Terry Schiavo

[academic punk]

aaaaaaaaand we're back.

What was originally viewed as very clever legal manauvering turned into the Schindlers biggest missetp.

When their lawyers attempted to explore "due process" by subpeonaing Terri herself - knowing full well that of course she COULDN't make it to court - it was apparent all their options had been exhausted and that they were attempting to "hoodwink" the courts. (The first day that she would be scheduled to appear, along with the next, ansd the next, etc etc).

This doesn't sit well with judges.

And they medical exams have been exhausted. there's no imperative need to do others, b/c it would be like doing a medical exam on my dead grandmother: the condition each are in is permanent and irreversible. Why do the dog and pony show? and besides it wouldn't end with this: one exam would generate the request for another and another and another. Whatever it takes to delay the game.

Schiavo and his legal assistance is right to not even play it.


UNRELATED: that call I had to take yesterday was with a client who is the biggest queen of all time. You have never seen so many Liza Minnelli posters in one office in your life. His comments on all this?

"Oh my God, if I was a vegetable, and they filmed me, and put me on national TV, I would KILL myself."

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Warham
I don't find the step by Congress as unconstitutional at all. All the Congress did was ask for a Federal review of the case, nothing more. They didn't force the tube back in, didn't force her to be taken out of his custody. The only thing Bush signed into law was that her case, being full of conflicting evidence, be reviewed by a federal court. It's fully justified, but would not happen in 99.9% of PVS cases.

Um, the Federal Government stuck their nose into a private family matter, passed a bill that served only 1 person, and disregarded the rulings of State Courts in a Staes Right's issue...Na, that wasn't unconstitutional at all, was it?

Lets not foget the case of a kid in Texas just weeks ago who's feeding tube was removed against the wishes of the parents that not a damn news station covered, and i bet you didn't even know about that.
But of course there was no political gain involved, so why would anyone cover that?

I'm a fucking Registered Republican, dude, and i would be ready to clap my hands at the way Washington used it's power, if it was done in a Constitutional fashion.
But it wasn't and i have no desire to accept what has gone down because it was wrong, flat out wrong, intrusive, and a blatent abuse of power that walked the edge of violating a citizens constitutional right's as a legal guardian.

Naaaaaa, It wasn't unconstitutional at all....Puhlease...........

[academic punk]

Now it seems like Jeb and co. are distancing themselves from all this.

"I've done all I can" is political code for "My approval ratings are down".

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Um, the Federal Government stuck their nose into a private family matter, passed a bill that served only 1 person, and disregarded the rulings of State Courts in a Staes Right's issue...Na, that wasn't unconstitutional at all, was it?

Lets not foget the case of a kid in Texas just weeks ago who's feeding tube was removed against the wishes of the parents that not a damn news station covered, and i bet you didn't even know about that.
But of course there was no political gain involved, so why would anyone cover that?

I'm a fucking Registered Republican, dude, and i would be ready to clap my hands at the way Washington used it's power, if it was done in a Constitutional fashion.
But it wasn't and i have no desire to accept what has gone down because it was wrong, flat out wrong, intrusive, and a blatent abuse of power that walked the edge of violating a citizens constitutional right's as a legal guardian.

Naaaaaa, It wasn't unconstitutional at all....Puhlease...........

Once again, well said Cat...

[tomballin]

ummmm um umm ummm! um uuuuuuuummmm umumum ummm

ummm!!!!!!!

[fe_lung]

Saw this on the Steve Earle site (www.steaveearle.com). Interesting take....

Monday, March 21, 2005

THIS "CULTURE of LIFE"
Watching the Terri Schiavo drama unfold over the weekend, I found myself, like a lot of people, I'm sure, amazed at the speed with which Congress and the President can move when they have an agenda. Let's not waste any time pretending that this was about the life of one woman. Tom Delay's prominence in the proceedings when a similar case in his own backyard (see David Corn's blog at davidcorn.com)didn't warrant his attention goes a long way toward dispelling that notion. Make no mistake, this is about the latest conservative buzz phrase, this "culture of life" we've been hearing so much about and the systematic dismantling of the rights of American women to a legal and safe abortion.

