Excerpts from provocative thoughts on the Terri Schiavo outrage from Ann Coulter:
Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: (1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard); (2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms); and (3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).
So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it’s against Americans.
In two of the three cases mentioned above, the Democrats’ use of force was in direct contravention of court rulings. Admittedly, this was a very long time ago — back in U.S. history when the judiciary was only one of the three branches of our government. Democratic Gov. Orval Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard expressly for purposes of defying rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts…
Liberals’ newfound respect for “federalism” is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are prohibited from ever using the word “federalism.”
I note that whenever liberals talk about “federalism” or “states’ rights,” they are never talking about a state referendum or a law passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature — or anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. What liberals mean by “federalism” is: a state court ruling. Just as “choice” refers to only one choice, “the rule of law” refers only to “the law as determined by a court.”…
Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. Any incorrect ruling will do, but my vote is for a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband…
President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: “Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” The court’s ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.
If Gov. Jeb Bush doesn’t say something similar to the Florida courts that have ordered Terri Schiavo to die, he’ll be the second Republican governor disgraced by the illiterate ramblings of a state judiciary. Gov. Mitt Romney will never recover from his acquiescence to the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s miraculous discovery of a right to gay marriage. Neither will Gov. Bush if he doesn’t stop the torture and murder of Terri Schiavo.
Let me see if I’ve got this straight….the ONLY way to have justice served is to put to death, slowly by starvation and dehydration, an innocent disabled woman who cannot defend herself. Is this an amazing country, or what?
Amazing essay.
Amazing is right. She states:
“President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: ‘Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.’ The court’s ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.”
Jackson’s comment was in regard to the Supreme Court finding the Indian Removal Act to be unconstitutional. His ignoring this decision led to the notorious Trail of Tears which resulted in the death (genocide?) of thousands of Cherokee indians.
Citing the Trail-of-Tears is hardly good evidence of the historical evils of federalism or the judiciary. Citing this case doesn’t make sense in today’s context: either the judiciary was bad and Jackson was right, or federalism was bad and the judiciary was right.
I think the point is not if Jackson was morally right, but that the action that he took (the refusing to follow a ruling of the court) was constitutionally sound. As I am one with a Choctaw background, I say that obviously Jackson was morally wrong, but he truly acted within the powers bestowed his office, to execute valid law and to veto (which he was also famous for). If only our executive branches would execute the legislature’s laws and not the judiciary’s newfound laws.
“If only our executive branches would execute the legislature’s laws and not the judiciary’s newfound laws.”
The trouble here is that I imagine the law in Florida (as the law now does in most states) permits an ill person to elect to have food and water withheld as if it were just another extrodinary means of treatment instead of normal and ordinary care. The issue before Judge Greer is not a question of law but a question of fact, i.e., “Would Terri have wanted food and water to be witheld?” Here the judge found as a matter of fact not law that she would have made that decision. If she had a living will that stated she wanted food and water withheld if she was ever in her current state or if during moments of lucidness she made such a request Florida law clearly allows food and water to be withheld.
Years ago when the Indiana Supreme Court decided that food and water were extrodinary care and that individuals or their families could elect to withold them all the legislature did was to pass a statute creating a new living will form to give individuals a legal instrument to express their desire in this regard.
If prolifers were really serious about this problem they should have been demanding that State legislators pass new legislation or amend state constitutions during the past decade to prohibit the withdrawl of food and water from those that are terminally or severely ill.
The Terri S. case was a train wreck waiting to happen for a long time. Will pro-lifers act this sluggishly when and if Roe is overturned and the question of abortion is returned to the states.
“The trouble here is that I imagine the law in Florida (as the law now does in most states) permits an ill person to elect to have food and water withheld as if it were just another extrodinary means of treatment instead of normal and ordinary care.”
Here is the info about Flordia law from http://www.terrisfight.net/
MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri’s feeding tube, not regular food and water. Terri’s husband illegally ordered this. The law only allows the removal of “life-prolonging procedures,” not regular food and water:
Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.
Sadly, law and fact do not seem to matter anymore. J+M+J
From NewsMax:
Legal experts say that if Florida Gov. Jeb Bush defies state judge George Greer and orders state troopers to rescue Terri Schiavo, he and any other officials who participate in such a move risk a contempt citation from Greer that could put them in jail.
