« Court Hearing For Terri Schiavo Scheduled For 3:00 PM ET | Main | Support Terri at the Courthouse »

March 21, 2005

Republicans Scheduled For The Terri Schiavo "Wall of Shame"

Topics: News

According to the House website there were five House republicans who voted 'nay' on S.686 last night. They will go to the head of the list when it is assembled later this afternoon. The members of the "Wall of Shame" are to be considered "anti-life" and will be targeted for near-term help in understanding their error and long term for defeat at the next election. Republicans will be placed at the head of the list:

In the meanwhile, you might want to begin jamming their phone lines to advise them of your plans.

Ginny Brown-Waite
Florida-5th, Republican
414 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515-0905
Phone: (202) 225-1002

Michael N. Castle
Delaware-At Large, Republican
1233 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515-0801
Phone: (202) 225-4165

Charles W. Dent
Pennsylvania-15th, Republican
502 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515-3815
Phone: (202) 225-6411

David G. Reichert
Washington-8th, Republican
1223 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515-4708
Phone: (202) 225-7761

Christopher Shays
Connecticut-4th, Republican
1126 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515-0704
Phone: (202) 225-5541

Hat tip to Bob A.

Posted by richard at March 21, 2005 11:09 AM

Articles Related to News:

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Republicans Scheduled For The Terri Schiavo "Wall of Shame":

» Terri Polemics from University Blog
From the trackback ping listing at this interesting BlogsforTerri post, I found this "lef... [Read More]

Tracked on March 29, 2005 4:22 AM

» Terri Polemics from University Blog
From the trackback ping listing at this interesting BlogsforTerri post, I found this "lef... [Read More]

Tracked on March 29, 2005 4:28 AM


I have already sent an email to my congressional representative--jim moron--from Virginia. Thank God he is not a Republican; but here is the text of the email I sent him, because his actions disgust me as a US Citizen and prior Military Officer (one who would have given her life to defend the Constitution against such barbaric treatment of people).

>>Dear congressperson moran:

>>You disgust me. I will campaign will and pray >>heavily against you and your culture of death.

>>For some reason, I am under the (hopefully >>incorrect) impression that you consider >>yourself a Roman Catholic. I will be praying >>the Divine Mercy Novena regularly for you. In >>addition to praying this remarkable prayer for >>Terri Schiavo's life, I will add my petition to >>remove you from Congress. You and all the BTK >>greer supporters.

>>Obviously you don't give a rat's anything about >>life. So, think about the fact that you will >>not live forever and beg your GOD to have mercy >>on your soul.

>>I knew you would vote against the bill--but I >>had higher hopes for my representative. That's >>OK, I've survived hopeless situations before.

>>God Bless You (as if you care).

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 11:25 AM

I would also like to see the list by state of those who didn't bother to vote. They're on my shame list, too.

Posted by: Patsy at March 21, 2005 11:26 AM

I was shocked last night when Henry Hyde didn't show up, what's up with that?

Posted by: Marine Momma at March 21, 2005 11:35 AM

Do you think we can add W and Jeb? They stand around wringing their hands while Terri IS STARVING TO DEATH.

W could issue an Executive Order right now ordering the feeding tube to be reinserted until a judge hears the motion.

Jeb could take Terri into proetective custody per Fla. statutes CH. 415.1051(2)

The Congressional leaders who issued the subpoenas could ask the US Marshals to take Terri into protective custody.

Frankly, Terri is no closer now to having her tube re-inserted than she was Friday afternoon, and its because the GOP is sitting on its collective hands.
I am angry. If Terri dies because they let her, it's back to the Constitution Party for me.

Posted by: Bryan at March 21, 2005 11:36 AM

It is a total disregard for Terri and every other disabled person that these individuals did not see fit to stand up and speak for Terri's rights!

Although it is typical of the Democratic party to always be on a pro death march. I really had hoped they could put aside the politics and for once recognize that this situation must be treated different. . . Terri Schiavo DOES NOT HAVE A LIVING WILL! She is not BRAIN DEAD! She is DISABLED and has been severely neglected!


Posted by: Linda at March 21, 2005 11:37 AM

I heard, (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the Federal judge who is now assigned to this case COULD reinsert the tube while he's still reviewing the documents...

Why aren't they? This is very disheartening.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 11:39 AM

I am appalled that so many so called Catholics are making a mockory of the sacrement of matrimony by denying the husband the right to do what he has sworn in the eyes as best for his wife. You are all hipocrits and should be ashamed to be call yourself Catholics. The politicians are making a mockery of the Catholic sacrement by trying to remove the rights of the husband as they were exchanged in their wedding vows. You all disgust me and I will work digilantly to have the politicians removed from office.

Posted by: Name Withheld at March 21, 2005 11:41 AM

Mockery? Michael Schiavo has made a mockery of his "marriage" by refusing to stand by his wife and going and having numerous affairs after her "incident" and then for the past 10 years living with another woman, having sex with her, and fathering 2 children with her.

Give me a break. That is adultery and in God's eyes is a sin and the marriage should be dissolved.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 11:45 AM

NW, your either with us or your against us. You are no Catholic.

Posted by: chardonnay at March 21, 2005 11:45 AM

This is a very difficult situation, but somehow, I feel compelled to give my opinion. I am a mom, and God knows, I would always do everything in my power to keep my child alive - however, they would be for very selfish reasons - not wanting to let go of the one person on this earth whom i love dearly and more than life itself. However, you all know that if you had a choice to live your life as Terri is living hers now, you would choose not to. I can't think of anyone who, at Terri's age, would say they would want to live their life the way she is right now. She's NOT living. Life is a wonderful thing and should be enjoyed. If this happened to me, I would be very upset if my family intervened in my husband's decision. I married him because I love and trust him - this would be his decision. If he felt he could not care for me and said he knows I would not want to live like that - my family had better understand that. I strongly believe Terri's mom just can't let go (it would be a very difficult thing for any parent) - but we all know our child would NOT want to spend their life the way Terri is now spending hers. Let her go in peace, maybe come back to life again (as some of you believe happens) and live again.

Posted by: Sadly Selfish at March 21, 2005 11:48 AM

I think that you are all self-deluded to the point of absurdity. Terri will never recover. Plain and simple. After 15 years, that much is obvious. She was not happy with the way she was, hence the eating disorder. What makes anyone think that she would want to live the way that she is now? I know I wouldn't. Who the hell are you to play God? You want to talk about God? Take her off the tubes. Just like anything else in nature, she will return to the kingdom of heaven and take her rightful place there beside Him. Let go already. This is not living. I pray that God finds a way to remove Terri from her suffering, which you selfish people seem to think that she deserves. Someday, I hope it is you in her place and then we'll see how wonderful life is.

Posted by: Michelle at March 21, 2005 11:48 AM

I apologize for Sherrif Reichert. He really is a good guy.

Posted by: chardonnay at March 21, 2005 11:51 AM

My congressman from Indiana voted to save Terri's life. I am so disappointed in the others. But, it is obvious that the others have no morals. I work with severe handicapped children that are on feeding tubes. My question are they next! Terri is on a feeding tube not on life support! Why do you want to kill her? I hope one day you know what it feels like to starve to death! Remember you have not left this heartless world yet.These feelings come from a group of loving people in Indiana.

Posted by: Kare Jones at March 21, 2005 11:51 AM


The Church's stance on the husband's rights do not superceed God's Law on: "Thou shalt not kill."

Oh yeah, God also said, "Thou shalt not commit adultry."

Well, michael shiavo has attempted to violate the Fifth Commandment, and has directly violated the Sixth Commandment.

Why would Catholics ever support an individual who has violated the Laws that are the tenets of our Faith?

You're keeping yourself nameless because you really don't want those of us reading these blogs to know how stupid you are. Oh well--we don't care; it's your right to have a WRONG opinion.

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 11:52 AM

Kare - i do have morals - and i have sympathy for both families. But Terri did not want to feed her body when she was alert - who are we to say she would want to be force fed now. She enjoyed life when she was living it - i doubt she's enjoying it now - she's been like this for 15 years; i doubt she's enjoying her life. She didn't want fed when she knew better - I doubt she wants fed now. But I can't say for sure - only her husband would know what she wanted, and he has spoken. I have only confided in my husband my wishes (and that's because my parents would be upset with my wishes) - because of all this, he and I did living wills so my mom can't force me to live my life a way i would not choose to live it.

Posted by: Sadly Selfish at March 21, 2005 11:55 AM

By the way, Sirena...
With your attitude, neither are you.
You may read the books, attend the mass and eat the bread...but you have no idea. Maybe you should get educated. Being a Catholic does not mean that you have to be a Natzi.
Frankly, from what I've seen of the Catholic faith so far, I am almost ashamed to claim to be one. Who's up for a witch-burning? Persecution of homosexuals? Murder an abortion doctor? How about rape some children? Anyone? How about you, Sirena? Lets go be Catholics, everyone!!!
I think I've had about enough of being Catholic. You people really need to look at your church here and see if this is really what you want to believe in. I think I'm converting.

Posted by: Michelle at March 21, 2005 11:57 AM

PLEASE don't assume that every representative who didn't vote was "copping out". My representative, John Boozman, was not able to be there for the vote because his brother (a state political figure) was killed in a tragic accident Saturday. He did not return to DC as he planned because of this sad, unexpected turn. I would hate to see him receive negative mail when his failure to vote had NOTHING to do with his views on the case. He is strongly pro-life and would have voted for the bill.

Posted by: Rosa at March 21, 2005 11:58 AM

Marine Momma is right !

We are no closer than we were on Friday of having her feeding tube reestablished. The Congress has beeen sitting on their hands.

When that congressional committee issued subpeonas for Terri and M. Schiavo, it was for them to appear before them and that no harm can come to these witnesses while they are under subpeona. The very first thing that should have been done was to put Terri under Federal Witness protection due to the very dire circumstances of almost guarenteed harm coming to her ! The US Marshalls should have been guarding her and making sure her tube was not removed ! This is a sham ! They have the power to do this and they failed Terri and her family !

The courts do not make law, congress does, Congress has subpeona power and the power to enforce it: WHY HAVEN'T THEY ?

DO IT NOW CONGRESS ! They are now obligated to do so or I think the Schindlers may have a good suit on their hands for failure to protect Terri after the subpeona's were issued ! Charge the congress with malfeasence.

I am boiling mad about this, I stayed up all night last night following this story and posting it on my site to see just a bunch of smoke and mirros and Terri is still in the same boat ! This is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS !

Posted by: J.R. at March 21, 2005 11:59 AM

Name Withheld, where in the Deposit of Faith do you find that by the nature of the sacrement of marriage a husband has the right to kill his wife? Seems like you are forgetting that "until death do you part" implies natural death, not murder.

From what I see, those politicians have nothing to fear from you working diligently to remove them.

Posted by: R Lugari at March 21, 2005 12:00 PM

BTW, Name Withheld I purposely followed your incorrect spelling and placed "sic" inside brackets next to it, but they didn't show up. The correct spelling is sacrament.

Posted by: R Lugari at March 21, 2005 12:05 PM


I think you meant to reply to Chardonnay. I never said I was a Catholic. My post was immediately after "Name Withhelds".

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 12:05 PM

I am the truth and the light. LIFE! You must see the bigger picture here. Terri "IS" a symbol of LIFE!
How can you believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world and be on the side of Dr Cranford and George Felos? The evil that walks among us, these men who can lie and decieve.
The bible warns us to know the Word (Jesus) and to educate yourself to the truth. The WOLF in SHEEPS clothing.
Shall we allow these monsters to start killing Alzheimers patients because they think that is not quality life? Christopher Reeve? Mohammed Ali? Michael J Fox? Autistic children? Where do you draw the line?

Posted by: chardonnay at March 21, 2005 12:07 PM

This has become nothing more than a political football and is a travesty. The husband has the right and the responsibility to carry out her wishes. I wonder how many of you who advocate her being kept alive would want the same treatment for say 15 years. This is rediculous and a trampeling of personal rights. It appears that the Republican party is hell bent to take away more and more of our personal freedoms. All those members of Congress who voted for the bill should all be impeached.

Posted by: mark at March 21, 2005 12:07 PM

Hey all you pro-deathers/quality of life advocates?

