George W., Jeb, Congress: Guilty of Crimes of Compassion?

Adam's Apple

Senior Member
Apr 25, 2004
4,092
449
48
Crimes of Compassion
By Kathleen Parker, The Orlando Sentinel
March 27, 2005

You can call Congress' intervention in the Schiavo case political maneuvering if you please. Strong arguments can be made without much strain. But we might also see these events as trying to negotiate a deeply divisive and explicitly life-altering issue. Whatever one's verdict, we've all learned something true from the case. We're out of our league when we try to play God.

We might also conclude that what we've witnessed wasn't mere politics, but a clash of worldviews. That clash posed as a question that will haunt our debate for some time: Whose life is it anyway?

Is life strictly one's own to be embraced or disposed of as circumstances, convenience or pride dictate? And in the absence of autonomous life -- whether that of a fetus or a disabled person -- something to be disposed of by others?

Or is life a gift from the divine, as many faiths maintain? And how do we create laws to protect life if we cannot even agree on a definition of what life is?

I do not pretend to have the answers, but the debate seems worthy of our attention, even if politicians sometimes benefit.

For full article
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edparker27032705mar27,1,6759543.c
 
Adam's Apple said:
Crimes of Compassion
By Kathleen Parker, The Orlando Sentinel
March 27, 2005

You can call Congress' intervention in the Schiavo case political maneuvering if you please. Strong arguments can be made without much strain. But we might also see these events as trying to negotiate a deeply divisive and explicitly life-altering issue. Whatever one's verdict, we've all learned something true from the case. We're out of our league when we try to play God.

We might also conclude that what we've witnessed wasn't mere politics, but a clash of worldviews. That clash posed as a question that will haunt our debate for some time: Whose life is it anyway?

Is life strictly one's own to be embraced or disposed of as circumstances, convenience or pride dictate? And in the absence of autonomous life -- whether that of a fetus or a disabled person -- something to be disposed of by others?

Or is life a gift from the divine, as many faiths maintain? And how do we create laws to protect life if we cannot even agree on a definition of what life is?

I do not pretend to have the answers, but the debate seems worthy of our attention, even if politicians sometimes benefit.

For full article
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edparker27032705mar27,1,6759543.c

I can agree with that. I think Jeb was only trying to use powers that he thought were available to him, no problem there.

GW I think too was driven by compassion, totally understandable and correct from his religious point of view. Problem for me though is that as the practical leader of the GOP he encouraged action by Congressional leaders that overstep onto Florida's state's rights. That was my problem with this case.
 
Kathianne said:
I can agree with that. I think Jeb was only trying to use powers that he thought were available to him, no problem there.

GW I think too was driven by compassion, totally understandable and correct from his religious point of view. Problem for me though is that as the practical leader of the GOP he encouraged action by Congressional leaders that overstep onto Florida's state's rights. That was my problem with this case.
Congress certainly would be in their rights and responsibilities to say "no" to the president. They have no problem whatsoever sayinn no to him on a multitude of other requeests he has made. If they had refused, federal intervention would have ended there. Apparently 2 of the 3 branches of government felt thye had the right AND obligation to ask the judicial branch to take a closer look. They certainly didn't demand that the judges change any decisions.
 
When the election was tallied it was considered among many things that got W elected to be morals and the country's specific fears or reafirmation that they wanted morality back in government. I think we can agree on that.
What I find most hypocritical is now that Republicans, some Democrats, and the President actually put their asses on the line in this case to make a stand for life and morality it is many in the religious sect that are now castigating them for doing so, and stupidly giving the anti christian left more amunition and solace to further degrade human life and religious people in general.

So maybe we as a country don't really deserve a moral government, a moral President, and Congress?????
 
Bonnie said:
When the election was tallied it was considered among many things that got W elected to be morals and the country's specific fears or reafirmation that they wanted morality back in government. I think we can agree on that.
What I find most hypocritical is now that Republicans, some Democrats, and the President actually put their asses on the line in this case to make a stand for life and morality it is many in the religious sect that are now castigating them for doing so, and stupidly giving the anti christian left more amunition and solace to further degrade human life and religious people in general.