But with a powerful ally in the White House, Terri Schiavo’s would-be rescuers have nothing to fear from the runaway judge.
In 2001, President Clinton pardoned drug dealers, international money launderers – even FALN terrorists, who were spared in a blatant bid to win votes for his wife’s Senate campaign.
The episode taught a bewildered nation that the powers of the president to pardon anyone he wishes are absolute and irrefutable.
Today, Clinton is the most popular American politician in the world and his wife is the frontrunning candidate for her party’s presidential nomination. In other words, the Pardongate scandal’s lasting political fallout was nil.
He even pardoned his own brother, who had been convicted of selling cocaine.
Should Gov. Bush decide to rescue Terri Schiavo by force in violation of Judge Greer’s order, President Bush could do the same for his brother – along with any other officials the right-to-die judge tries to punish.
Would there be controversy? You bet. Would the Bush family’s political enemies try to capitalize? Absolutely.
But a nation that forgives one president for pardoning terrorists will certainly forgive another who uses his pardon power to save a life.
Once Terri Schiavo begins to receive the treatment she’s been denied for more than a decade, her condition will almost certainly improve. Nurses who have cared for her have already testified she can speak and eat without a feeding tube, in stark contradiction of Judge Greer’s findings.
Terri’s recovery, however minimal, would serve as powerful evidence that the Bush brothers did the right thing in coming to her rescue.
In the meantime, the nation would be spared the haunting specter of its government starving an innocent citizen to death.
“MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri’s feeding tube, not regular food and water. Terri’s husband illegally ordered this. The law only allows the removal of “life-prolonging procedures,” not regular food and water.”
About the Florida legislation that failed to passed the other day, Fox News stated that:
“The bill would have prohibited patients like Schiavo from being denied food and water if they didn’t express their wishes in writing. The 21-18 vote came five days after her feeding tube was removed under court order. Doctors have said she could survive one to two weeks without the tube, which was pulled Friday.”
Therefore, the issue involved was not whether you can withold food and water from a patient but whether you can do so without their express written approval.
You and I may consider the witholding of food and water to constitute euthanasia or suicide or mercy killing, but in modern society food and water are considered extrodinary care.
I think that they should pass a law that allows free health care for keeping people alive. Maybe that will shut the Republicans up. No matter what — the government has NO RIGHT to stick its nose in this. Big Brother is watching you. A sad day for America.
The government has no right to try to stop an adulterous husband from having his wife murdered? Who are you kidding? I think we’ve reached the time for Governor Bush to call out the National Guard and save Terri’s life. Darth Greer has made a patently, absolutely, intrinsically evil ruling, which Governor Bush and everyone else is morally obligated to disobey. All that’s necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to stand by and do nothing.
Judge Greer ruling is not necessarily evil and applied them to the law. He was given a set of facts and he interpreted them. We may not agree with his interpretation just like we may not have agreed with the jury’s interpretation of the facts in the OJ Simpson case but that does not necessarily make the jurors evil.
I would wager that the law in nearly every state in the union interprets food and water as extrodinary care. What has the pro-life movement done about this in the state legislatures. Nothing. Instead they push the issue into federal court where a single ruling can make food and water = extrodinary care the unchangable law of the land. Just like ROE.
If nothing else maybe Terri’s death will get the pro-life movement off its a** to change the law regarding the provision of food and water in each of the states.
Greer is in contempt of Congress. He has violated the laws and constitution of the State of Flordia. Jeb has every right to order the Highway Patrol or the National Guard to rescue Terri Schiavo and arrest Greer.
DeLay has every right, and W. has every power, to order Federal Marshals to protect federal witness Terri Shiavo and throw Greer in irons for Contempt of Congress.
But they don’t.
They don’t seem to have the courage of their convictions. Jeb doesn’t seem willing (a guess) to endanger his political future to defend a human life. W. has no political future to defend, he is in his final term, but he still does not act.
Time for a party to replace the Republican Party, which replaced the Whigs.
Why would anyone want their daughter to exist in this state. Man is keeping her alive. God feels she should be dead. You rednecks would love Bush to be able to invade everyone’s life just like Hitler did. Guess what, if Bushie keeps this up, Hilary is going to win, because the country will see what an idiot and nazi wanna be he is. THe democtats will take back the country I guarantee. What has Bushie done except get us into a useless war, run up the deficit and help the rich. Family values my ass.