Christopher Reeve was on a respirator from the time of his accident until his death of natural causes. What makes his situation different that Terri's? She breathes on her own/he didnt. he ate, could speak and he had physical therapy/she can't eat or speak and has been denied physical therapy.

Is there anyone out there that thinks we should have removed his respirator and allowed him to suffocate to death?

Well Terri breathes, and her heart pumps. We don't know if she could eat on her own; she hasn't been allowed to try. What we do know is that she is innocent and has the right to food and water.

Christopher Reeve was injured and lived in a wheelchair--but no one ever suggested he should be murdered. Terri may not have a good quality of life now, but her parents and those who love her will help her--and her quality of life will improve.

Christopher Reeve+Money+Hollywood+Respirator+Wheelchair=HERO

Terri Shindler-Shiavo+adulterous husband+suspicious collapse+corrupt illegal judges+feeding tube+wheelchair=Unfit for Life

michael shiavo+marriage vows+promise to "cherish in sickness and in health" + $1.7M malpractice lawsuit+george feeless+BTK greer + mistress jodi = Court Ordered Murder.

Terri has the right to have someone care for her and give her a chance. Because, if she's given the quality of life she deserves, she may find herself eventually able to testify against her "husband". That's what he fears, and that's why he wants her dead.

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 12:09 PM


You really should not be preaching with regard to Catholics and their feelings towards the solemn vow of Holy Matrimony.

Please, before posting again with regard to who has the right to identify himself as "Catholic", educate yourself to some degree about The faith!

Nowhere does the Church state that part of the holy vow of matrimony is the right of a husband to murder his wife. Further, if this holy vow is intact, Michael Schiavo is in serious violation of it and; therefore, has lost all rights to decision making with regard to that vow.

This case should have been brought up before the courts as a divorce, either Mr. Schiavo is commiting polygamy, depending upon what the law regarding common law marriage state in Florida, or he has committed adultery. Either way, a legal divorce is in order.

Perhaps, the state, or a family member has the right to file for such an action on Terri's behalf.

Sirena, perhaps you should take the time to read the Vatican's take on this, or The Pope's. This might enlighten you as to how some very well-educated people see this. Or perhaps you also question John Paul II's Catholicism?

Posted by: Warren at March 21, 2005 12:10 PM


She wouldn't be in the state she's in if it weren't for Michael denying her the rehabilitation he promised her 13 years ago. It's not personal rights. Michael even admitted on Larry King on Friday night that she never said anything, it's what he wants. Read the transcript. It's there in black and white.

Terri deserves to be taken care of by her parents and given the chance to be rehabilitated. Period.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 12:10 PM

Where do we draw the line? It's the patient's wish. If I choose not to live with Alzheimer's, then so be it- my choice. If I do not have a Living Will specifying my choices, then it's because I trust my guardian (who in this case, is Terri's husband) to make those decisions for me.

Posted by: Sadly Selfish at March 21, 2005 12:10 PM

How many years did Christopher Reeve live? the HUGE HUGE HUGE difference is, HE GOT TREATMENT!!!
His wife stood by his side and made sure he was cared for, got therapy, he did not last as long as Terri? Who is the real SUPERMAN?

Posted by: chardonnay at March 21, 2005 12:11 PM

Speaking of God, does not mean you starve someone to death! That is cruel for someone who has not committed a crime! They would not do this to a animal in Florida! Much less somone on death role.
I am diappointed in the people in the U.S that would let this happen! This is legalizing murder! There is a Dr. in prison now for these acts. May god have mercy on your souls who agree that this is the way to end Terri's life. If something like this would happen to my spouse I would fight to have therapy and rehab. Her husband is fighting for her death but, not her rehab. He needs to move on with his common law wife and children and let the parents who love her, care for her! If the truth be known he should be in jail for bigamy. He also needs to be investigated. Another unsolved mystery! Why didn't Terri tell her sister, brother or parents of her desire not to be on a feeding tube! Everyone in their 20's do not think of that situation! I have three children in their 20's and we are very close and they have not conversed with me on this

Posted by: Judy Oxyer at March 21, 2005 12:13 PM


I think you have my posting confused with someone else's. The posting is there, and the person's name who posted it is BELOW. I'm on Terri's side. I never said I was Catholic.

Please check the postings before making your own.

I believe a divorce is in order for Terri.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 12:13 PM

My previous post was meant for "name witheld" not Sirena, My terrible mistake.

I reiterate the post and redirect it with ferver.

Posted by: Warren at March 21, 2005 12:14 PM

I cannot believe that you people are turning this into a religious battle! Where ARE we, anyway? Is this Iraq or the USA?!

There is so much evidence beyond speculation that Terri's husband wants to "move on" with his life (and with the remainder of the million dollar settlement that was awarded to Terri for medical expenses, which he has used more than 3/4 of for his own lawyer fees). Why on EARTH would he not just file an annulment or divorce (based on the fact that his wife cannot sign off on a divorce, and that he's gone on and fathered two children and adulterously lived the past 10 years of his life in a relationship that not only villifies the "sanctity of marriage" in both religious and non-religious terms)?? Because this whole thing has become a battle for the lawyers and his own pockets... would you give up if you had spent 750,000 dollars on lawyers to date? I doubt it.

This whole thing has to get back to basics. He doesn't want her, or the responsibility of her. So he needs to let her family take over, like they've been begging for all along. Leave the religion and the politics OUT of it.

Posted by: lara at March 21, 2005 12:14 PM

Thanks, Warren. ;-)

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 12:15 PM

Dear Sirena,

The Sacrement of marriage is a precious gift. Too bad Michael has not kept these sacraments... It is unfotunate Terri did not leave a Living Will! Unfotunately Michael has abused the powers of guardianship in every way, shape and form. Not to mention how he has abused and broken every sacrament
of his marriage to Terri! He now has a new COMMON LAW FAMILY. Therefore he needs to excuse himself from being guardian of Terri and get on with his COMMON LAW LIFE!

Posted by: Linda at March 21, 2005 12:15 PM


I send my sincerest apology.

I have been so outraged by this case and writing so many emails to politicians that I slipped up.

I realized my mistake and posted my correction.

your posts have been great. keep up the good work.

Posted by: warren at March 21, 2005 12:16 PM

A chance to be rehabilitated? Are you out of your mind?

I am floored that people still think that there is any hope of rehabilitation.
So sad for Terri to have to continue on like this. For the selfish, deluded beliefs of others and nothing more. Let God take her. It is not murder, it is letting nature take its course. It is what is natural and right and keeping her here is what is causing the imbalance that we are all experiencing now. It is only an excuse for religios feud.

Posted by: Michelle at March 21, 2005 12:18 PM


Again, thank you. The last thing I want is for people to think I'm not on Terri's side! Yikes!

I hope they reinsert the feeding tube pronto!

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 12:18 PM

I have to point out a few misconceptions:

First: Terri Schiavo has never had an eating disorder. This falsehood entered the MSM when someone stated the imbalance that lead to her condition could have been caused by an eating disorder. No one close to Terri has ever stated she had an eating disorder.

Second: Terri has not recovered in the last 15 years because she has had no treatment. She has also had no tests to determine the exact extent of her problem. She does have over 30 doctors, one a Nobel Prize winner in medicine, who say she CAN be treated and may recover. Other people in her condition have recovered.

Third: Terri is NOT in a PVS. If she was, she would drool and not respond to stimuli. If you see the videos of her, you can’t possibly say that she is not responding to stimuli.

Fourth: Since Michael Shiavo has had at least two extramarital affairs since Terri’s “accident”. There may not be a valid marriage anyway. He may have had no intention of ever being faithful. You can’t say one way or the other.

Fifth: Terri is NOT being kept alive by artificial means. She's just needs to be fed.

Where are all the people who applauded Christopher Reeve, who was being kept alive by artificial means?

If your neighbor were starving his dog to death, a dog that is PROPERTY and doesn’t have an IMORTAL SOUL, you would have him arrested and rightly so. Why does the law have the right to interfere between a man and his property and not in the right to live of a disadvantaged human being?

Posted by: John Simmins at March 21, 2005 12:19 PM


I am not terribly familiar with the law in Florida, but it seems to me, as i earlier posted, that he is either an aldulterer or polygamist. Either, there must be a law on the books with regard to this, and there must be a legal remedy wherebye this marriage could be dissolved.

People file law suits regularly on behalf of their children, why not a divorce on her behalf?

Posted by: Warren at March 21, 2005 12:20 PM

What about the mockery that Michael made of his marriage by committing adultery against Terry. He should be charged with adultery and have all of his so called rights to her taken away and that's just for starters.

Posted by: jozee at March 21, 2005 12:20 PM


Who knows what Terri really wanted? Michael asserts that she didn't want to be kept alive artifically, but then the stress of Larry King on Friday evening got to him and he forgot to phrase his "truth" to support his assertion:

>>>M.SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it’s about Terri. And I’ve also said that in court. We didn’t know what Terri wanted but this is what we want…..<<<

Full transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/18/lkl.01.html

Oh yeah, there's no proof that she was bulimic, either. And being bulimic doesn't mean she didn't eat. Bulimia is not Anexoria, although it is an eating disorder. Her medical files show no indication of bulimia. So, don't believe michael; he's not real trustworthy.

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 12:20 PM

In the Seattle Times 3/20/05, a Catholic priest and bioethics professor at Boston University is quoted as saying, "The Republicans are pandering to the religious right, and it is pandering at its worst." I couldn't agree more. This issue shouldn't be decided by our government, judges, insurance companies or parents. I pray that Terri dies to end all this insanity by those arguing about what's best. May she rest in peace.

Posted by: Seattle Catholic at March 21, 2005 12:22 PM

Did i see hipocrates as Catholics making a mockery in relation to his marriage to Terry and his RIGHTS? What about the mockery that Michael made of his marriage by committing adultery against Terry. He should be charged with adultery and have all of his so called rights to her taken away and that's just for starters.

Posted by: boo boo at March 21, 2005 12:22 PM

boo boo - unfortunately, adultery is not a crime, just immoral.

Posted by: lara at March 21, 2005 12:23 PM

Michael is not a credible person. He's changed his tune over and over. I hope the courts realize his ulterior motives for this supposed "mercy-killing"

Mercy-killing for Terri = $$$ for Michael, cover up up spousal abuse, book for George Felos, and another notch on the belt for Judge Greer.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 12:24 PM

Ok, people, lets focus our hearts where it matters - up and out to the Cross and to Christ. We do not fight against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 6:12). This matter is bigger than us and bigger than the courts. Terri's life and the future of this nation will only be found through hearts that seek God - lets get on our knees, please.

My sould finds rest in God alone;
My salvation comes from Him.
He alone is my rock and my salvation;
He is my fortress I will never be shaken.

How long will you assault a [person]?
Would all of you throw [her] down -
this leaning wall, this tottering fence?
They fully intend to topple her from her [lowly] place;
They take delight in lies.
With their mouths they bless,
but in their hearts they curse.

Find rest, O my soul, in God alone;
My hope comes from Him.
He alone is my rock and my salvation;
He is my fortress, I will not be shaken.
My salvation and my honor depend on God;
He is my mighty rock, my refuge.

Trust in Him at all times, O people;
pour out your hearts to Him,
for God is our refuge.

Lowborn men are but a breath,
the highborn are but a lie;
if weighed on a balance, they are nothing;
together they are only a breath.

Do not trust in extortion
or take pride in stolen goods;
though your riches increase,
do not set your heart on them.

On thing God has spoken,
two things I have heard:
that You, O God, are strong,
and that You, O Lord, are loving.
Surely You will reward each person
according to what he has done…

Psalm 62

Posted by: Patsy at March 21, 2005 12:25 PM

here we go with the religious stuff again.

can you people rationalize for just ONE SECOND that this whole thing has nothing to do with religion? not your god, not buddha, not jehovah, not allah. this is about HUMANITY. HUMAN RIGHTS. I don't care if you're Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, or Atheist... it doesn't matter!

PLEASE STOP turning this into a religious battle... I understand the whole meaning behind prayer, believe me! And I advocate it... but taking the entire case to a religious extreme is just as bad as not doing anything at all!

Posted by: lara at March 21, 2005 12:28 PM


Gos will take her........amd you, and me, and everyone else, but I ask that you do not kill me now, and i ask that nobody withhold food and water from you or anyone else!

God will have his way, but I do not believe that he is being denied his will by a mere feeding tube, you must seriously underestimate Him.