So maybe we as a country don't really deserve a moral government, a moral President, and Congress?????


Morality yes, overstepping the Constitution, no. Especially the argument that is the best one for overturning Roe.
 
Kathianne said:
Morality yes, overstepping the Constitution, no. Especially the argument that is the best one for overturning Roe.

I do understand your point, but Im still not clear on exactly how this was overstepping the Constitution, and I have yet to hear one expert on this actually say that's what happened? I hear them say it was an unusual step but never an unconstitutional one. Is this clear and cut or is it more a semantics debate???
 
Adam's Apple said:
Crimes of Compassion
By Kathleen Parker, The Orlando Sentinel
March 27, 2005

You can call Congress' intervention in the Schiavo case political maneuvering if you please. Strong arguments can be made without much strain. But we might also see these events as trying to negotiate a deeply divisive and explicitly life-altering issue. Whatever one's verdict, we've all learned something true from the case. We're out of our league when we try to play God.

We might also conclude that what we've witnessed wasn't mere politics, but a clash of worldviews. That clash posed as a question that will haunt our debate for some time: Whose life is it anyway?

Is life strictly one's own to be embraced or disposed of as circumstances, convenience or pride dictate? And in the absence of autonomous life -- whether that of a fetus or a disabled person -- something to be disposed of by others?

Or is life a gift from the divine, as many faiths maintain? And how do we create laws to protect life if we cannot even agree on a definition of what life is?

I do not pretend to have the answers, but the debate seems worthy of our attention, even if politicians sometimes benefit.

For full article
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edparker27032705mar27,1,6759543.c

How an innocent citizen's life can even be "up for debate" is taking a ride down the slippery slope to a culture of death which this idiotic (or deliberate?) media person is doing with her pretension to "not have the answers".

The answer is very clearly stated in the Constitution where it says every citizen has a right to life.
 
Bonnie said:
I do understand your point, but Im still not clear on exactly how this was overstepping the Constitution, and I have yet to hear one expert on this actually say that's what happened? I hear them say it was an unusual step but never an unconstitutional one. Is this clear and cut or is it more a semantics debate???


Whether or not they managed to 'get around' the constitutionality issue, I am unsure. From my understanding they were not asking the Feds to look at 'facts,' but rather the 'totality of the case' in a fresh perspective, though they botched the wording and the Fed Judiciary did say, 'due process was received.' It still was an attempted end run against a state decision on a state matter. They didn't like the outcome, so they wanted a new game at a higher level. I didn't like the outcome either, but felt the fight needed to be made to the FL legislature-whether for new law, something that would allow Jeb or DCFS, whatever to intervene-on the state level. Instead everyone was fighting for camera time, Washington is where all the cameras are.

Kind of like you lose the regionals and say, too bad I want the nationals. No way.

I hope the 11th gives some relief, as the cat is already out of the bad. I hope if they do, she isn't too far gone to do some good. I just think the GOP is going to have to acknowledge that they messed up, especially if ROE review becomes possible.
 
Kathianne said:
Whether or not they managed to 'get around' the constitutionality issue, I am unsure. From my understanding they were not asking the Feds to look at 'facts,' but rather the 'totality of the case' in a fresh perspective, though they botched the wording and the Fed Judiciary did say, 'due process was received.' It still was an attempted end run against a state decision on a state matter. They didn't like the outcome, so they wanted a new game at a higher level. I didn't like the outcome either, but felt the fight needed to be made to the FL legislature-whether for new law, something that would allow Jeb or DCFS, whatever to intervene-on the state level. Instead everyone was fighting for camera time, Washington is where all the cameras are.

Kind of like you lose the regionals and say, too bad I want the nationals. No way.

I hope the 11th gives some relief, as the cat is already out of the bad. I hope if they do, she isn't too far gone to do some good. I just think the GOP is going to have to acknowledge that they messed up, especially if ROE review becomes possible.