No one would want to be kept alive in this condition so why is everyone assuming she does. She is a vegetable and belongs in heaven. Why put her through this hell, even though she cannot feel a thing. Her parents are selfish. I would want God to have my child in this situation. If she hasn’t improved in 15 years, without her brain, what makes them think her brain is going to rebuild itself. Let her die in peace.
Karen Anderson was diagnosed with PVS and is now very glad that they put the feeding tube back — although she describes the starvation as painful.
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that no one would be kept alive like that?
I have found in most circumstances that it is easy to say you don’t want to have to go through this and that. However, when you find you are being starved to death, or facing death at all, that most peoples tendency would be to want to live. How many of us would want to go for a week or two with no water, or no food at all? I don’t care what condition we are in I am willing to bet that the need for survival would be greater than our condition. Especially when we are dying a slow death. I think what these judges have done is terribly wrong, and I personally am ashamed of this nation for it.
Lettie writes: “Why would anyone want their daughter to exist in this state. Man is keeping her alive. God feels she should be dead.”
Well, this is a new perspective. We don’t need to worry about world hunger any more; God wants those people dead! We’re just selfishly intervening when we feed the hungry, right?
If God “felt” she should be dead, she would be dead, period. Put God gave her the ability to breath, and her heart beats on its own. Man has been giving her food and water, until the courts ordered that to stop and the executive branch decided to listen.
“You rednecks would love Bush to be able to invade everyone’s life just like Hitler did.”
Actually, Hitler’s objective was to eliminate, in very torturous ways, people he deemed “undesirable” for society. Now Greer has ordered to eliminate, in a very torturous way, someone that Michael Schiavo and apparently many liberals deem “undesirable,” just as liberal eliiminate some 1 million “undesirable” babies every year.
People who recognize human beings as inherently valuable — not valuable based on their ability to perform certain functions or experience certain pleasures — see Terri as a person worth feeding. People who see human life’s value as being dependent on functionality or pleasure can’t fathom the benefit of keeping her alive.
What was Jesus’ response to the “undesirables”? Euthanasia? Or helping them as best he could? I’m thinking in particular of a paralyzed man who was brought to him through a ceiling.
It’s pretty clear to me which side of this battle Jesus would have been on, because he loved all people, not just the “desirables.” He’d have favored giving Terri every help available to her.
Tessie writes:
“No one would want to be kept alive in this condition so why is everyone assuming she does.
How odd that the last person to express this viewpoint also didn’t like to use question marks. One wonders if it isn’t the same writer, trying to pretend to have more people on his or or her side than is actually the case.
She is a vegetable and belongs in heaven. Why put her through this hell, even though she cannot feel a thing.
You’re contradicting yourself — how can she be going through hell if she cannot feel a thing? As for her being a vegetable, watch the videos of her at http://www.terrisfight.org. I’ve never seen a carrot laugh out loud or a cabbage follow an object with its eyes.
Her parents are selfish. I would want God to have my child in this situation. If she hasn’t improved in 15 years, without her brain, what makes them think her brain is going to rebuild itself.
Please do more research before forming opinions. As one of Terri’s nurses, Carla Sauer Iyer, testified in an affidavit, Michael Schiavo denied her any rehabilitation therapy. (http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/CIyerAffidavit090203.htm)
Let her die in peace.
Starvation and dehydration is not a peaceful way to die. Even though the New York Times runs quotes by experts claiming it is, that same paper ran a story on Dec. 2 about actual people dying of starvation while clutching their stomachs in pain.
If we are to disagree, pray let us at least be informed.
Private and government decisions interrelate. . . .
In Hitler’s Germany, the deaths began when Baby Knaier’s parents wrote to the government about the horror and the shame of having given birth to a “useless mouth” — retarded, blind, missing limbs.
That started the euthansia deaths. The first gas chambers were built to empty the lunatic asylums.
Again in the US, when Donald and Lori Watts were told that their daughter’s brain was developing outside her skull, they were told they had to have an abortion. They only got her medical attention by threatening to show up at the emergency room when Lori was in labor — and lawsuit-happy. The insurance company also pressured them.