Abortion is a tough one for me. My primary area of activism is my opposition to the death penalty in this country. For years I have worked side by side with Christians who see the death penalty and abortion as two sides of the same coin. I have always found it tough to justify my position on abortion in the face of such sincere moral consistency. I usually say that I am simply uncomfortable with legislative bodies and courts that are still dominated by men deciding what women may or may not do with their bodies. Actually, if I'm completely honest, the answer is simpler and more personal than that.

When I was fourteen years old I got my girlfriend pregnant. She was also fourteen. Abortion was never discussed. We were young and idealistic and actually talked about running away somewhere, getting married, and having the baby. One morning I got a call and it was my girlfriend. At first, she claimed that she had lost the baby and her mother had rushed her to the hospital during the night. Then, suddenly, she broke down and cried and admitted that she had an abortion. She was afraid that I would be disappointed in her. Actually, I was relieved. I had no job, no education, and no idea how to take care of myself much less a wife and a baby.

At the time abortion was illegal in Texas. We knew other kids who had gone to Mexico when they were "in trouble" and received, by most accounts, decent care in more or less modern medical facilities. There were some horror stories. I have often wondered what it was like for kids in a similar predicament who didn't live 150 miles from the Mexican border. Who did they turn to?

But my girlfriend was spared all of that. Her father was a clinical psychologist and she, like thousands of other children of privilege, received a safe abortion in the hospital where he practiced which was written up as a routine gynecological procedure.

The truth is that women get abortions. They always have. Roe v. Wade only made safe procedures available to everyone regardless of income. The congressmen and women (as well as the President) who worked all weekend to "save Terri Schiavo" want you to believe that they are consistent in their commitment to the sanctity of human life.

Yeah? Well write your congressperson and ask them where they stand on the death penalty. I would venture to guess you won't find a single elected official who supported "Terri's Bill" (least of all Delay or the President) who is opposed to the death penalty. I also would be willing to bet that there is more than one abortion in the collective family histories of our legislators. The fact is, moral consistency is tough.

I still have a moral problem with abortion. And I still have a problem with men telling women what to do with their bodies. I won't however hold myself up as morally superior in order to advance my own agenda be it selling more records or getting myself elected to public office (God forbid).

Oh yeah. Go out today and make yourself a living will.

Steve Earle
Buffalo,(or thereabouts)NY

posted by Steve # 9:10 AM 41 comments

[Nickdfresh]

Is It Just About Money?

Posted 3/24/2005 10:59 PM

Feud may be as much over money as principle
By Larry Copeland and Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. — Michael Schiavo and Bob and Mary Schindler once were very close. He was the husband. They were the in-laws.

Their shared joy was Terri, Michael's wife, the Schindlers' daughter. In photos from Terri and Michael's wedding day in 1984 and later, everyone is smiling.

The bonds remained strong even after tragedy befell Terri. Early on the morning of Feb. 25, 1990, she suffered a heart attack that led to massive brain damage.

Today, Terri Schiavo's agonizing struggle for life — or death — grips the nation and much of the world. Driving the sorrowful, sometimes angry rhetoric in this epic clash over the right to live or die is something less cosmic: a vitriolic family feud.

It is a feud, to some degree, over principle. Michael Schiavo says Terri should be allowed to die because she told him long before she was stricken that she would never want to be kept alive by a feeding tube or other such measures. The Schindlers say their son-in-law is starving Terri to death. They want to keep her alive and try to rehabiliate her.

But it also appears to be a fight over money — how a $1 million malpractice settlement Schiavo won 13 years ago over Terri's care should be spent.

Without that emotional public schism, the Schiavo case might simply have been one of thousands of wrenching family decisions about life and death that unfold quietly every year.

What once was a fond relationship — Michael Schiavo had called the Schindlers "Mom" and "Dad" — has dissolved into bitter recriminations playing out in courthouses, capitols, weblogs and on Larry King Live. Schiavo says he hasn't talked to his in-laws in years.