Whether or not she can ever be rehabilitated is irrelevent!!!! A "reduced quality of life" is a scarey means teast for snuffing out that life. A very subjective threshold.

I guess a bad hagnail or sore throat reduces the quality of life to some extent, but please, do me a big favor, and you can consider this my "living will", do not starve me to death the next time i get the flue.

Posted by: Warren at March 21, 2005 12:28 PM

And, forgive my spelling, typing is not my strongpoint

Posted by: warren at March 21, 2005 12:30 PM

Yes, by all means let God take her - on His schedule. Until He does, the compassionate thing is to provide her with basic care, including food and water.

Our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities in the spiritual realm. PRAY!

Posted by: corrie at March 21, 2005 12:31 PM

Hey Lara:

If you would read the Declaration of Independence, you would discover that our Founding Fathers rightly understood that human "rights" come from "Our Creator"--that we are "Endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

Where do you think they got this idea? Just out of thin air? Or perhaps they actually read the Bible and understood that God gives rights and that God ordains the civil government to PROTECT those rights and insure justice, NOT take those right away.


Posted by: Bryan at March 21, 2005 12:32 PM


Did I hit a nerve! I am sorry for you that you feel this way!!!! How do you know she told her husband this!!!!! Because you have a loving husband doesn't mean he was. My husband,children,parents and siblings know of my wishes. Again, you are playing gods role. To starve her is murder! So, do you think a severe handicapped person on a feeding tube should not have the right to live? There is no difference between a handicapped child and Terri. There is one difference they are getting rehab and therapy!
Since you know so much about Terri's husband can you answer why he would not allow her to have rehab. What happened to the 2 million $ lawsuit that he recieved for her rehab? Please converse with her huband and get back to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Karen Jones at March 21, 2005 12:32 PM

EVEN if (for the sake of argument) Terri made those comments that she didnt want to live in a certain situation, that is still not determinative to me. I mean, I could say "I dont want to live if I become a quadroplegic" but if it ever happens to me, I might change my mind. Who is to say Terri hasnt changed her mind? She cant communicate it. So in this way, I agree with most of you here, custody should be given to the parents to care for her.

BUT . . . in reviewing the posts, many of you are trying to turn this into a political football, like the Republicans are some kind of savior. Its not true. Just look at what is happening in Texas. There they let HOSPITALS make the decision to let people die over the objection of family . . . baby killed by hospital over mother's objection: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/lifesupport_sto.html
man has feeding tube removed by hospital over objection of wife of 34 years: http://www.click2houston.com/news/4269884/detail.html?subid=22100412&qs=1;bp=t

In both of these cases, the law they are following was passed by GEORGE W. BUSH, in 1999 when he was Governor of that state (and by a Republican legislative branch in Texas). Basically, to Republican elites, life is important, but not as important as money. So when you balance money against life, life loses.

Posted by: goyen1 at March 21, 2005 12:33 PM

lara....check this out...f.y.i.


Posted by: booboo at March 21, 2005 12:33 PM

If I didnt know any better, I would swear these post are being written by the taliban and extreme muslims. I am catholic, but not a rightwing nut like you people.

You people are no different that the extreme muslims.... you merely have a different target.

Wake up before its too late. The government is not on your side.

You are just too stupid to realize it. The government is using your religion to their benefit.

What would jesus do?

Posted by: Jim Albotross at March 21, 2005 12:34 PM

Lara, it's also an issue of equal rights for the disabled. http://www.notdeadyet.org is an organization of disabled people who are solidly against "right-to-die" laws, because they believe (not without reason, unfortunately) that they'll be next to die when some able-bodied person finds it too much of a bother to accommodate them.

They appear to be backing Terri Schiavo 100%, and not on any religious grounds -- purely on legal ones.

Remember that people may do the right thing for many different reasons, but it's still the right thing. Focus on the action and its effects, not the motivation.

Posted by: Mary in LA at March 21, 2005 12:35 PM

Our fight is against the perverse culture of death. primarily promoted by a certain minority party in the government.

This is beyond Terri, to the Party of Death, this is about the right of people to kill those under their care. Roe v. Wade, and those in support of it, made this a federal issue.

Make no mistake, this, to them, is no more than a very, very late term abortion!!!!!!

Posted by: Warren at March 21, 2005 12:35 PM

The fact that Terri has no written document stating her preferences is what matters. Furthermore, the minute Michael moved Jodi into his home and began cohabitating with her, he lost all rights to consider himself Terri's husband. Why a judge would overlook those two things is beyond me.

Posted by: imtoast at March 21, 2005 12:37 PM

Wow, Warren, you are now comparing Terri's condition with a hang nail or the flu. Look - Terri has brain damaged, has not made progress in 15 years. Don't worry about a stranger starving you to death if you have the flu - that's your guardian's decision - choose wisely. Does everyone really think Terri was brain-damaged when she chose her husband? I think not. Would you not want your spouse to move on with his/her life should this happen to you - or would you want him/her to care for you - brain-damaged as Terri is - for the rest of his? I would think we would want the people we love to go on with their lives and enjoy it (and that's our choice). As much as our parents would want to care for us, I would like to think we would want our paretns to move on and enjoy their life as best they can without us.

I really hope there is an end to this soon - so Terri, Michael, and the Schindler Family can move on with their lives.

Let Terri rest in peace.

Posted by: Hope at March 21, 2005 12:37 PM

I say, those who are religious, pray and call, and send letters. And those who aren't religious, call and send letters. It doesn't matter what you believe or don't, we need to protect an innocent disabled woman...

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 12:38 PM

Sorry Tress that was meant to be sent to sadly selfish

Posted by: Kare Jones at March 21, 2005 12:39 PM


I agree with you that this is about HUMAN RIGHTS and the violation of our Constitution--which is why I am most upset.

However, please understand, that for most of us, there is also a huge religious element to our feelings. Most of us cannot separate our religion from our "Human Thought".

We focus our moral convictions concerning our HUMAN RIGHTS on our religous beliefs. They are not interchangible. My religion defines my person. My religion believes in prayer--which is what I think most of the bloggers have been doing for Terri.

Her "Human Rights" have been violated in direct contrast to our Consititution. And her "Religious Rights" have also been violated in direct contrast to our Consititution. As a Catholic, Terri cannot choose to follow the Church and advocate starvation/dehydration for herself. She may choose no artificial medical treatment such as ventilators, but the Church does not allow starvation. Consequently, all of her rights (including the most basic right to life) have been violated.

Please don't critize those of us who are "Religious" and strive to live our beliefs. For us, there is no difference between God's Law and our individual HUMAN RIGHTS. They are one and the same.

In the end, though--whether you are Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Agnostic, Athiest, or of any other religious persuasion--if you support Terri's HUMAN RIGHTS and Her CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, then you are all on the same side. Symantics are irrelevant. We are all fighting for the SAME THING, regardless of how we express our opinions.

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 12:40 PM

Hope, remember that Michael could have easily moved on with his life, if that was what he wanted, by divorcing Terri and giving her guardianship to her parents, who want to take care of her and are able to.

Brain damage is not a death sentence. Terri is not dying. It's wrong to starve her to death.

Posted by: Mary in LA at March 21, 2005 12:40 PM


I am not uneducated, dear. I have read the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bible. I have complete and total understanding that the founding of this country was based on the belief system of a Christian populous. WONDERFUL. But look at the reality of the 21st century, would you? This country is full of people from various religous belief systems, who may or may not agree that the government of this country should intervene and protect Terri's right to live. My point is that whether you are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist, or any other religion, should have NO BEARING on whether or not, as a politician or a passerby, you make a judgement regarding someone's LIFE.

Your words seem accusatory towards me, assuming that my previous statements are in disagreement with allowing Terri to live. You are SO wrong. I am merely stating that none of this has holds any religious weight... it's about a human being... with a human rights issue. That issue can only be guided by the politicians of this country, who have sworn to uphold the Constitution. (Yes, the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence from Britain.) As citizens, spewing religious threats and promises of defeat by a Catholic/Christian God, are going to do no good whatsoever... we need to voice our opinions on the situation at hand, and not threaten someone with God's wrath.

Posted by: lara at March 21, 2005 12:41 PM

Jesus would do unto others as you'd have done to you.

Would you want to be starved to death??

Anyways, do any of you know where I can find the senate's vote? I want to see which Senators voted for Terri

Posted by: Jesse at March 21, 2005 12:41 PM

Warren...i am with you 100%. With the absence of anything written by Terry and Michael commmiting adultery and beyond. The courts should take both of these things into consideration before they give him the right to end her life. Unfortunately, people make this about politics and religion when it is just about a womans right to life void of the evil man who is trying to kill her.

Posted by: boo boo at March 21, 2005 12:43 PM


You're my hero. ;-) Great postings.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 12:44 PM

Karen Jones:

I'm (Tress) on Terri's side--not michaels. I don't know which post you thought was mine--but I think michael is a lying adulterous murderer who should be in prison for what he has done.

Sorry for any confusion.

By the way, it took me a long time to understand that the author of each post is printed BELOW the post--not above, which is what I originally asssumed. Authors are below the lines which follow each blog.

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 12:44 PM


You seem to forget, Michael has moved on right well.

He has a new family, a new, common-law wife, a new home. He has been asked to allow Terri's family to take care of her. So, how exactly has his wife's illness held him back?

You also miss the point, this is merely a stepping stone to acceptance euthenasia, you say that I am comparing a hangnail to brain damage.

What level of brain damage warrnts killing someone? How badly does one's quality of life have to be lessened before he or his agent can ask for death? Way too subjective, I think it is far safer to err on the side of life.

Posted by: Warren at March 21, 2005 12:44 PM

Oh my, such ignorant comments.

Michelle... nature would take its course on EVERYONE if they were withheld food and water. Starving her to death won't make this right. ESPECIALLY since is is extremely questionable that dying is what Terri would want. Her "loving husband" has been busted lying regarding Terri's "wishes." He himself admitted he didn't know what Terri wanted, but they're doing what THEY want. Further, one of Michael's ex-girlfriends has sword that Michael told her he had NO IDEA what Terri would have wanted, because they'd NEVER TALKED ABOUT IT.
Name Withheld... Yes, NORMALLY the sanctity of marriage should be kept, however Michael has chosen to make a mockery of his word, his marriage, and the whole situation. Do you not realize he vowed in his malpractice suit to do everything in his power to get Terri therapy, rehabilitation, etc and stay by her side until death do they part? And as soon as he got that money in his account he signed a DNR order, ordered all therpies to cease, etc.? Does that sound like he has his wife's best interest at heart? Or maybe the fact that he's committed adultery numerous times makes you think that he's a devoted loving husband who cares only for his wife? Your argument holds no water here. Michael Schiavo is not what a loving spouse should be.
Finally, to those talking about Terri bringing this about from an eating disorder... I suggest you read the medical reports. There was no evidence of a heart attack, disorder, etc. There were however noticible past injuries and neck trauma consistant with strangulation.
And you STILL think Terri should be starved to death? Without even investigating the possible abuse of her husband? Without even caring that death likely isn't what Terri wanted?
Terri is brain-damaged, but she is a living breathing person, she loves her parents, she can do many things a person in a PSV can not, and I know that if her "loving husband" had given her therapies and intervention that she'd be doing so much. Many people have advanced who were in Terri's state. Why does she not get the chance?

Posted by: Amy at March 21, 2005 12:46 PM


I think the post you thought was mine was actually written by "sadly selfish".

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 12:47 PM

Tress, Sirena, and Warren... KUDOS!

Posted by: lara at March 21, 2005 12:47 PM

In the movie "Saving Millie", she states that she doesn't want a feeding tube. Mort, with tears in eyes, says I'll do it if that is what you want. When the time came Millie took the tube and lived for a few more years

Posted by: Marilyn at March 21, 2005 12:50 PM

Kare - no you didn't strike a nerve with me.

