 adults was taken Tuesday. Both have
margins of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.


03/24/05 08:32 EST

krause you fool

Bush has also saved the lives of on average 45,000 Iraqis per year since he
started this campaign. You fool,,,

How many more 9-11 do you need krause before you clue in??

Not too bright are you there krause,,,

Don't answer that krause,,, it would mean you are a liar,,, with more,,
more,, if possible,, more concrete proof.











"HKrause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
Tamaroak wrote:

What's admirable about this? It's pure politics. If bush gave a ****
about these kind of people, he would fund medicaid instead of cutting
it. If he cared about life he would have pardoned SOMEBODY instead of
executing a record number in Texas.

Sorry, I can't see any humanitarian part of the man. Hell, she can't
even vote, but all those in the conservative base that support her do.


What's really discouraging is that the religious right (actually, those
who depend on ignorant whackos for political support) are *already*
planning their campaign of outrage, based on the theory that "liberals"
are behind the "judicial activism" that let Terry Schiavo die.


John H wrote:

A super example of a Bush-hating post.


Really? Looks like simple fact to me.

Please post examples of President Bush's humitarian achievements.


Well, he has killed 100,000 Iraqis.
And you don't count the dead when Jesus is on your side.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:01:22 -0500, DSK wrote:

Tamaroak wrote:
What's admirable about this? It's pure politics. If bush gave a ****
about these kind of people, he would fund medicaid instead of cutting
it. If he cared about life he would have pardoned SOMEBODY instead of
executing a record number in Texas.

Sorry, I can't see any humanitarian part of the man. Hell, she can't
even vote, but all those in the conservative base that support her do.


What's really discouraging is that the religious right (actually, those
who depend on ignorant whackos for political support) are *already*
planning their campaign of outrage, based on the theory that "liberals"
are behind the "judicial activism" that let Terry Schiavo die.


John H wrote:
A super example of a Bush-hating post.

Really? Looks like simple fact to me.

Please post examples of President Bush's humitarian achievements.

... Little bearing on the subject, but lot's
of wrath.

Any minor criticism of President Bush, no matter how factual, looks to
you like "wrath."

DSK

Sorry, Doug. I don't have the patience to put up with you.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Please post examples of President Bush's humitarian achievements.



John H wrote:
Sorry, Doug. I don't have the patience to put up with you.

In other words, another strike-out for the Bush cheerleaders. You can't
give any examples of charitable or humanitarian achievements of note.

Why can't you give reasons for your opinions? Most half-intelligent
people can. Are you totally guided by prejudice & hypocrisy?

DSK

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:59:16 -0500, DSK wrote:

Please post examples of President Bush's humitarian achievements.



John H wrote:
Sorry, Doug. I don't have the patience to put up with you.

In other words, another strike-out for the Bush cheerleaders. You can't
give any examples of charitable or humanitarian achievements of note.

Why can't you give reasons for your opinions? Most half-intelligent
people can. Are you totally guided by prejudice & hypocrisy?

DSK

No, I simply don't have Dave's patience. You can ascribe any meaning to that you
wish. Here, help yourself:

In other words,


In other words,


In other words,


In other words,

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

wrote:

Gould,
I have been trying to find medical information concerning Terri S. All
I
can find is info about why she should not be removed from feeding
tubes,
which seems to be based upon emotion, not medical facts.


Do you have any links?


*********

I doubt that you will find many medical records on line while she is
still (sort of) "living".

The medical case has been presented at least 20 times now, in various
state and federal courts, and judges who have been presented with the
medical evidence and implored by advocates for Terri S to find some
reason to keep her dead body breathing have all, without exception,
agreed that medical evidence supporting the possibility of recovery is
not available.

You sort of have to side with the doctors on the medical issues, and
the judges on the legal issues in cases such as this.


References re the Terri Schiavo Case

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html -- Best summary IMHO

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4358877.stm

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Schiavo...=531907&page=1

http://www.topix.net/news/terri-schiavo

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7231440/

Persistent Vegetative State --- not specific to TS

http://www.thalidomide.ca/gwolbring/pvsilm.htm

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/921394859.html

http://www.xenos.org/ministries/cros.../donal/pvs.htm