I do have to agree that Jeb never should have asked Greer's permission for the DCFS to just step in and take her which, I believe they had jurisdiction to do, and did not need Greer's permission. By Jeb doing that he backed himself into a corner leaving no recourse. It seems mistakes were made in key places that have let Terri and her family down. Very unfortunate!
 
Kathianne said:
Whether or not they managed to 'get around' the constitutionality issue, I am unsure. From my understanding they were not asking the Feds to look at 'facts,' but rather the 'totality of the case' in a fresh perspective, though they botched the wording and the Fed Judiciary did say, 'due process was received.' It still was an attempted end run against a state decision on a state matter. They didn't like the outcome, so they wanted a new game at a higher level. I didn't like the outcome either, but felt the fight needed to be made to the FL legislature-whether for new law, something that would allow Jeb or DCFS, whatever to intervene-on the state level. Instead everyone was fighting for camera time, Washington is where all the cameras are.

Kind of like you lose the regionals and say, too bad I want the nationals. No way.

I hope the 11th gives some relief, as the cat is already out of the bad. I hope if they do, she isn't too far gone to do some good. I just think the GOP is going to have to acknowledge that they messed up, especially if ROE review becomes possible.

You're saying a woman is dying of thirst because "they botched the wording"?

Isn't it is more the case of a judge thumbing his nose at the legislative and executive branches?
 
Bonnie said:
I do have to agree that Jeb never should have asked Greer's permission for the DCFS to just step in and take her which, I believe they had jurisdiction to do, and did not need Greer's permission. By Jeb doing that he backed himself into a corner leaving no recourse. It seems mistakes were made in key places that have let Terri and her family down. Very unfortunate!


Bonnie, all of that I agree with! I also agree that Terri's parents were outlawyered, Michael had the $. I think he is a sleeze, but not sure about anything else. I just hope the parents get some peace, Terri will either get relief or be with her God, either way, she'll be ok. I think what has happened has been barbaric.
 
I still want to get one thing straight here----the parents ASKED for the government to get involved and are RELYING on the media for help.
 
ScreamingEagle said:
You're saying a woman is dying of thirst because "they botched the wording"?

Isn't it is more the case of a judge thumbing his nose at the legislative and executive branches?

I never believed they should have been involved in the first place. It should have all been done at the state level.
 
Kathianne said:
I never believed they should have been involved in the first place. It should have all been done at the state level.
Maybe, but some politicians wanted to keep their jobs and others wanted to fight for what they thought was morally right.
 
dilloduck said:
I still want to get one thing straight here----the parents ASKED for the government to get involved and are RELYING on the media for help.

Yes, the family went to Washington and met with congressional and Senate leaders becasue they were depserate to have a new trial which would include all the evidence left out by Greer some eight years ago and which was just then rubber stamped through the State court system specifically by the same judges who got the same case over and over and never saw all the evidence in the case. Which is why it's so frustrating to many, when they hear she got her due process, she did not, the same case was just bounced back and forth to the same judges over and over again.
 
Bonnie said:
Yes, the family went to Washington and met with congressional and Senate leaders becasue they were depserate to have a new trial which would include all the evidence left out by Greer some eight years ago and which was just then rubber stamped through the State court system specifically by the same judges who got the same case over and over and never saw all the evidence in the case. Which is why it's so frustrating to many, when they hear she got her due process, she did not, the same case was just bounced back and forth to the same judges over and over again.

I don't blame the family at all, I would do the same probably, under those circumstances. From all I've heard and read, I think Greer did leave stuff out, but has not been overturned though appealed very many times.

Bottom line, the judicial system is far from perfect, though I don't know any that are as good or better.
 
Kathianne said:
I don't blame the family at all, I would do the same probably, under those circumstances. From all I've heard and read, I think Greer did leave stuff out, but has not been overturned though appealed very many times.

Bottom line, the judicial system is far from perfect, though I don't know any that are as good or better.

I think they're just trying to plugs some holes quickly here before the lady starves to death---not recreate the whole system in one day.
 
Kathianne said:
I never believed they should have been involved in the first place. It should have all been done at the state level.