Some of the protesters gathered outside Woodside Hospice here have demonized Michael Schiavo, accusing him of everything from murder to adultery because he lives with a woman and has two toddlers, a daughter and a son, by her.

It wasn't always this way, according to a USA TODAY review of voluminous records in the Probate Division of Pinellas County Circuit Court in nearby Clearwater.

Those records show that Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers jointly supervised care for Terri after she collapsed. For the first 16 days and nights that she was hospitalized, Schiavo never left the hospital. Over the next few years, as she was moved from the hospital to a skilled nursing facility, to a nursing home, to Schiavo's home and finally back to a nursing home, Schiavo visited Terri daily.

They had met in a class at Bucks County Community College in Pennsylvania. They were engaged five months later and married on Nov. 10, 1984, in Huntingdon Valley, Pa. She was, he said, "sweet. Very personable. You would meet her and just be charmed by her. ... To me, she was everything."

Once Terri was unable to help herself, Michael became a demanding advocate.

John Pecarek, a court-appointed guardian for Terri, described her husband as "a nursing home administrator's nightmare," adding, "I believe that the ward (Terri) gets care and attention from the staff of Sabal Palms (nursing home) as a result of Mr. Schiavo's advocacy and defending on her behalf."

Just shows you what a bunch of lying phonies some of these so-called "Christian Right-to-Life" groups are are!

Mary Schindler testified that, while her daughter was at one nursing home, her relationship with her son-in-law was "very good. We did everything together. Wherever he went, I went."

Schiavo and the Schindlers even sold pretzels and hot dogs on St. Pete Beach to raise money for Terri's care. But everything seemed to change on Valentine's Day 1993 in a nursing home near here.

In 1992, Schiavo had filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against two doctors who had been treating his wife before she was stricken. Late that year came a settlement: Schiavo received $300,000 for loss of consortium — his wife's companionship. Another $700,000 was ordered for Terri's care.

Mary Schindler later testified that Schiavo had promised money to his in-laws. They had helped him and Terri move from New Jersey to Pinellas County, let them live rent-free in their condominium and had given him other financial help.

"We all had financial problems" after Terri's crisis, she testified. "Michael, Bob. We all did. It was a very stressful time. It was a very financially difficult time. He used to say, 'Don't worry, Mom. If I ever get any money from the lawsuit, I'll help you and Dad.' "

By February 1993, Schiavo had the money from the lawsuit.

On Valentine's Day that year, he testified, he was in his wife's nursing home room studying. He wanted to become a nurse so he could care for his wife himself. He had taken Terri to California for experimental treatment. A doctor there had placed a stimulator inside Terri's brain and those of other people in vegetative states to try to stimulate still-living but dormant cells.

According to Schiavo's testimony, the Schindlers came into Terri's room in the nursing home, spoke to their daughter, then turned to him.

"The first words out of my father-in-law's mouth was how much money he was going to get," Schiavo said. "I was, 'What do you mean?' 'Well, you owe me money.' "

Schiavo said he told his in-laws that all the money had gone to his wife — a lie he said he told Bob Schindler "to shut him up because he was screaming."

Schiavo said his father-in-law called him "a few choice words," then stormed out of the room. Schiavo said he started to follow him, but his mother-in-law stepped in front of him, saying, "This is my daughter, our daughter, and we deserve some of this money."

Hmmmmm....

Mary Schindler's account of that evening is far different. She testified that she and her husband found Schiavo studying. "We were talking about the money and about his money," she said. "That with his money and the money Terri got, now we could take her (for specialized care) or get some testing done. Do all this stuff. He said he was not going to do it."

She said he threw his book and a table against the wall and told them they would never see their daughter again.

A rift beyond repair

The accounts of that confrontation came in testimony during a January 2000 hearing on a petition Schiavo filed to discontinue his wife's life support. Pinellas County Circuit Judge George Greer ruled the next month that the feeding tube could be removed.