I don't know that Terri conveyed her wishes to her husband any more than you can say she didn't. You say your husband, children, parents, etc. know of your wishes - that's great - only my husband knows mine. And I'm fine with that - I married him because I love and trust him - i would hope my family realizes that should something like this occur. No parent wants to bury their child; but sometimes things don't go as planned, and the people we chose as our spouse are forced with a difficult decision - one our parents, siblings, etc. need to respect and honor. I am not saying starve Terri - I'm saying the decision belongs with Terri's guardian - the person SHE CHOSE to marry. We are not talking about a handi-capped child; we're talking about a brain-damaged women who has made no progess in 15 years. Forget about the rehab - you can't honestly believe the hospitals and hospices she's been in have NOT tried to rehabilitate her as best they can. Come on now. As far as the $2million; i don't know where it's ALL gone, but i do believe that the remaining dollars will go to Terri's favorite charity (you may not believe that - but you can't say for certain that it won't - we'll all have to wait and see).

Posted by: Sadly Selfish at March 21, 2005 12:51 PM

Selfish... Michael Shiavo ORDERED Hospice to STOP TRYING to rehabilitate her, or give her any sort of rehabilitative therapy. Since he was "paying" the bill, and is her legal guardian, they're going to listen to him... or they too, would be facing a lawsuit.

Posted by: lara at March 21, 2005 12:53 PM

Now that I know I can post I would like to say something.

Many people state that they would not want to live like Terri is living. Let me just ask a question....if YOU were conscious enough to feel what was happening to YOU would you willingly want to be dehydrated and starved to death. Please read up on what happens to a person when they are starved and denied water before you flippantly answer that question. It's not pretty.

Secondly are you SURE that Terri is in a persistant vegetative state? Oh yeah...I know about the doctors that say she is...the main so-called expert being used by Greer's court is a outspoken advocate of the right to die movement (more aptly labeled the right to kill).

Did you know that studies have shown that doctors diagnosing PVS are wrong 40-45% of the time!!!

Let me ask you something. If there was a chance that doctor's could diagnose you wrong and if were so mis-diagnosed and if you were conscious enough to tell what what was happening to you in Terri's kind of condition would YOU want to be starved to death and denied water???

There are cases of people coming out of so-called PVS and living normal productive lives.

Are YOU so sure that you would condemn Terri to a cruel and inhuman death not allowed to animals by law because of your armchair quarterbacking of seeing fit to declare that Terri is in PVS??

Oh yeah...the court ruled that she was...

Do YOU trust the court system in the U.S. THAT MUCH that you would without a doubt just believe what they conclude?

Do you think it POSSIBLE that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and that under our present system of so-called justice in the U.S. that this injustice may have not been reviewed properly by upper courts???

Do YOU believe that Judges are so incapable of doing wrong that a review by yet one more Judge might be warranted in view of the conflicting evidence that Terri might not be in PVS, that Michael may not have or be acting in her best interests, and that those wanting her to die have ties to the right to die (I mean kill) movement that would make them anything but objective in looking out for Terri's best interests?

Starving and dehydrating someone to death as a way of letting them float away into death, peacefully and naturally is INSANE!! It is Hitlerian!

For a society to condone such a death is abhorrent!


Posted by: Carlos at March 21, 2005 12:54 PM

We no longer have a Justice System - we have a Legal System! This country needs to return to common sense thinking and morality! We treat Death Row prisoners better than Terri - at least the commutation of their sentences is over quickly. Her husband is a dirt-bag punk; how about cutting off his food for two weeks and we will see how well he likes it. He needs to be a man and walk away. Her family is her flesh and blood, as such they should have the final say in her treatment and care.

Posted by: Dan at March 21, 2005 12:56 PM

Michael chose to be Terri's guardian. Guardian are required to follow a code of ethics and principles. See guardianship.usalaw.com


Rule 1 A guardian shall exercise extreme care and diligence when making decisions on behalf of a ward. All decisions should be made in a manner that protects the civil rights and liberties of the ward and maximizes independence and self -reliance.

Michael has disreguarded all codes. He should not be allowed to get away with this. Terri should not die because of his neglect and abuse.

Posted by: Caryn at March 21, 2005 12:58 PM

Hi Lara:

Not trying to accuse you. Sorry if it seemed that way.

You cannot divorce (no pun intended here) the right to life from the Scriptures. That's where it (the right to life) came from.

It is a religious issue because the Founders were a religious people who based our system of law upon the scriptures. Our legal system is based (in part) on the writings of Montesquieu, Locke, English Common law, all of which rest on the scriptures.

One cannot have a legitimate argument for defending human rights if they did not come from God. Otherwise, the weeds in my backyard should be entitled to the "right to life" also. Why limit it to just humans? Why not let Terri die? Who's to say that it's wrong? Murder is wrong because God defines murder as wrong, not because humans do.

Arrogant, ignorant humanity is no match for God's wisdom and glory. He gave us the scriptures so that we could know justice, so that we could know right from wrong. Human rights are His idea. Civil govermment is His idea. Justice is His idea. The Founders understood these concepts and wrote them in the Declaration so that the whole world would know their justification for separating form England and forming the United States.

"In God We Trust" wasn't just some cute, catchy pharse to them: they MEANT IT.

Posted by: Bryan at March 21, 2005 12:59 PM

If God is on the republicans side, then why hasnt he performed a miracle and brought Terry back to conciousness to make the democrats look stupid?

The only miracle God has performed is bring you rightwing nuts out of the woodworks.

Funny, why isnt anyone fighting to keep the deathrow inmates from getting killed? At least they are still healthy.

You nuts are all a bunch of hypocrites. God bless you all indeed!

Posted by: Tom Tutone at March 21, 2005 12:59 PM

Sadly Selfish,

People do not even have the right to commit suicide, much less, have someone do the job for them.

Where again is that ghoul, Dr. Kavorkian?? Sitting right where he belongs!!

So why is it that Michael Schiavo or the courts in Florida can do what Kevorkian sits in a jail cell for doing?

How has "brain damage" become acceptable criteria for starving someone to death?

I think people have this confused, she is not brain dead, she is not on life support, unless you consider every child who cannot yet hold a spoon to be on "life support". I guess given time, there will be those who will say that infanys too can be deprived of food, isn't a woman's breast "her body". Who is the government to tell a woman what to do with "her body?"

This is where this is headed, people are numb to the great value of human life, and certain politicians are bound and determined to make sure we continue down this path.

This should not be a political issue! Why would anyone be opposed to further study of this woman and her condition, why would her family be banned from filming her in ner current state?

there is more here than Michael wants us to know. And there is more going on with the politicians than they would admit, this is a push by the people who lack recpect for life.

Posted by: Warren at March 21, 2005 1:02 PM


Many Democrats voted for this bill as well.

And the reason that many of us pro-lifers don't fight for death row inmates is, well, they are guilty of murder, and capital punishment was ordained by God in the scriptures.

Terri is an innocent person who has not committed a capital crime. She is a precious person who should not be deprived of her right to life simply because her "husband" wants her to.

Posted by: Bryan at March 21, 2005 1:04 PM


Reeve, who is a liberal Democrat, explained his politically active career: "I became politically active in high school, protesting the Vietnam War. And when I went to Cornell, I became involved in environmental issues. And then, as an adult, I became involved in First Amendment issues and funding for the arts. And now that I am disabled, of course my main focus is on the quality of life for all disabled people and doing everything I can to help scientists make progress toward cures." Reeve further explained his personal political preference for the Democrat party saying, "Actually, the Republicans have done more for the disabled and for funding medical research over the past eight years than the Democrats.


Posted by: chardonnay at March 21, 2005 1:05 PM

Tom Tutone,

You sound like those who said that if God were so powerful, why not take yourself from the cross?

Why did God not save his only son?

Why is there brain damage at all?

Why is there bad weather?

Stupid questions Tom

Posted by: Warren at March 21, 2005 1:05 PM


Stop putting a spin on this. This is not about convicted felons. This about the killing of an innocent disabled person.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 1:06 PM


Again... I'm not questioning where beliefs come from, only that you cannot state that an American Buddhist (who does not believe in the same god that the founders of this country did) would not stand by Terri's side, and therefore, there is LITTLE OR NO SENSE in spewing out threats of God's wrath at politicians, or anyone else who happens to make comment on the situation.

I don't fault Christians for standing by their prayers. Just like I don't fault anyone else of any other religion to do the same. But cluttering up space with Catholic hatred is DOING NO GOOD.

For the record, I was born and raised Catholic... and the majority of my beliefs as an adult are based on the morals instilled in me by my family as a whole... regardless of their levels of devotion. As an adult, I have grown to learn that there is much in Catholicism that I disagree with. Those conclusions come from living life and comparing it with what I learned from a Catholic standpoint... not from the faith itself.

Posted by: lara at March 21, 2005 1:06 PM


You are missing what I'm trying to say. None of us can say what is right or wrong - that's why there's such a hugs debate on this. All I'm saying is that I believe the person Terri chose as her guardian is the person who has the right to make this decision. Whether or not he is a good or evil person is not for us to decide. Terri married her husband because she loved and trusted him - our wishes are "usually" discussed with our spouses. No one can say whether or not she did this. I would be appalled if someone second-guessed my husband's decision regarding my life in the event i am unable to make those decisions.

"How has brain damage become acceptable criteria for starving someone to death." I never said this. Do not put words into my mouth.

Answer this question: Given the state Terri is currently in (and don't throw up the fact that Michael refused her property rehabilitation - he allowed it for several years with absolutely no progress being made), would you want to go on living like that? Better yet, would you really want your spouse or parent to have to take on that burden?

I'm very aware that Michael has moved on with his life - i would want my spouse to do the same - not linger on to some kind of false hope that I will become "normal" again some day (please excuse the use of that word).

Posted by: Sadly Selfish at March 21, 2005 1:09 PM

Again I say, it doesn't matter if you're religious or not, Republican, Democrat, Pro-life or Pro-choice. It doesn't matter. What matters is that we need to protect an innocent disabled woman who has been denied her rights for the past 13+ years by her estranged husband who would rather have her dead and receive the rest of the $$$$ than let her parents care for her and get her the rehabilitation she so desperately deserves!

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 1:11 PM

RHG... she's not brain dead. She's not a "vegetable". She breathes on her own, as opposed to needing mechanical breathing. She has physical reactions, and is no different at this point than a handicapped child.

Selfish... would you kill your child if it were handicapped to the point of not being able to write, yet still breathing on it's own, and able to move it's head, blink, smile, and make noises? I think not. Besides, there is thought from her family that Terri was being abused by her husband prior to her "accident". What if she was unable to leave him in time? What if the man she married was not the same man when her accident happened, and what if she'd confided in some member of her family that she wanted to leave, but was afraid for some reason? The answer is that YOU have no idea if her husband really was someone she trusted at the time of her accident. Your wishes, I hope they ARE upheld by your husband should something unfortunate happen to you... and I hope for your sake, that at the time, he is still the person you married. But with Michael Schiavo's post-accident track record... I doubt he was.

Posted by: lara at March 21, 2005 1:15 PM

And for those who think this is strictly a Republican, right-wing, pro-life issue, it's not. I have dozens of Democrat, liberal, pro-choice friends, (yes, you still can be friends with those who disagree with you) who are actually behind Terri and the Schindlers. So stop putting a stupid spin on this and let's get back to fighting for Terri's rights as a U.S. Citizen!

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 1:18 PM

I heard, (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the Federal judge who is now assigned to this case COULD reinsert the tube while he's still reviewing the documents...

Nope. Another version of the law would've allowed this, but the bill as passed doesn't. Reinsertion can only occur pursuant to a judicial determination of the merits. In other words, only if the judge decides she has a right to get the tube back will he order reinsertion. But, since this all occurs according to state law, it's unclear what this means.

It's really a mess of a law.

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 1:18 PM


I was born and raised Catholic too, 16 years of Catholic school.

I'm not spewing out God's wrath on anyone nor am I spewing Catholic hatred.

I'm simply responding to your assertion that this is not a religious issue, trying to explain to you that in fact it IS a religious issue, that you cannot separate the rights of mankind and the laws of the United States from the Holy Scriptures. You can try all you like; it doesn't change history and it doesn't change truth.

Just like you, I used to base my beliefs and morals on how I was raised also, until it was explained to me that because all are born in sin, we cannot understand right from wrong apart from the Scriptures. If we do, it is our mere opinion, and has no authority before God, which is all that really matters in the long run. The Scriptures teach that God has promised blessings to those who obey His precepts, and curses to those who do not.

The Founders attempted to follow God's ideas of justice and law as found in the scriptures; they did not just make it up as they went along. They relied on the scriptures; we should too if we want justice to prevail. They wanted the blessings of Divine Providence to shine upon this Nation; that's why they based the foundation of this nation on the Scriptures.