Today is Good Friday, I am fasting, and I am quite hungry. But after all Terri Schiavo has been through, it seems like nothing. I keep thinking of Our Lord’s saying from the cross, “I thirst,” and how miserable it must be to experience that kind of thirst. I have also realized that if any of my kids ever announces again, “I’m starving to death!” I will have to, in the kindest possible way, respond, “No, Terri Schiavo was starved to death. You’re just hungry.” I’m not trying to jump the gun here, but I don’t think there’s going to be any eleventh-hour rescue for her. God have mercy on us all.
Just a factual point in response to some discussion above:
“Life-prolonging procedure” means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.
§ 765.101(10), Florida Statutes
That may be what Florida statute says, but it’s bogus and stupid.
In the first place, “artificially provided sustenance and hydration” is an artificial and essentially meaningless distinction. A tube is an “artificial” implement, but so is a fork or a spoon. A patient with a tube is more passive than a person feeding himself, but so is a patient being spoon-fed by another party. Is that “artificial”? Food is food; we all need it, and some of us need others to help us get it.
Secondly, to speak of nourishment “prolonging” life is to abuse language. No one would say that a mother nursing her baby was “prolonging” its life. To “prolong” something implies extending it, as it were, into overtime. Nourishment is an essential condition of life — all life. Terri is not dying from anything but starvation. The food was not “prolonging” her life — removing the food is cutting short her life.
You people are acting like this is a functioning human being. Unfortunately, she is a vegetable who lies in bed all day and has bed sores all over her body. I’m truly sorry that her parents think she would have insisted on continued medical treatment, but their arguments were not found to be credible, while the arguments that she would have refused medical treatment were found to be credible.
It’s a terrible situation, but that’s what it comes down to… people are trying to follow her wishes, as best as they can be discerned.
That *her* decision upsets her parents is sad, but it can’t be allowed to change her medical treatment.
On multiple occasions courts have determined by way of overwheling medical evidence that she has no hope of recovery. She is not simply in a coma from which she can awaken, nor can she re-learn normal motor functions. Her cereberal cortex is no longer functioning. This is not legally or medically in dispute.
Millions of people have their feeding tubes pulled every day and you never hear anything about it. This is political and the country knows it. Bush isn’t doing to well, and he thought this would dominate the news instead of the unemployment rate , the useless war in Iraq and his unpopular Social Security plans. What about the ongoing investigation on Tom Delay’s ethnics?But it is clear that the House majority leader is not above using the suffering of a woman he has never met to promote his own, increasingly shaky, political career.
The Texas Republican has gone so far as to suggest that Schiavo’s situation is a gift from God that he can use to defend himself against charges brought by his political enemies – enemies whom he all but calls, in an echo of a defensive Hillary Clinton some years ago, a vast left-wing conspiracy.
In remarks to a Washington meeting of the conservative Family Research Council last week, DeLay made it clear that his cause is God’s cause, and that those who oppose him oppose God.
Despite the fact that he was able to steamroller through Congress a particularly ill-advised piece of legislation that subverted federalism, the separation of powers and the privacy of medical decision-making, in order to make political hay out of the Schiavo case, DeLay wants the world to see him, too, as a victim.
But the ethical smell around DeLay continues to get worse. The newest scandal is that he accepted
expensive trips to England and South Korea paid for, in violation of House rules, by lobbyists. Those picking up the tab included registered foreign agents and domestic groups seeking to influence federal Indian gambling legislation.
Meanwhile, back in Texas, prosecutors have indicted three of DeLay’s associates on multiple charges of money laundering and taking illegal corporate contributions. If DeLay himself is indicted, he would automatically lose his leadership post.
Millions of people have their feeding tubes pulled every day and you never hear anything about it.
Since “millions” must mean at least two million, that means that every year at least 730 million people starve to death after having their tubes removed. That means that the entire population of the Earth is starved to death after having their tubes removed every nine or ten years. Very remarkable indeed that we never hear anything about it! What with dealing with the corpses, its a wonder the rest of us have time to breed a whole new 6 billion people every ten years!
Jimmy,
If all legal channels have been exhausted, does Gov. Bush become bound by the moral law to act outside the legal framework in order save Terri?
‘An unjust law is no law at all’ and all that?
If all legal channels have been exhausted, does Gov. Bush become bound by the moral law to act outside the legal framework in order save Terri?
When doing so has no chance of accomplishing anything more than keeping Terri alive for another two weeks and putting her through death via dehydration a third time? I would think not.