Despite the row over money, Schiavo and the Schindlers agreed on one major point in the 2000 testimony: the extent of Terri's brain damage, according to additional court documents cited by The Miami Herald. In the documents, Pamela Campbell, then the Schindlers' lawyer, told the court that "we do not doubt that she's in a persistent vegetative state." Campbell could not be reached to confirm the statement.

Hmmmm.....They don't say!

At this point, however, the gulf between Schiavo and the Schindlers could not be bridged.

"On Feb. 14, 1993, this amicable relationship between the parties was severed," Greer wrote. "While the testimony differs on what may or may not have been promised to whom and by whom, it is clear to this court that such severance was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr. Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his loss of consortium award with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler."

Daniel Grieco, the attorney who handled Michael Schiavo's malpractice case, says his client never promised money to Bob Schindler. He also said Schindler never understood that he wasn't entitled to money under Florida law.

Grieco says the money is at the root of the estrangement. "It was the precipitating factor," Grieco says. "That was the fracture. That was the basis of it."

Without the acrimony, Terri's life-or-death saga probably would not have become big news, says Steve Mintz, a history professor at the University of Houston who studies families.

"There have been similar cases where people have been disconnected, but because they didn't reach the same level of in-law tensions, they didn't evoke such strong feelings," Mintz told the Associated Press. "The subtext of this case is intergenerational tension. Parents are more invested than ever in their children, even when they're grown."

In a case similar to Terri Schiavo's, a 1983 car accident left Nancy Cruzan unconscious. She could breathe but needed a feeding tube. The Supreme Court, in its first right-to-die case, ruled in 1990 that Cruzan had a right to refuse treatment but said her parents did not present sufficient evidence of her wishes. Friends said that she would not want to be kept alive; a Missouri court allowed her tube to be removed. She died 12 days later.

"Nancy Cruzan was also found to be in a persistent vegetative state," says Kendall Coffey, former U.S. attorney in Miami now in private practice. "But the family was in agreement. So you've got that extraordinary dynamic (in Schiavo's case) of a bitter family disagreement."

Mintz says similar end-of-life cases, including one this year involving a baby in Houston, have not resonated with the public because they did not have the element of family tension. The money, he told USA TODAY, has become "the symbol of whether one is genuinely concerned about her interest."

Today, the money from the lawsuit settlement is almost gone, Grieco, the attorney, says. Just $40,000 to $50,000 remained as of mid-March. The $700,000 in Terri's trust has paid for her care, lawyers, expert medical witnesses. Michael Schiavo's $300,000 share evaporated years ago, he says.

Views about life, death

Terri Schiavo left no instructions about her care. In such an instance, Florida law requires a judge to follow a person's last wishes, if they can be established.

In his order, Greer said he relied upon the testimony of five witnesses regarding Terri's views about right-to-die issues. Schiavo, his older brother Scott and Joan Schiavo, wife of another of Schiavo's brothers, all said Terri had said or indicated that she would not want to be kept alive if her brain stopped working. Mary Schindler and Diane Meyer, a childhood friend of Terri's, testified that she she would.

Scott Schiavo testified that after the 1988 funeral for his grandmother, who was briefly kept alive on artificial life support, a clutch of relatives sat around a luncheon table in Langhorne, Pa., talking about the way she had died. "And Terri made mention ... that, 'If I ever go like that, just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine.' "

Joan Schiavo testified that she and Terri, whom she described as "my best friend and like a sister that I never had," had discussed artificial life support as many as 12 times. Joan Schiavo testified that she had a girlfriend who had decided to take her baby off life support, and that Terri indicated she would have done the same thing.

Mary Schindler's recollection of what her daughter wanted was different. She testified that Terri had commented on news coverage of the case of Karen Ann Quinlan, whose ventilator was turned off in 1976 after her parents went to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Schindler said her daughter told her this about Quinlan: "Just leave her alone. Leave her. If they take her off, she might die. Just leave her alone and she will die whenever."