Check out some of the many writings here: http://www.wallbuilders.com/


Posted by: Bryan at March 21, 2005 1:19 PM

Burden, did someone say "burden"?

The Schindler family do not see Terri as a burden. It appears that if you had to care for a disabled person you would call it that. Some people willingly care for a loved one without that word ever entering their minds. I for one. I cared for my mother until she died and never once saw it as anything other than loving her.

Posted by: imtoast at March 21, 2005 1:20 PM

Sadly selfish,

Because you have decided that "none of us can say what is right and what is wrong" (a position with which I differ), wouldn't it be best to err on the side that can be corrected.

Once she is starved to death, there is no going back, she is gone. There will never be a way to change outcome.

So why be so quick to pull the tube, goog God! they pulled it just minutes from being allowed.

No matter what side you are on, this should be viewed as a serious matter.

I am aware that Michael would like to cleanly and quickly forget about his marriage. i am sure his girlfriend would love to rid of the "wife". The girlfriend seldom wishes to have the wife around. But this is far more important than Michael's lovelife and comfort level.

This is a human life, and because i hear those who want her starved say, "we don't know what is wrong pr right" then I say to them take a cautious approach, and those of us who are pretty sure we know what is right will take the same approach.

If we find out I am wrong a year from now, you guys can starve her then, if she improves, or we find she wanted to live under her current situation, even better!!!

Posted by: Warren at March 21, 2005 1:20 PM

Vote these clowns out, I thought they supported the rights of the un-dead

Posted by: Franko at March 21, 2005 1:22 PM

Terri did not chose Micheal to be her guardian. Michael chose to be her guardian . He had to apply for guardianship with rules, codes, and priciples to adhere to. See guardianship.usalaw.com

Posted by: Caryn at March 21, 2005 1:22 PM


No - I would not kill my child if she were handicapped, in a PVS state, brain-damaged, on a respirator or anything else - but I wouldn't do it because of selfish reasons - I don't ever want to live my life without my child. That does not mean i would be right - i would not be right. I would be selfish. Trust me, I feel for her parents. I've spoken to my daughter about this and told her I would be just like the Schindlers (in other words, I gave her advanced warning she better have something in place or she would live the rest of her life in whatever state of mind she was in). I couldn't do it. I also told her i would fight her husband to the end to keep her alive. (and this conversation comes after she told me she would not want to live the way Terri is living now). It's a parental instinct to fight for our kids' lives, no matter what condition they're in. That dosen't make it right. The right decision lies in Terri's guardian's hands - whether we like him or not, whether he's good or evil - it is his decision and Terri (in a right frame of mind), chose him to make this decision. Who are we to question that decision?

Posted by: Sadly Selfish at March 21, 2005 1:24 PM

Actually, for me it's not even a matter of her being PVS... it's a matter of her husband doesn't want her - her parents want desperately to care for her. So even if a year from now she didn't improve... who's to say we should starve her, for Pete's sake?

Her parents want to take care of her and don't want any money from Michael. Why shouldn't they be allowed to take care of their disabled daughter, no matter what the outcome?

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 1:25 PM

"Terri did not chose Micheal to be her guardian. "

She married him. That'll create a presumption of guardianship.

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 1:26 PM

But Michael is having an "affair" with another woman and has fathered 2 children with her. That right there is a conflict of interest and he should be removed as Terri's guardian. Period.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 1:26 PM

I don't know how many people read these things but how many of you know how many affairs Mr, Schiavo has had? were any of you there? The fact that he has two children by another woman has no relevence on this case. How many of you men that is calling him a bad husband would not have gotten you a little something on the side after fifteen years? The man is human and he deserves a life. The human thing for all concerned wold be for the man to get a divorce and let Terri go home with her parents and live as long as God allows her to. I do believe he (God) is allowing her to still be here for a reason. I think to let her die like a starving animal would be the worst thing that cold happen to a hman being, So, let him divorce and her go home to Mom and Dad.

Posted by: Grace at March 21, 2005 1:27 PM

way to go sirena,

and to think we started off on such a bad footing

Posted by: Warren at March 21, 2005 1:28 PM

Woah woah woah, The proper teaching about the death pen is that IF YOU CAN KEEP THEM LOCKED UP AND NOT WORRY ABOUT THEM ESCAPING THEN YOU CAN'T KILL THEM.

Just needed to clarify that, Terri needs to live, but both are immoral and wrong!

Posted by: Jesse at March 21, 2005 1:31 PM

Terri is clearly, demonstrably not brain dead or anywhere near it, and everything else is irrelevant. Her parents' wishes don't matter, her husband's wishes don't matter, whether she would want to live this way doesn't matter, whether you would want to live this way doesn't matter, whether she had an eating disorder before falling into this condition doesn't matter, whether she's costing the state money doesn't matter, and even her own stated wishes wouldn't matter if we knew what they were. Human beings cannot morally be starved to death. This is not a tough call.

However: Attacking one another's Catholic credentials is both an ugly sight and very likely useless. Praying for a change of heart for those who have come down on the wrong side here -- and for a change of our own hearts when we, inevitably, fall into error -- would be be more useful and charitable.

I'm not trying to be holier-than-thou. Heaven knows (quite literally) I'm not entitled. But please, let's not judge the state of each other's souls here.

Posted by: Apassionata at March 21, 2005 1:31 PM

I am really conflicted here - I strongly believe Terri would not want to live the way she is right now. I don't think any of us would.

However, you make a good point: Why doesn't Michael give her a divorce and turn rights over to the Schindlers? I can't answer this - has Michael at any time stated he won't divorce her because he's carrying out her wishes? I don't know - haven't read that anywhere so I'm not sure what his reasons for not divorcing her are.

I don't know what I think any more. If it were my kid - I would do exactly what the Schindlers are doing (but I would know it were only for selfish reasons - i could not just let my child die). I know that it's not my child, and therefore, I would love to see Terri at peace - as I really believe she would want to be. None of us can honestly say we would want to live like that. I don't know if i believe therapy would help or not. I would have to go by what the doctors have said and the answer to that is no - she will not get better.

Posted by: Sadly Selfish at March 21, 2005 1:32 PM

Oh yes, the fact he has other children with another woman he started an affair with after her 'accident' is TOTALLY revelant in this case. It's a conflict of interest. And if you read all the info about this case, you'll know Michael doesn't want to divorce her, because it won't benefit him financially.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 1:33 PM

Bush was in part responsible for the law, introduced in Texas, that gives the hospital the legal right to overrule a decision by the guardian/parents/spouse if, in the hospital's opinion, there is no benefit or hope for recovery.

Just last week this law led to the death of 6 month old baby Sun when he was disconnected from life support against his mother's wishes.

The fact that Bush doesn't top the 'list of shame' is rather hypocritical because he did far worse than try to oppose a measure meant to save a life. He passed a law aimed at taking life away in order to reduce medical spending.

Posted by: Vanessa at March 21, 2005 1:42 PM

Lacy Peterson married Scott, too---so, since he wanted her dead and murdered her, was it his RIGHT? (She trusted him and loved him enough to want to have his baby!)

Terri's family and friends have insisted that she was afraid of michael and had been planning to divorce him. Next thing we know, the "loving husband" who happens to be a qualified nurse, calls 9-1-1. Oh, but he didn't try anything to resuscitate her in the mean time.

No, michael isn't a solid guardian for Terri. The fact that he might be responsible for putting her into this situation should have been grounds to remove him from guardianship. But the case stinks of coverup--and since michael and george feel-less contributed to judge greer's reelection campaign, indicates this is more than a bit suspicious. Oh, and since BTK greer is illegally sitting as a judge--and has violated many judicial codes and laws, every sentence he has issued since his "election" needs to be vacated. And that includes all the convictions of criminals--they were also not provided DUE process.

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 1:48 PM

You people have got to be kidding me! That thing they are trying to keep alive is not alive, nor a person as we are!! It would die naturally if it were not force fed! That thing you call a living being has been like that for 15 years because they are force feeding it!!! Let it go to a better place!! You same people would treat an animal better than you want that thing treated!!! Let everyone move on with their lives.
That sounds so harsh but you want the courts, legislators and the President deciding her fate!! What business is it of theirs? She has made her wishes known to her friends and some family so let it alone!!
One last thought, after she turned 18 yrs. of age she became an adult and could make her own decisions, just like you and me(Our parents have no say or standing in our lives!)....well, she had made her decision prior to the tragic event and it was to be let alone!! Grant her request!

Posted by: J.H. Carpenter at March 21, 2005 1:49 PM

Grace, I am caring for my brain damaged husband at home daily for over 15 yrs. Micheal having a relationship I understand , having children bothers me but be a guardian and not not acting accordenly to provide her with therapy, stimuli, isolating her from family etc,etc, etc ... and then come up with some sort of hearsay to kill her, really upsets me!!!

Posted by: Caryn at March 21, 2005 1:52 PM

Who is family? The one has tried to kill you for 13 years after receiving 1 million dollars for your therapy?????

Posted by: sujata at March 21, 2005 1:52 PM

ANYONE would die naturally if not fed, J.H. And NO ONE knows if death was her wish. I'm sorry you don't like it but it is true. Michael has contradicted himself on this very point. And I am VERY upset you're referring to Terri as an "it". Show some respect.

Posted by: Amy at March 21, 2005 1:59 PM

For all of you who would believe that any Congressman that voted "nay" on this bill should be put on your "wall of shame," I say know your facts. This case ABSOLUTELY does not belong in the United States Congress. Your wall of shame should be the congressman that voted "FOR" this bill and wasted taxpayer monies. If you're not familiar with this case, do yourself a favor and get the facts. There is an awful lot of propaganda being put out there by Ms. Schiavo's parents. SHE IS IN A PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE AND HAS BEEN FOR 15 YEARS. THIS CASE HAS BEEN THROUGH THE COURTS FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND NO ONE WITH ANY INTEGRITY HAS FOUND THAT SHE CAN BE REHABILITATED. HER SO CALLED STARVING TO DEATH IS NOT LIKE ME OR YOU STARVING TO DEATH. SHE DOESN'T KNOW SHE IS STARVING OR DYING. DON'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE.....GET THE FACTS.

Posted by: noyourfacts at March 21, 2005 2:00 PM


Sorry, Christopher Reeve was "less" than Terri--for he needed a machine to breathe. She doesn't. All she needs is a tube to put nurishment into her body and feed it. She can't swallow.

She, however, may be able to swallow--michael prohibited any attempts to feed her.

She, however, may be able to talk again--if she's given the chance.

And I don't know how any person of intelligence can consider a person "brain dead" when the brain functions to keep the body alive. Dead brains do not beat a heart for 15 years. Dead brains do not breathe for 15 years (and Christopher Reeve's brain wasn't able to breathe for him--but he wasn't "brain dead"). Dead brains do not "grunt" or have "reactions to stimuli" If the brain is DEAD--the neurological functions are also DEAD. If Terri was functioning as a brain dead individual for a day or week, I'd be inclined to believe you--but she's been "brain dead" for 15 years....I don't buy it.

I believe she is disabled and needs food until she learns to swallow. Both of my children needed me to feed them when they were born--and they eventually learned to feed themselves. Their hearts beat, their lungs breathed, but they needed me to help them eat.

That is all Terri needs, help eating. Her body, which is very much ALIVE and controlled by a LIVING Brain, processes the nutrients to maintain her heart and lungs. And believe it or not, there's end-waste as well! Dead brains don't create end-waste.

She is not brain dead--not PVS--not "mush". She is just the unfortunate person who chose to love and trust michael shiavo. That was her only crime and he wants to kill her for it.

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 2:03 PM

Dear Vanessa:

You obviously don't have a clue about this case. Stating that Michael Schiavo might be responsible for her being in this condition is ABSURD! No your facts......she is in this condition because she had an eating disorder. She was bulimic! Hello folks....Terri put herself in this situation not Michael Schiavo. My God, no your facts before making a stupid statement like Michael is responsible!

Posted by: noyourfacts at March 21, 2005 2:06 PM

Hey "noyourfacts":

First off, it's "know" not "no".