I agree with you - until a person's Constitutional right to life is at stake - why shouldn't they be able to take it to the Federal level? (murderers do) Not to mention that the state of Florida seems to be one big mess with all kinds of innocents being killed there due to a dysfunctional system. Should they just be allowed to take an innocent life when there is an outstanding appeal?

ps: why were they in such a hurry to end her life anyway? A few more court sessions weren't going to hurt anybody.
 
ScreamingEagle said:
I agree with you - until a person's Constitutional right to life is at stake - why shouldn't they be able to take it to the Federal level? (murderers do) Not to mention that the state of Florida seems to be one big mess with all kinds of innocents being killed there due to a dysfunctional system. Should they just be allowed to take an innocent life when there is an outstanding appeal?

I may be wrong, but until the feds had stepped in, I thought all appeals had been rendered, then the family started pouring them on. They could have dragged this on forever and ever, filing for new hearings, then being turned down. In actuality, that is what we watched happen, first at the state level, then at the fed.

A long time ago, when Terri's law was found unconstitutional, they should have been working with the state legislature to hammer out a law that would work. As Bonnie suggested, the governor or DCFS should have been looking for ways they could have taken control.
 
This is really long...but there are so many links to bonafide sources and I think it was done pretty even-handedly. I was just going to put up the link, but I fear many would 'cherry pick':

http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2005_03_27.PHP#003655

*** Note: There's an enormous amount of conflicting information floating around about the Terri Schiavo case. So in an effort to clarify some of the particularly controversial points, I took the time to do some heavy research.

While I have a very strong opinion about this case, I consulted numerous sources on both sides of the issue & tried to be as fair and balanced as possible. ***

When and how was Terri Schiavo injured? On February 25, 1990 Terri Schiavo collapsed. There is controversy over what happened.

The theory most often bandied about is that Terri had bulimia which led to a potassium imbalance, which in turn led to a heart attack. The malpractice suit that Michael Schiavo won was based on this diagnosis. That fact that Terri lost a large amount of weight in the months before her attack contributes to the credibility of this theory.

On the other hand, the Schindlers have speculated that Michael Schiavo may have caused Terri's injuries by trying to strangle her and neurologist William Hammesfahr, who has worked with the Schindlers on this case has denied that Terri had a heart attack:

"In the Emergency Room, a possible diagnosis of heart attack was briefly entertained, but then dismissed after blood chemistries and serial EKG's did not show evidence of a heart attack."

Personally, I find it a little hard to believe that Michael Schiavo could win a malpractice suit that turns on his wife having a heart attack if the hospital denied that she had one. So while there are certainly differing opinions on this issue, I'd have to lean towards the more popular explanation for her injury.

------

Was Terri Schiavo beaten by her husband? Here's an adequate summary of the allegations & Michael Schiavo's response by Newsmax:

"A March 1991 bone scan performed on Mrs. Schiavo showed evidence of "compression fractures" to her back, ribs, legs and ankles. Prior to being found unconscious in her St. Petersburg apartment the year before, Schiavo had not broken any bones, her friends say.

Jackie Rhodes, who worked with Terri at a local insurance office, said she often showed up at work with noticeable bruises - but never complained of being hit.

"They were smaller bruises, like maybe someone had grabbed her or, you know, like, squeezed her arm or leg really tight," Rhodes told Fox News Channel last week, adding that the couple were planning to divorce.

During a 2002 court hearing, Michael Schiavo took issue with allegations that he abused his wife prior to the accident that ended her normal life.

"I've never, ever struck a woman, especially my wife," he insisted, in quotes picked up by the Tampa Tribune. "I was raised better than that."

Mr. Schiavo blamed physical therapists for Terri's injuries, saying that doctors who performed the 1991 bone scan knew that bone loss caused by her paralysis made her susceptible to injury during the therapy sessions.

He called the abuse allegations "utterly ridiculous."

You can take a look at the actual bone scan here.

Here's more on the spousal abuse claim from WorldNetDaily:

"In testimony given during the 2000 trial, Terri's girlfriend and co-worker said Terri discussed getting a divorce and moving in with her. She also testified that the couple had a violent argument on the day of Terri's collapse, which prompted her to urge Terri to not stay at home that night – a suggestion Terri disregarded.