Contributing: Lawrence reported from Washington, D.C., Laura Parker in McLean, Va., Associated Press

[Warham]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Um, the Federal Government stuck their nose into a private family matter, passed a bill that served only 1 person, and disregarded the rulings of State Courts in a Staes Right's issue...Na, that wasn't unconstitutional at all, was it?

The Federal government has passed or tried to pass legislation concerning one individual since the founding of our country.

An article with many examples...

Congress' foray into Schiavo case not a unique event
By BILL STRAUB, Scripps Howard News Service

The bill passed by Congress to throw the life-or-death battle over Terri Schiavo into federal court represents "a unique bill passed under unique circumstances," in the mind of Senate Republican leader Bill Frist -- but it isn't the first time lawmakers involved themselves in a case aimed at an individual.
Congress has embroiled itself in a variety of narrowly defined disputes throughout the history of the republic, ranging from a child-custody case to the citizenship of a 6-year-old boy. It has even passed legislation intended to circumvent a deal struck with a former president.
Even so, the power of Congress to adopt special legislation often is restricted by a provision in the Constitution that prohibits a bill of attainder, also known as trial by legislature. Writing in The Federalist, No. 44, James Madison said the "sober people of America" object to "sudden changes and legislative interferences in cases affecting personal rights."
But that doesn't stop lawmakers from trying.
One of the most famous recent cases involved Elian Gonzalez, a 6-year-old Cuban refugee who washed ashore in 2000. His fate became a cause celebre, with some arguing he should remain on U.S. soil while others maintained he should be returned to the care of his father in Cuba.
Congress got involved when then-Sen. Connie Mack, R-Fla., introduced legislation that would grant the boy immediate U.S. citizenship. But the effort stalled on the floor of the upper chamber and he eventually was returned to his home.
Interestingly, lawmakers in the 1950s and 1960s used private bills to confer citizenship on hundreds of people, including former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The number has declined in recent years -- and, in Elian's case, it fell flat.
Lawmakers also became involved, in a roundabout way, in the trial of Timothy McVeigh, convicted and eventually executed for his role in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 that killed 168.
U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch prohibited anyone scheduled to testify to remain in the courtroom during trial -- a determination upheld by a federal appeals court. But in March 1997, Congress passed the Victims Rights Act, in effect overriding the court by permitting victims to watch the trial on closed-circuit television and testify during the punishment phase.
There was the case of Dr. Elizabeth Morgan, who refused to permit her former husband, Dr. Eric Foretich, to have unsupervised visits with their baby daughter Hilary despite a court order, claiming he had sexually abused the child.
Morgan hid Hilary, was found in contempt of court and spent 25 months in jail. It eventually was determined that the girl was hiding with her maternal grandparents in New Zealand. Congress, in 1996, passed what came to be called the Elizabeth Morgan Act, taking her side in the dispute even though a court never substantiated her abuse allegations. The measure permitted Morgan to return with her daughter to the United States from New Zealand without having to face any further court orders.
A federal appeals court struck down the Elizabeth Morgan Act in 2003, but by that time it did Foretich little good.
A major incident occurred in 1943 when Rep. Martin Dies Jr., D-Texas, chairman of the Special Committee to Investigate Un-American Activities, took to the House floor to accuse several government employees of being "radical bureaucrats and affiliates of Communist organizations." Among those cited were Robert Lovett, with the Department of the Interior, and Goodwin Watson and William Dodd Jr., who worked in the Federal Communications Commission.
Over the protests of their agencies, Congress in 1943 passed legislation declaring that the three men would not be paid for their services by the federal government. The Supreme Court overturned that action in 1946.
Then there was President Richard Nixon, who always seemed to be quarrelling with someone. After his resignation as president in 1974, Nixon entered into an agreement with the government over how his presidential materials -- about 42 million pages of documents and 880 tape recordings -- would be handled. The contract called for storing the material near Nixon's California home and placed limitations on their release.
Shortly after the agreement was reached, Congress introduced legislation to abrogate it. Called the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, it ordered the General Services Administration to take custody of the property, handing over to Nixon any papers or recordings of a purely personal nature. It also ordered the GSA administrator to design regulations for the eventual public release of the material.
Nixon objected and took the case to the Supreme Court. He fared no better in this instance than the time he sought to block the release of the Watergate tapes.