Second, do some basic research (in other words, "know your facts"). READ HERE:



(someone who "knows" his facts)

Posted by: Bryan at March 21, 2005 2:08 PM

Good Lord, Tress, you're not really comparing Terri to Christopher Reeve are you? Of all the messages I've read on-line, that is the dumbest!!!!!! Christopher Reeve WAS NOT IN A PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE!!!!!!! GOOD GOD PEOPLE....I AM AMAZED AT THE IGNORANCE OF PEOPLE SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THIS CASE. WE MUST LIVE IN A PRETTY DANG STUPID WORLD WHEN WE START COMPARING TERRI TO CHRISTOPHER REEVE!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: noyourfacts at March 21, 2005 2:10 PM

My dearest Bryan:

Up yours!!!!! I know the facts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: noyourfacts at March 21, 2005 2:12 PM

J. H. Carpenter, I guess you will never need any help or assistance from your family ever again since you must be over 18 and oh yea you will be married for life.

Posted by: Caryn at March 21, 2005 2:14 PM


The name of the person posting a comment appears *below* the comment, not above it.
The comment I posted had nothing to do with laying the blame of Terri's condition with her husband.

Posted by: Vanessa at March 21, 2005 2:15 PM

The real IRONY here is that politicians granstand about 1 barely alive woman while slashing medical benifits many tens of thousands of people need to maintain their quality of life. Bush himself-while governor, signed a law that would end the care of someone like Terri, even if all parties involved wanted it, should they not be able to afford it.
When will pro-lifers get it? When you vote on pro-life as a single issus, you instead get a tax cut for the richest americans, unregualted buisness, death of unions, and no quality of life for anyone. Republicans don't want abortion ended-they want it as a issue to hang us with.

Posted by: Robert at March 21, 2005 2:16 PM


Please--I posted that michael may have put Terri into this condition--not Vanessa.

Please understand, we have a clue--we've been following this case for years. We KNOW our facts.

By which media do you no (sic) your facts? How do you no (sic) Terri had bulimia? Where is the evidence?

It doesn't exist. So please do not presuppose that those of us for Terri do not know our facts. We do. We've watched the fight for years and have seen BTK greer ignore the evidence again and again. This is the same judge that ignored a woman's plea for a restraining order from her violent husband. "no evidence of threat" said BTK greer. The evidence turned up two weeks later when her "loving husband" bludgeoned her to death.

Way to go BTK--bind them to their husbands and watch the "loving husbands" torture and kill their wives.

Terri's only crime was marrying michael. Who is going to protect the mistress when she becomes his next wife/victim? Believe it or not--if it happens, the pro-Terri bloggers would likely still come out to support Jodi.

People do not have the right to commit suicide in this country. If you try and fail, you are prosecuted for attempted murder. Where is the logic in this?

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 2:18 PM

By the way Bryan, "noyourfacts" is not a mistake just a screen name set up to irritate a pompous ass like you. And the website you refer to is nothing more than BS propaganda not the true facts of this case. I don't know (hmmm look at that, know!) where you are from, but if it's not from Florida and you're following this strictly in the news, not all the facts are out there. This case has been a constant in Florida and even Floridians don't get all the facts but we've gotten a lot more than the rest of the US which is just being brought into this fiasco.

Posted by: noyourfacts at March 21, 2005 2:20 PM

Tress, where do you live? How do you have all the facts? What is your field of expertise? Enlighten me....

Posted by: noyourfacts at March 21, 2005 2:22 PM

Again, I see we have some who are showing signs of brain damage. Come to Florida where we can declare you terminally ill and have a hospice you can waste away for free!

Posted by: Caryn at March 21, 2005 2:22 PM

my apology to Vanessa.....LOL!

Posted by: noyourfacts at March 21, 2005 2:23 PM

It's time to cool the rhetoric folks!

To those of you that want Terri to live...using strong rhetoric will do nothing to convince those who want her to die.

And to those who want her to die...using strong rhetoric will do nothing to convince others of your side of this issue.

Let's discuss the issue folks. Not go off using rhetoric that complicates any such discussion!

Posted by: Carlos at March 21, 2005 2:26 PM


The unfortunate part for Judge Greer is simply that he has followed the law! Plain and Simple! He has not allowed his own personal beliefs to dictate his decisions.....he just happened to be the judge on this case and any other judge that was on this case and made the same decisions would be judged the same by you!

Posted by: noyourfacts at March 21, 2005 2:26 PM

noyourfacts... how does the other case... that in which he refused a restraining order, equate to him following the law?

and just so you know... i used to live in florida. and also so you know... i knew about this whole thing before i lived in florida, became active in the fight for terri's life before i lived in florida, and continue to do so after i have left that god awful state. sure, the beaches are nice, and the "human trap run by a large mouse" is great, but as for the laws in that state, they're in a bad situation!

Posted by: lara at March 21, 2005 2:38 PM

In Texas- under the "Medical futility and the Texas Advance Directives Act of 1999"-signed by George Bush (google it if you don't believe me!)
"After the 10th day, the physician and facility "are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment" unless ordered to do so by a court. The statute instructs that a court may extend the 10-day period "only if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there is a reasonable expectation that a physician or healthcare facility that will honor the patient's directive will be found if the time extension is granted."

That is-after 10 days, you're dead unless you can pay for it. Not only that-but under the act- you can't sue the doctors that killed you.

In the Houston Chronical (not exactly liberal central!)
"Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes"...because she can't afford the care

These are difficult and trying issues. But lets recognize they are to be made by free people-the family, doctors and local courts-not hypocritical presidents and congressmen who pass a law defending the life of one woman against her wishes, those of her spouse, and the decisions of our local courts-while at the same time pull the rug out from under us on medical care.

Posted by: Robert at March 21, 2005 2:40 PM

Very interesting reading. One thing you all seem to be missing is that a Court already found as a fact that Terri did not want to live like this and requested her husband carry out what is essentially a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) if she were brain dead. (These findings have survived multiple appeals.) She is brain dead. Her cerebral cortex is liquid. She is never going to get better and she never would have gotten better. She did not want to be a vegetable, that is a fact. She did not want to live like this, that is a fact. Both found by a court of law.

What Congress is doing now is a bill of attainder, which is unconstitutional. Furthermore, it is a Federal encroachment of State's rights to adjudicate their own laws. What happened to less government intervention? If Florida's laws are not allowed to stand because a lot of people don't like Terri's choices about her end of life care or lack thereof, this Country is no longer a free country and a state may as well cease to be an entity.

After 15 years, let her stop suffering and do not destroy our free country because of your religious views.

Posted by: TPG at March 21, 2005 2:41 PM

Dear noyourfacts:

I live in the US--although at one time I did live in Florida, I now live in DC.

I have gathered my "facts" from the same sources as most--the family's statements, witness testimony, and the non-MSM press.

Whether you agree that my sources are reliable, at least I quote them. And you have not given evidence that Terri had an eating disorder (BTW, I've had Bulimia, so I understand it).

BTK greer is in hiding--and has guards to protect him--WHY? What is he afraid of?

BTK greer has violated multitudes of laws/and victim rights--WHY? What does he gain by Terri's death?

I support allowing someone to die with grace and dignity. I support removal of machinery which keeps the heart pumping and lungs breathing. I do not support removal of food and water. If Terri were really Brain Dead, the food and water would not have kept her alive all these years.

I do not support assisted suicide. I do not condone a judge violating a Federal Supeona. And I do not ever presuppose that an adulterous individual has a greater "love" than a mother who gave birth.

My field of expertise? I am a scientist. Not a biologist, but a scientist. I don't presuppose to second-guess medical experts, but when they are paid by the people who want to murder; and when there are people who have recovered from similar situations, then I must trust the medical experts who indicate that recovery is POSSIBLE.

Given the same situation and facts, two individuals will rarely perceive the same "truth". That is human nature. So, I revert to logic (my degree is in mathematics) which asks "who benefits from Terri's Death?" "Who benefits from her LIFE"?

Can michael and jody continue to procreate and live if Terri Lives?


Can the Shindler's continue to live if Terri dies

>>>YES, but they will suffer much without her.

They are willing to take her and care for her--why is michael afraid to allow them to do so?

Those are my creditentials--not much; Christian, mother, Disabled Veteran (yes, I am also an "imperfect person"), scientist. No-where near as qualified as you to make my statements; I don't live in Florida anymore. Sorry to disappoint you.

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 2:41 PM

TPG, a bill of attainder is a *punishment* for a specific person. That's not what this bill is. As it happens, Congress makes laws for one specific person frequently, usually in the context of immigration.

Posted by: Mary in LA at March 21, 2005 2:51 PM

Also, TPG, the Emancipation Proclamation signed by President Lincoln was a "Federal encroachment on states' rights". Would you like to see slavery back again in this country?

Posted by: Mary in LA at March 21, 2005 2:54 PM

My question is what will happen when the court denies the Schindler's motion - as it most certainly will? Will they finally accept that this is the final word?

Posted by: Beth at March 21, 2005 2:59 PM


I won't object to your opinion, but if you think the doctors hired by her husband are giving false or inaccurate testimony to support his case, then to be fair, you should also dismiss any testimony or statements made by the doctors called upon by the parents.
Both are fighting for their point of view, and both have reasons to show their case in the best possible light.

Everyone will twist the facts in a way that will support their opinion. There are videos distributed of Terri alledgedly showing cognitive responses, yet there are no videos available of documented attempts where Terri showed no response what so ever.

Like any arguement, there's an abundance of facts, but very little truth.

Posted by: Vanessa at March 21, 2005 3:04 PM

In Texas- under the "Medical futility and the Texas Advance Directives Act of 1999"-signed by George Bush (google it if you don't believe me!)
"After the 10th day, the physician and facility "are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment" unless ordered to do so by a court.

There's a huge difference, though; those people are poor. Terri isn't, so she deserves to live. It's a totally principled difference, and me and the preznit understand that.

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 3:05 PM

Can someone please tell me when we started treating dogs and other various animals with more respect than humans?

Why can we send a person to jail for starving their dog, but we can't do a damn thing about a husband "legally" starving his wife?

All religious views aside, shouldn't life be sacred, no matter what the condition? Doctors USED to take the hyppocratic oath...now they just take fistfuls of money.

Posted by: Rebecca at March 21, 2005 3:07 PM

Some food for thought:


63% Americans support the removal of the feeding tube
87% would not be kept alive in her position
70% think the involvement of Congress is wrong
67% believe they are doing it for political advantage
2% think the government has the right to make these decisions
...and if Bush calls 51% a mandate-those are darn near consensus.

Terri is a pawn in a political game-one you are playing with your "walls of shame" and false tears. Enjoy another tax cut, record deficits, and subsidization of the rich while you're at it.

Posted by: Robert at March 21, 2005 3:08 PM

JPE, we've been discussing the Texas law on other threads. Many of us think it's a bad law as it currently stands, and we're hoping that it will be reviewed in light of Terri's case.

One Texas hospital has already relented and given up its attempt to pull the feeding tube from one man whose family wants to take care of him. I think they probably changed their minds thanks to the publicity surrounding Terri.

Posted by: Mary in LA at March 21, 2005 3:09 PM

"I do not condone a judge violating a Federal Supeona."

The subpoena clearly overstepped the powers of congress. Greer is as likely to be found guilty of contempt for that subpoena as he would for violating a subpoena that I issue in my capacity as concerned citizen.

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 3:09 PM

Robert, Reuters polled only 501 people. Besides, after the November election, where exit polls predicted that Kerry would win the Presidency, everyone knows that polls are B.S.!

Posted by: Mary in LA at March 21, 2005 3:11 PM

Rebecca, you're absolutely life. I think the reason there is so much crap in this world is because we don't value human life.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 3:17 PM

I meant, absolutely right....

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 3:20 PM

That website has polls from several different organizations. I have posted a link to them. I see you offering no evidence to the contrary.

If I remember my political science classes, A poll of 500-1000 is actually typical. When the splits are 70-30 and so on it's pretty accurate.

The presidential polls were off by as little as 1% in the close states. Don't forget (its hard not two with the 3% mandate) W won by narrow margins there, and the vote was close nationwide. If these polls are 2% off, there is still a HUGE margin.

By the way, exit polls have not been wrong in the past. I think their difference with the recorded vote documents the extensive vote fraud that occoured in 2004.