"There are only two people who know what happened that night that she collapsed. And one of them is trying to kill the other who is too disabled to speak," (the Schindler's lawyer Pat Anderson) told WND at the commencement of the trial last month.

While it is certainly understandable that this might raise suspicions, without further corroborating evidence like police reports, hospital visits prior to February 25, 1990, or perhaps friends who claim Terri Schiavo told them she had been physically abused, it seems a bit irresponsible to carelessly toss around wife-beating allegations at this point.

------

Did Michael Schiavo provide rehabilitation for his wife? Initially, by all accounts, Michael Schiavo did provide rehabilitation for his wife. However, there is debate about how long the therapy was continued.

According to the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation:

"Terri hasn't had meaningful therapy since 1991, but many credible physicians say she can benefit from it."

On the other hand, according to the Kansas City Star:

"Terri underwent more than three years of rehabilitative therapy after her collapse in 1990."

Whatever the case may be, serious attempts at rehabilitation don't appear to have been made in over a decade.

------

Has Michael Schiavo dated other women since his wife's injuries? Yes. In a late 1993 deposition, Michael Schiavo admitted that he had engaged in 2 intimate, romantic relationships with women other than his wife. Assuming those were the only two relationships he had, and given their length (3 & 8 months), he must have begun dating a little less than two years after Terri's injury.

Here's another interesting snippet from that same November 1993 deposition that some people might find telling. The answers here are being provided by Michael Schiavo:

Question: What did you do with your wife's jewelry?

Answer: My wife's jewelry?

Question: Yeah.

Answer: Um, I think I took her engagement ring and her -- what do they call it -- diamond wedding band and made a ring for myself.

Question: Okay. Anything else? Did you make any other jewelry for yourself?

Answer: No, just that.

Question: What did you do with her cats?

Answer: Her cats were put to sleep on the advice of my mother-in-law.

Currently, Michael Schiavo lives with his fiance, Jodi Centonze. They've lived together for a decade and have had two children together.

------

What happened to cause the split between Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers? At first, the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo got along extremely well:

"They moved in together after Terri's collapse in February 1990, and Michael called the Schindlers ''Mom and Dad.'' A year later, the Schindlers encouraged their son-in-law to get on with his life and date. They even met some of the women he saw (*** Note: The Guardian Ad Litem report also confirms the Schindlers encouraged Michael to date ***).

''I looked at that as maybe he was starting to take a step in the right direction and get his life back together,'' Bob Schindler said in a 1993 deposition. ``He's still a young man. He still has a life ahead of him.''

But things changed in early 1993 and they had a bitter falling out over the money won in the malpractice suit and Terri's rehabilitation:

"Michael initially expected a multimillion-dollar award, and the Schindlers said he promised them a share, which would enable them to care for Terri at home.

By then, the Schindlers were almost broke. After selling his share of a successful industrial equipment company, Bob Schindler lost his savings in a Florida business venture that went sour. The couple declared bankruptcy in 1989, Bob Schindler testified. He told a court that Michael Schiavo promised to help.

But Michael said he never committed to sharing any award money with the Schindlers, especially when the award ended up being far smaller than hoped. Roughly $700,000 was earmarked for a trust fund for Terri, and $300,000 for Michael.

The Schindlers still expected part of Michael's share to help care for Terri. On Valentine's Day 1993, they confronted Michael in Terri's hospital room. The discussion quickly turned ugly. Michael said the Schindlers demanded the money, so he lied and said he did not have it. Disgusted, the Schindlers left, their trust in Michael irrevocably breached.

''The fact that he was going back on his word upset me,'' Bob Schindler testified in 1993. ``I was devastated.''

Michael soon began believing doctors who told him that Terri had effectively died in 1990. In a 1993 deposition, he testified that Terri had said she would never want to live by artificial means. He imposed a ''do not resuscitate'' order. Hospice staff challenged the order's legality, so he reversed it.

From that point on, Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers became bitter enemies.

------

Did Terri Schiavo say she wanted to die if she were in this condition? This is one of the primary points of contention in this case and with good reason.