[Warham]

With that said, I'm done with this woman's story. I find it far too sad, and don't really wish to continue my end of the debate.

Good Friday's a good day to end the madness. I've got a good mind to stay out of these private family issues and just keep my eyes peeled to the general topics.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone with any of my posts in this thread, and I apologize for any such comments.

[Cathedral]

That's a good example to follow, Warham.
I'll follow suit and make this my final post on the matter also.

And i wasn't offended by anything you posted, hope the same can be said for me.

Peace, Bro!

P.S. This really was a topic that doesn't have a right or wrong, because it sucks for her either way.

God Bless

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
With that said, I'm done with this woman's story. I find it far too sad, and don't really wish to continue my end of the debate.

Good Friday's a good day to end the madness. I've got a good mind to stay out of these private family issues and just keep my eyes peeled to the general topics.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone with any of my posts in this thread, and I apologize for any such comments.

Who did you offend?? I may disagree with your point of view, but that's all it is ultimately from any of us: a perspective. And it's important to state your viewpoint: otherwise I for one wouldn't be as aware of opinions that are different from my own.

What did you possibly say that was offensive???

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Cathedral
That's a good example to follow, Warham.
I'll follow suit and make this my final post on the matter also.

And i wasn't offended by anything you posted, hope the same can be said for me.

Peace, Bro!

P.S. This really was a topic that doesn't have a right or wrong, because it sucks for her either way.

God Bless

And you especially should keep active in posting here and threads of this nature: first of all, you have a REALLY unique perpective on these matters unfortunately, but fortunately you get to air them out here and we get to read it.

Secondly, this is one of the rare occassions where someones political affiliation has been deeply affected. That's RARE. To be able to read your posts in this thread - as well as virtualy anywhere else - well, they're better than all the op-eds I've read in any of the newspapers or seen on the cable news networks.


Guys, keep posting. This is a tragic topic of course, and a difficult one to discuss, but that's why it's all the more VALUABLE that you do.

[scorpioboy33]

give her the needle put her and everyone outta their misery..Im bored all ready

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by academic punk
And you especially should keep active in posting here and threads of this nature: first of all, you have a REALLY unique perpective on these matters unfortunately, but fortunately you get to air them out here and we get to read it.

Secondly, this is one of the rare occassions where someones political affiliation has been deeply affected. That's RARE. To be able to read your posts in this thread - as well as virtualy anywhere else - well, they're better than all the op-eds I've read in any of the newspapers or seen on the cable news networks.


Guys, keep posting. This is a tragic topic of course, and a difficult one to discuss, but that's why it's all the more VALUABLE that you do.

Well that was a damn nice post to read, thanks for the kind words, bro.

But i don't really know what to think about this whole thing anymore. I am split down the middle and find myself unable to come to any conclusion, except for the political aspect which disgusts me to the point i can't even think about it.

I need a beer...

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Well that was a damn nice post to read, thanks for the kind words, bro.

But i don't really know what to think about this whole thing anymore. I am split down the middle and find myself unable to come to any conclusion, except for the political aspect which disgusts me to the point i can't even think about it.

I think all of us have very mixed emotions on the matter (especially those of us saying it's better to let her go). But none of us here are going to solve this thing. No reason this thread can't resemble more of a support group for people of opposing viewpoints than, you know, the humorous intolerance (or is that the intolerant humor?) of the "DE-MOD LOU" poll.

As I said above, I may not see Warham's POV at all, but I wouldn't even know about it if he didn't and doesn't articulate it. If I may go so far, we have a responsibilty to express our viewpoints here, because if we don't, then we (and like-minded folk) don't have a voice at all.

Ah, fuck. Am I crawling up my ass with this? Should I just shut up? Someone make a suggestion?

Originally posted by Cathedral


I need a beer...

Rational! Barkeep, I'll have what he's having, please!