Posted by: Robert at March 21, 2005 3:23 PM

For those who think removing a feeding tube is okay for whatever reason, I ask you to think about this....most of us know someone who has a child with some sort of condition that only allows them limited control over their own lives. Would you really allow a child to starve to death because they couldn't get their own food for whatever reason. This is the exact same thing.

All life is precious and should be embraced and protected by all of us no matter what.

Posted by: sammy at March 21, 2005 3:32 PM


I realize that the doctors involved are likely to give conflicting opinions; my issue is why BTK greer won't hear other opinions? Why won't he actually allow Terri to come to court and face him? Why won't he go to see her? Why must she be starved to death?

In that there is so much controversy, why will he not allow new tests for her diagnosis? Why can't her family attempt to feed her by mouth? What does BTK greer have to fear?

When there are two points of view given by two equally qualified individuals, why can't one follow the more HUMANE view?

When I was a child, I was told dogs are color blind. As an adult, I want to know who can ascertain whether a dog can see color? We don't live as dogs, we can't "see" as dogs.

In Terri's case, the experts say she is "PVS" and won't feel a thing. How do they know this? Which of these "experts" has been "PVS" and starved? How do they know there is no pain? We have living people who were diagnosed as vegetables, yet they are now alive to testify that they FELT everything---and they suffered! In this case, we have witnesses.

The gas chambers used by Hitler and SoDamnInsane were also "painless"; yet the people who suffered and died in them felt the pain of suffication. And we, as HUMANITY, condemned these practices.

Who can truly tell if Terri feels pain--she had a "test" years ago and a diagnosis of PVS. What harm is there in giving her a new test with updated technologies? What harm is there to bring her wheelchair out of the hospice and allow her to see the sun? What harm is there to give her a week to see the sun, spend time with her family, friends, and doctors and then turn on a camera to see if she responds?

Why is greer so afraid? Why does michael want her dead? Why has she been in a hospice for the terminally ill for 5 years when it's for someone who is supposed to die in 6 months? Why have my tax dollars gone to pay for Terri's hospice care as a Medicaid expense, when michael won so much money for her care? Where is the money michael won?

There are so many unanswered questions....and I can't in conscience sit back and allow a HUMAN being to starve to death when death row inmates and prisoners are treated with compassion. Why can't we starve all of the inmates on Death Row? Why can't we make the terrorists bark like dogs? It's inHUMANe. So, why can we take a beautiful young woman, stick her in a cell for 5 years and call her a vegetable? And what gives us the right to watch that same young woman wither and die without food or water?

Forget my religious feelings. Just answer me Why this case makes sense--and why Terri must die.

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 3:38 PM

To Tom Tutone;

I am not a right "wingnut". Actually, I'm not a "wingnut" at all, but I did have to go to the hardware store recently to replace a missing one.

I do have a very long history of opposition to the death penalty, in all cases, as a matter of fact. I have gone to demonstrations, marches and long, miserably uncomfortable, expensive, out-of-state bus rides. (Not just a regular Greyhound, but some teensy, ancient, chartered, local bus line.) Further, I had to pay for this privilege out of my small, fixed income. I receive a fixed income because I am disabled.

So, if I am opposed to the death penalty even for convicted murderers, doesn't it stand to reason that I'd be even more opposed to the death penalty for an innocent, disabled woman?

To "noyourfacts":

There is a link on the Terri's Fight Website (http://www.terrisfight.org) called "Myths About Terry". I would check that out if I were you.

Please let me call attention to the fact that the Website you are on now is called "Blogs for Terri".

Since you do not seem to be on Terry's side, you might feel better at another blogsite.

While you're at it, please turn off your "Caps Lock" key.

To "Sadly Selfish"---------My perpetrators used to tell me it was "selfish" for me to want to be modest, and keep my body covered. Then, they told me it was "selfish" for people to have children at all. Then, they told me it was "selfish" for me to try to prevent someone's suicide. Then, they told me anyone who really loves God should just commit suicide, and go to Heaven and be with God.

It took me a few decades to realize that these people were twisted, perverted, and sick. I'd much rather deal with straightforward, upfront "selfishness" than their sick lies.

You are not "selfish" to want your child to live, any more than you are "selfish" when you eat a meal, or drink a glass of water, or sleep in a bed. That is every parent's job, to protect her or his child.

Keep up the great work, Bryan, Sirena, Tress and Warren (in alphabetical order).

I'm really worried about Terry. She needs her water and food back RIGHT NOW!!! What the fudge is taking so *&^%$$%^%&*&* long???

God bless, and keep praying.

Posted by: Diana Goodavage at March 21, 2005 3:38 PM

Okay, Robert, I don't want to hijack the thread by talking about voter fraud, so let me ask you the age-old question: If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you jump, too?

Do you think that the majority is always right just because it's a majority?

Are there any arguments that could persuade you that Terri should be allowed to live long enough to get proper diagnosis and examination, instead of being hurried to her death?

Posted by: Mary in LA at March 21, 2005 4:03 PM


Posted by: noyourfacts at March 21, 2005 4:06 PM


Thank you.

By order of the Veteran's Administration, I am disabled. 70% of me is "less" than perfect, yet my friends and co-workers don't understand what makes me "disabled". It's not something they can "see" so they don't understand.

Terri has a condition we can see, thus we know she is "disabled". We evaluate her quality of life based on our own views of quality of life. But, I can bet money that most people who know me wouldn't want to live with my "disability". Heck, I don't want to live with it and I would gladly live without it---but I must live with it; it's part of me, and inspite of my (comparibly small) challenges, I have a good life. It may not be perfect, but for me--it is great.

I have a friend who was sent home to die 30 years ago; she was in a coma with a brain tumor. When I first met her, she was working on her black-belt in Tae Kwon Do. She awoke from the coma blind, but able to speak. She could barely walk in the early 1990's, but by 2002, she had her blackbelt and was working toward her second degree. She is still blind, but has never given up hope that someday she will see again.

30 years ago, she was supposed to die. Now, she is blind and diabetic. Her quality of life is less than mine--should we kill her next? I wouldn't want to live in her shoes--she doesn't like wearing them, but she would probably kill the first person who calls her handicapped! Who are we to determine if her quality of life stinks. Who are we to end her "misery" because she is not perfect? She actually was fired from a job because of her blindness. Funny, she was hired as a blind person, but a new manager could not "see" her capabilities. She was less than a person.

Someone asked why our wonderful God doesn't end this suffering; why does he allow Terri to live like this?

An excellent answer comes from Mandy Moore's character in "A Walk To Remember"

"...God allows suffering, because without suffering, there would be no compassion."

Shane West character's answer, "Tell that to someone who suffers."

Unbeknownst to Shane, she was a living witness to suffering.

Things are not always as they appear. None of us are perfect; but we all have RIGHTS and that is what this case is about. It's about Terri's RIGHT to Life; it's not our call to determine wheteher Terri's life is worth living.

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 4:06 PM

Why hasn't anyone taken matters into their own hands. Enough of this !!! Are there really enough guards at the hospice to stop a kidnapping team. Get in there and get her out !!!
Are there no warriors for good down there ?

Posted by: lefty at March 21, 2005 4:09 PM


Regardless of whether or not I agree with you - that was very well put. I never thought of it like that.

Posted by: Sadly Selfish at March 21, 2005 4:10 PM

I agree with that fact that noone's life should have to end by cutting off the supply of nutrients. On the other hand, it is legal to put death row prisoners to death by lethal injection but illegal to assist in someone's death so it is the only option available as far as I'm aware.

I can't answer why anything you said was or was not allowed, but I do believe that after all these years, the justice system did what it is supposed to do.
To allow both sides to make their claim and have someone objectively weigh each party's merits and then submit a verdict without regard to public opinion or outside pressure.

I respect your opinion that the humane thing would be to let her live, yet in my opinion the humane thing would be to less her pass away. We both have reasons for thinking this, be it facts, or personal beliefs. Which is exactly why neither of us should be in a position to decide what the right thing is, but to defer to a by nature agreed neutral party.

I personally don't consider either the parents' opinions or her husband's for that matter to have any merit. Her husband and her parents can express their wishes all they like, but ultimatly the heart of the matter is Terri's wish.

Had she had left any documentation that she wished to have her life terminated, do you think things would have turned out differently?
Her parents would have still challenged it in court. The only difference would be that they'd have long lost the case.

I can't imagine the pain they've gone through for the past 15 years and the strain from the constant legal battle. But keeping their daughter alive because they can not accept her condition is no reason to keep her alive.

If Terri's parents are allowed to take care of her, it should be because it was shown that such would have been her wish, and certainly not because it's their wish or because of mass lobbying.
If you respect Terri's life, then you must also respect her choice to have it end in a manner that she choose.

I won't object if a future court hearing finds that Terri would not have wanted to be cut off but I doubt all too many will accept it if the opposite is shown.

Posted by: Vanessa at March 21, 2005 4:12 PM

You know, some of you people really disgust me with your sanctimonious bullshit; you come in here OBVIOUSLY disagreeing with the whole idea, so why are you here? YOU NO LIKEY, TAKE A HIKEY. Obviously no amount of evidence (that you apparently refuse to look at anyway) is going to sway your opinion, so what is your point? You are such an asshole that you come here to INSULT people? Insult the Schindlers? DID it occur to any of you that MAYBE one of them might see your insults, or is that your goal?
ASK YOURSELF: Why is it so important to you to insult everyone here and make ridiculous characterizations of what you THINK we all are?

WHY don't you get your own blog and bitch about it all there instead of flinging poo at everyone here?

Don't you have ANYTHING to do with your time besides be an asshole? Are you coming here trying to distract us from our cause?

Want to be a jerk? Come to my blog. Keep your crap out of here--we're ALL sick of it.

Posted by: Beth at March 21, 2005 4:14 PM

I am pro-life, but Terri it's truely living her life. This should not be based on religion, it should be soley based on our government. A judge has made a ruling, in fact there have been 9 rulings in favor of Michael Shiavo over the last 15 years, if I'm not mistaken. Congress has completely overstepped their bounds. The have attempted to over rule Judge Greer (several other judge's) and interfer with a very personal family matter. I would never want the government to tell my family what they think is in my best interest or vice verse. None of the people in our government knew Terri prior to this, so how on earth could they speak on her behalf or have a court appoint an attorney to represent her. How can an attorney possibly represent a person who can't truely communicate or express themselves.
Any money that Michael Shiavo would be getting as far as life insurance is probably long gone to pay for medical bills, because any insurance Terri had is also long long. So many people keep saying that Michael Shiavo should let her parents care for her. If you think that her parents would be able to care of her you are living in a dreamland. Taking care of someone who is disabled in the slightest way can be very difficault task and for someone in the far worse state such as Terri makes it far more difficult and not only outragously expensive. Those expenses will not be payed out of the pockets of her parents, but out of your's and mine. And it really should be about the capabilities and funds to take care of her. I personally don't know anyone who would truely want to live in the state the Terri is "living" her life.
Also someone used Christopher Reeves as an example. Terri is not in the same condition as he was. Granted she is breathing and her heart is beating naturally, she agian is not "living" her life and he was.
I have been in the position of taking a family member off life support long before their time should have come, so I know from first hand experience how difficult and painful a decision like this can be. Sometimes not matter what we want and how much we love someone we have to learn to let go.

Posted by: Cathy at March 21, 2005 4:22 PM

The question that keeps dangling in my mind regarding Michael Schiavo, is why and how he sat in the court room years ago, during the mal-practice law suit case and stated that he wanted to go to nursing school to learn how to take care of his wife, that he believed in his marriage vows and wanted to be together in sickness and in health. Then four months after receiving the almost 2 million award, he took her out of the rehab center and placed her in a nursing home with do not resuscitate and would not allow them to treat an infection with antibiotics. If he had good reason to believe that his wife did not want to live, why didn't he tell the jury that during the mal- practice case? If he truly believed in his wedding vows, and loved her and wanted to care for her, why would he not let them treat an infection that could lead to her death. I can't help but wonder if, four months after receiving over a million dollars, the bank account signature card became more precious than the marriage certificate and nursing school.

Posted by: Lacey Graves at March 21, 2005 4:24 PM


Thank you for the compliment. I am trying to focus my thoughts away from my Italian Passion and more toward logical reasoning.