Initially, as mentioned earlier, Michael did provide rehabilitation for his wife. Furthermore, in late 1992, Michael Schiavo said the following during testimony given in his medical malpractice suit:

"I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."

But, in 1993 (Note: this is after Michael Schiavo had already started dating other women and received over a million dollars from the settlement of the medical malpractice suit), his attitude changed rather dramatically.

Michael Schiavo admitted in a November of 1993 deposition that earlier in the year, he had requested that doctors not treat a urinary tract infection that was potentially fatal to Terri. The doctors were not able to comply with Michael's request because it would have been illegal.

According to the The Times Leader, Michael Schiavo first claimed that Terri had told him she wouldn't want to live at this point, but most other sources that I've seen point to that information first being revealed in 1998.

In 1998, Michael said that while watching a movie, Terri had once opined that she wouldn't want to live if she were ever in a coma. Michael's older brother, Scott Schiavo, and Michael's sister-in-law, Joan Schiavo also claimed Terri had a similar conversation with them after a funeral.

On the other hand, one of Terri's friends, Diane Meyer, had a very different story to tell:

"Diane Meyer can recall only one time that her best friend, Terri Schiavo, really got angry with her. It was in 1981, and it haunts her still.

The recent high school graduates had just seen a television movie about Karen Ann Quinlan, who had been in a coma since collapsing six years earlier and was the subject of a bitter court battle over her parents' decision to take her off a respirator. Meyer says she told a cruel joke about Quinlan, and it set Terri off.

"She went down my throat about this joke, that it was inappropriate," Meyer says. She remembers Terri saying she wondered how the doctors and lawyers could possibly know what Quinlan was really feeling or what she would want.

"Where there's life," Meyer recalls her saying, "there's hope."

Added to that is the testimony of Terri's court appointed guardian, Richard Pearse:

"Pearse said he was troubled by the fact that Michael waited until 1998 to petition to remove the feeding tube, even though he claims to have known her wishes all along, and that he waited until he won a malpractice suit based on a professed desire to take care of her into old age. As her husband, Michael would inherit what is left of her malpractice award, originally $700,000, which is held in a trust fund administered by the court. Accounting of the fund is sealed. But Michael's lawyer, George Felos, said most of it has been spent on legal fees associated with the custody dispute.

Pearse also said he did not find Joan and Scott Schiavo's testimony credible."

Believe it or not, there's even more:

The Schindlers had contacted a woman Michael dated in 1991 who told them Michael had confessed to her he did not know what Terri would want. Although the woman refused to sign an affidavit, it bought the Schindlers some time. And with it, they found Trudy Capone.

A former co-worker of Michael's, Capone signed an affidavit on May 9, 2001, stating "Michael confided in me all the time about Terri ... He said to me many times that he had no idea what her wishes were."

Despite the rather large amount of conflicting evidence, Judge Greer ruled in Michael Schiavo's favor on the issue.

------

Is Terri Schiavo in a persistent vegetative state? This is of course, the key issue in the case because if Terri Schiavo is judged to be in a PVS, she can be legally denied food and water. On the other hand, if the diagnosis is that she's minimally conscious, the law requires that she be given food and water no matter what the wishes of her guardian may be.

There's also quite a bit of controversy over what her condition actually is and with good reason.

According to the New York Times:

"At least six neurologists have examined Ms. Schiavo, and in affidavits or testimony four of them agreed that she was in a persistent vegetative state and highly unlikely to recover."

The flip side of this argument is that there are many qualified experts who disagree with that diagnosis. Florida neurologist William Hammesfahr & neurologist William Cheshire of the Mayo Clinic have gotten the most attention in the last week, but based on the videos that have been made public, 33 physicians (including 15 board-certified neurologists) have signed affidavits stating that Terri's condition should be reevaluated.

Combine those conflicting diagnoses with the fact that Terri Schiavo has never had a MRI or a PET and the fact that the error rate in diagnosing PVS has been reported to be as high as "43 percent," and it's clear that there is still more than a little room for doubt about her true condition.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top