Here is website dedicated to an amazing young lady; She lives exactly like Terri--on a feeding tube. Same type of situation, hospital error caused her to go into a "vegetative" state. Only her diagnosis is "Akinetic Mutism". She has been lying in her "coma-like" condition since 1987; longer than Terri.

The difference is that this little girl's family wants her to live. No one knows or understands what is happening, but if you read her story, you may understand that whatever we think of her life; something significant is happening.

Her official site is at:

The site I used as my first link to learn about her:http://www.medjugorjeusa.org/audrey.htm

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 4:25 PM

Let's get something clear-the initial post on the blog I'm replying to advocates political action against certain individuals. It is not Terri's family support net. My posts question the political motives of the congressmen involved, their and the president's immense hypocrasy in the matter, and promote the rights of her husband and the lower courts. I also posted polls questioning the assertion that most Americans support this. No insults were used or intended.

Posted by: Robert at March 21, 2005 4:27 PM

Not only is there sadness between familes, husband, wife, and children there is a lesson to be learned. The hard truth that no family really wants to sit down and talk about is death or the possiblity there of. If a Power of Attorney is chosen early on in any marriage and a notorized document from each spouse is drawn, a couple will be able to make clear choices for one another in the untimley event of any such accident as this.

Have any one of YOU stopped to think of how YOU would feel if this happened to you? How you could not be there for your families mentally, emotionally or physically? How hard it would/could be for you to be a prisoner in your own body. Possibly being able to identify with some things being said/done around you but virtually NO way to communicate these thoughts to anyone. To not be there when your son/daughter has a bad dream and be able to comfort them. To never be intimate again with your spouse.

Married couples know more about one another than any outsider. No matter how close families think they are, there is no comparison for the level of intimacy and sharing of two people and what their needs/desires/wishes are throughout their lives and marriage. Have any of YOU ever expressed to your spouses what you would want if this type of situation ever happened to you? Of course you have. But just like the Schiavo's, you probably never think anything like this will happen to you.

Terrie's life is of course special and worthy - but what did Terrie want? What did her and Michael discuss one night alone in their bedroom behind closed doors? Only they know and it has been up to Michael to try and fulfill his wife's wishes since 1990. Where is Terrie's quality of life? Does anyone honestly think that she is happy?

Would Michael and their family mourn the loss of their Mother/Wife. Of course they would. Would her family do the same? Of course they would. But don't they all have something in common? Don't they miss her NOW? Haven't they missed her for years? It's a numbing and difficult choice to make for everyone, but who is really concentrating on what Terrie wanted? This should not be a selfish endevour. It's not about the Federal Courts, it's not about Jeb Bush, it's not about the families needs to keep her alive, it's about TERRIE and what SHE wanted.

POA - Get it today. Don't wait. Don't let this happen to your family. Don't let this happen to YOU. Good Luck Michael, you are going to need all of it you can get.

Posted by: Laurie at March 21, 2005 4:39 PM

WASHINGTON — Republican leaders believe their attention to the Terri Schiavo issue could pay dividends with Christian conservatives whose support they covet in the 2006 midterm elections, according to a GOP memo intended to be seen only by senators.

The one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators by party leaders, called the debate over Schiavo legislation "a great political issue" that would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters. The memo singled out Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who is up for re-election next year.

"This is an important moral issue, and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, reported by ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a co-sponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."

Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company

Posted by: Mike at March 21, 2005 4:40 PM


Several years ago, a co-worker told me she was called by the Washington Post concerning a "poll". When they questioned her and found that she was conservative, they chose not to include her in their demographics.

Polls are not a good source of information. I've seen dozens of polls on Terri's condition. Those on NBC, ABC and other MSM outlets are in line with the results you posted. Those on the Empire Journal, World Net Daily and other pro-Terri sites are overwhelmingly in her favor. The poll results are dictated by the audience.

Also, how many times can a person participate in an internet poll from the same computer? I can take the same poll multiple times and consequently impact the poll results. Even for the polls that can record an IP address, thus "prohibiting" multiple responses from single individuals; many people can defeat these "safety measures. Consequently, the Internet Polls are IMHO very suspect.

People know what they hear from the media--my parents would never condone starvation and dehydration, yet they were under the impression that Terri is already dead. They might have responded to a poll in a manner inconsistent with their beliefs because of their mis-information.

For those anti-Terri bloggers intent on slamming those us us supporting Terri, this is your right. But, ask yourself why you have gone out of your way to log onto a site dedicted to a specific cause so you could condemn those of us who support said cause...are there no "bloggers for michasel" sites that you can find and support?

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 4:43 PM

I'm trying to base my opinion on facts, not ideology. My ideology gets in my way when I put down squirrels in my yard.
Before I begin - Please keep in mind:
This should not be a Fedaral Legislative Issue!
It is a State Judicial Matter!
Most everyone recognizes that this isn't about Terri's best interest anymore; it's about politics and grandstanding. It has also gotten so bad and dangerous that parts of Congress put themselves above the law. I've listened to both sides and there are better arguments for saving her life than the emotional pretzel & swiss-cheese logic that comes from some of the posterson this blog. I wonder what real conservatives like William F. Buckley or George Will have to say.

But - It's a tough one people! It's a tough one because we need to determine, and satify Terri's wishes. It's supposed to be about Terri. And it's also a tough one because the outcome will affect more than just Terri's future. It will affect our laws. It could set precedent regarding the Fed meddling in the States' business. This is another example of a power-grab at the national level that has been trying to strip our local governments of their lawful authority. Keep in mind that these are the fine folks that take bribes from lobbyists on a day to day basis.
These same people are now overriding decisions made by local judges, judges who by law don't take money or influence from special interests.(Technicaly and ethically neither should Congress.) The decision of judges who have been elected or appointed at the local level are being invalidated by this higher moral ground of special interest legislators. Give me a break!

Our grass roots judiciary (local) is perhaps the last place where Joe Citizen can expect rulings on laws in the spirit of real justice; not perverted by financial or political pressure. This is an illegal power grab that is overriding the soon to be extinct Honest Country Judge who still cares about the average citizenry, his neighbors. Follow motive and money and you will have a better chance of getting closer to the truth. There does seem to be a trend of this administration cutting the balls off the states (subject for another discussion I feel strongly about), although I think in this case it started out strictly as political posturing and bowing to the evangelical base to whom it owes favors.

Oh yeah - Terri Schiavo. From what I have gathered so far - it was Terri's wish not to be artificially supported. The law specifically states that it's the spouse's call. Family has no say! Her husband testified "she did not" want to live in this condition. The only real point of disscussion I find is the sincerety and motive of her husband's testimony. There are what appears questionable issues with this guy. However, the courts determined his credibility more than once. In that case - End Of Story.
This is not a Federal Legislative issue. It is a State Judicial Matter. It has been ruled on MORE THAN ONCE. Actually I think it was a dozen. (Unfortunately for Terri, her fate has become a political football)
What if it was me?
I must say that In the event I am seriously damaged in a manner similar to Terri's before I create a living will - Let it be known in this Email that my wish is not to be kept alive by artificial means like Ms. Schiavo. And should there be any question - I feel my wife knows my wishes better than family or friends or Congress. Even if she was "shacked-up" with someone else. If that whole process goes south, then I want my neighbor, the ol country judge to decide; not Congress. And God help me if should I wake-up after 15 years of my wishes being violated by Congess because they're pandering to their base with disregard for the law.
That's my take based on what I understand.
My advice is to file a living will.


Posted by: Richie at March 21, 2005 4:56 PM


Who was the lawyer representing Terri?

Who was the witness that she wanted to die?

Who has the most to gain from her death?

Failure to provide individuals due process is a federal issue; constitutional.

Conflict of interest in the case--especially since michael shiavo and george feel-less both contributed to BTK greers campaign indicate that justice was not given to Terri.

All congress did was allow the Federal Courts to take the issue under consideration; they previously felt that it was out of their jurisdiction. Now, because there may be violations of Federal Law, the case may go to Federal Court.

Imagine if you were on trial and the judge was elected because of contributions provided by the prosecution. How fair would your trial be?

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 5:07 PM

Robert, I was not even referring to you, I was referring to others who are calling Terri supporters "stupid" and "religious fanatics" and other assorted idiotic remarks.

Posted by: Beth at March 21, 2005 5:17 PM

G'Day Tress!
You seem to have intellect! How refreshing in this "No - you shut world".

Posted by: Richie at March 21, 2005 5:47 PM



I'm hopeful that my children will one day be able to think "beyond the obvious" as well.

I'm actually "brain beaten" and am so tired. I have cried and cried knowing Terri is without food and water.

I don't understand "WHY". If she has to die so desperately, why must it be by starvation? People were appalled when Ted Bundy was put to death in Florida and they sold "burn Bundy, Burn" and "Barbecue Bundy" tee shirts.

Why was his life so much more valuable than Terri's? Why did Terry McVeigh get a "painless" death when he caused so much pain to others?

The only thing I know and can say for truth about the forces of EVIL is that they do no want us to LIVE as we should. This case smacks of EVIL and cover-up.

Why? Why did BTK greer state that Terri "Must" die?

I just don't know. And that scares me to death.

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 7:20 PM

If you have a beloved pet whose health has failed, would you watch this pet suffer or put it to sleep? In terri's case, would she want to continue to live like this? Put your self in her shoes, would you like to be kept alive knowing that the last 15 years the quality of your life is not at the level you want it to be?

Think of what is best for Terri not what you think is best for her. 15 long years is too long, if she can recover it should have happened by now.

Posted by: teresa at March 21, 2005 7:23 PM

I think everyone reading this blog can agree that NOBODY wanted to end up here. Not the husband, not the parents, and not Terri. It is tragic for everyone involved, and I feel no need to blame the parents for clinging to hope far beyond reason and considered medical opinion. Nor do I feel the need to insult the husband who, after his hope of Terri's recovery had gone, decided to get on with his life.

My anger is not at pro-life folk who invoke scripture and claim that every life, no matter how limited, is worth protecting.

My anger is not at death with dignity folk who feel that this is a matter for the husband and the doctors, and who are trying to end what they see as Terri's suffering the only way they know how.

No - my disgust is with the hypocritical politicians: Tom Delay, who seized on this issue to distract everyone from the growing storm over his many ethical transgressions and impending indictment. George W. Bush who signed into law a provision in Texas that allows hospitals to pull the plug on patients when there's no hope of recovery and no one to pay the bills and thus has no standing to claim membership in a "culture of life". And every Republican (and a few Democrats) who voted for the credit card company wishlist bankruptcy bill with no provisions to protect families beset by these sorts of extraordinary medical expenses. And this administration, which considers one of its major goals to pass "tort reform" legislation that would prevent victims, like Terri, of medical malpractice from getting the kind of compensation that has been paying for Terri's care the last 15 years.

Then there's the whole attack on the constitutional separation of powers, and an attack on state's rights, going on with this federal legislation.

It is the worst sort of political pandering, and the pro-life folk should not be fooled by it. These politicians are not doing this for Terri - they are doing it to satisfy their most socially conservative voters, so that they can then ignore them for awhile and keep handing out tax breaks to the rich and gut conservation laws so their big corporate contributors can pollute the air we breath and the water we drink without penalty.

Posted by: AikidoPilgrim at March 22, 2005 12:42 AM

Good Day AikidoPilgrim!
You are exactly right. In my earlier contribution I mentioned politicians, and not individual names. I generaly refrain from namecalling. It is antiproductive. But OK. Tom DeLay voicing ethical and moral opinion? When I hear or see this guy, I feel like I need to to take a shower. Allowing DeLay to be a mouthpiece for this cause only undermines it. Hubris! The good thing is that "Hubris is Terminal"!
I implore what is left of the honest and not bought and paid for Republicans to take back the party. (I've mentioned his name twice - that's two showers)

Posted by: Richie at March 22, 2005 8:38 AM

Judge Whittemore is just like Greer, and that's cold hearted. For one Greer should've left the bench when his eye sight went. He's legally blind, can't see the people before him or read any reading material before him. I found out last week that Greer is legally blind from listening to the michael savage radio talk show (http://www.michaelsavage.com).

Posted by: Erika at March 22, 2005 5:33 PM

Hello Erica!
Are you saying Greer has become blind as a result of listening to Savage? That of course would make sense. Maybe you meant you got your information from Savage - which would mean you run the risk of, or are already blind.
Be Careful!

Posted by: Richie at March 23, 2005 1:24 PM