Schiavo widower forms privacy political action committee

[green lantern]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203369,00.html


DENVER — The man who last year won a bruising battle to disconnect his brain-damaged wife from a feeding tube is campaigning against government intrusion around the country.

snip


Schiavo came to Colorado on Wednesday to support Democratic candidates for the U.S. House, including Angie Paccione, who is challenging Rep. Marilyn Musgrave. Musgrave spoke last year on the floor of the House against allowing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube to be removed.

"I want to ask Marilyn Musgrave who gave her the right to speak about Terri," Schiavo said. "Who gave her the authority to bring Congress into my family decisions?"

 

[5stringJeff]

Who gave husbands permission to murder their wives?

 

[Avatar4321]

"I want to ask Marilyn Musgrave...tly you can say whatever you want about them.

 

[theHawk]

All she has to do is reply "Terri's parents did". But I supposed parents do not qualify as "family" to liberals. I guess husbands don't have the right to tell his woman if she can get abortions or not, but they do have the right to kill the woman.

 

[acludem]

I applaud Michael Schaivo. Terri Schaivo's body expired when the feeding tube was removed from it. Terri's spirit died the day she had her stroke. Machines kept her physical body functioning, but Terri stopped being alive long before her body was allowed to expire. The medical evidence from the autopsy bears this out.

Privacy is one of the most cherished righs of human kind. It's in our Constitution "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - Amendment IV

Congress had no business interfering in this case.

acludem

 

[acludem]

All she has to do is reply "Terri's parents did". But I supposed parents do not qualify as "family" to liberals. I guess husbands don't have the right to tell his woman if she can get abortions or not, but they do have the right to kill the woman.

I thought conservatives were for "sanctity of marriage". How can there be "sanctity" if parents are allowed to interfere everytime they don't like a spouse's decision about the others' medical care? Parent are absolutely family, but once you are married, they cease to be a decision-making force in your life. That falls to your spouse when you can't make decisions for yourself.

acludem

 

[Avatar4321]

I applaud Michael Schaivo. Terri Schaivo's body expired when the feeding tube was removed from it. Terri's spirit died the day she had her stroke. Machines kept her physical body functioning, but Terri stopped being alive long before her body was allowed to expire. The medical evidence from the autopsy bears this out.

Privacy is one of the most cherished righs of human kind. It's in our Constitution "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - Amendment IV

Congress had no business interfering in this case.

acludem

There is no "Right to privacy" in the constitution. There are certain provisions that protect privacy to some degree. But there is no right to privacy. There doesnt need to be one in the Constitution because the people have the power to change something if they dont like it.

The Fourth Amendment which you quote specifically states that government can interfere with a persons private life with probable cause. What greater cause is there than protecting someones life? Indeed, the courts have no right to take away someones life without due process of law. Something that was never given to Terry. Thus when Congress stepped in it was to fulfill their obligation to give Due Process to Terry. Yet despite Congressional action the Court still refused to give her the chance to protect her life in Court.

What sickens me is you would be the first person defending someone on death row or yelling about womens rights. Yet when the government orders a womans life terminated because her husband wants her dead so he can marry the woman he already has several kids with and there is serious questions about whether he caused her condition in the first plac, you are the first one to forgoe the death penalty and any rights this woman has to have her life protected.

This exactly why you and everything you stand for cannot be taken seriously. You claim to be such a great defender of "civil liberties" and womens rights yet the second it comes down to it you refuse to actually fight for either. All you care about is your political power and it doesnt matter what you have to pretend to support to get there. Its sick.

A government that does not protect the lives of its citizens is not worthy to exist.

 

[Avatar4321]

I thought conservatives were for "sanctity of marriage". How can there be "sanctity" if parents are allowed to interfere everytime they don't like a spouse's decision about the others' medical care? Parent are absolutely family, but once you are married, they cease to be a decision-making force in your life. That falls to your spouse when you can't make decisions for yourself.

acludem

The sanctity of marriage is pretty much gone when you want to kill your wife so you can marry the woman who borne your illegitimate children. Honoring the sanctity of marriage doesnt mean the spouse is allowed to murder them.

 

[theHawk]

I thought conservatives were for "sanctity of marriage". How can there be "sanctity" if parents are allowed to interfere everytime they don't like a spouse's decision about the others' medical care? Parent are absolutely family, but once you are married, they cease to be a decision-making force in your life. That falls to your spouse when you can't make decisions for yourself.

acludem

I agree to that, but in this case it looked like he may of had other motives. The government is supposed to be able to protect the civil liberties of all its citizens(even those ones that cannot speak) from those that would try to take them away(including spouses).

 

[CockySOB]

All she has to do is reply "Terri's parents did". But I supposed parents do not qualify as "family" to liberals. I guess husbands don't have the right to tell his woman if she can get abortions or not, but they do have the right to kill the woman.

Nothing like exposing another facet of librull hypocrisy....

 

[Mr. P]

No one had any business in this case except the family, starting with the husband, then parents etc..The husband, like it or not, called the shots, as he should have.

Don’t like it?
Dissolve the sanctity of marriage. You can’t have it both ways folks.

 

[GotZoom]

He's calling it TerriPAC.

Here is the webiste.

http://www.terripac.com/

He is selling his book on the webiste.

He is the Chairman. I wonder what he is paying himself.

It's all about the benjamins. Nothing more.

 

[red states rule]

I thought conservatives were for "sanctity of marriage". How can there be "sanctity" if parents are allowed to interfere everytime they don't like a spouse's decision about the others' medical care? Parent are absolutely family, but once you are married, they cease to be a decision-making force in your life. That falls to your spouse when you can't make decisions for yourself.

acludem

First libs have no problem murdering unborn babies, now they have no problem murdering the handicaped

Who is next on the liberal hit list?

 

[Hobbit]

Let's look at what we knew at the time. From what was seen, nobody knew if Terri was really fully brain dead until her autopsy. Michael refused to allow another doctor to even look at her. He also used his lawsuit money, which he vowed to spend on her treatment, to hire lawyers to have her killed. There was also no record of what Terri actually wanted, only Michael's word...which didn't come out for the first time until after he met a pro-euthenasia lawyer. My great-grandmother died 3 years ago. If I came out today and said that she said that I was supposed to inherit all her stuff, how much water do you think that would hold? Then there's the fact that she was given painkillers, something no truly brain dead person should need.

No matter what you think of the sanctity of marriage, no person, by law, may consent to being killed, only by dieing due to lack of resuscitation. Food is not resuscitation, or anybody could get away with starving their infant children.

Even given the above issues, the whole thing was treated as a privacy issue with human rights concerns (if that) rather than a human rights issue with privacy concerns, as it should have been.

 

[acludem]

First libs have no problem murdering unborn babies, now they have no problem murdering the handicaped

Who is next on the liberal hit list?

I take great exception to this as my father is a person with a disability (he has a spinal cord injury and is paralyzed from the chest down). I dont' want to rehash the entire Terri Schaivo debate, it's been done. However, I find it interesting that conservatives talk about being pro-life and then want to make it as easy as possible to execute someone convicted of a crime, even if there is evidence that they didn't do it.

acludem

 

[red states rule]

I take great exception to this as my father is a person with a disability (he has a spinal cord injury and is paralyzed from the chest down). I dont' want to rehash the entire Terri Schaivo debate, it's been done. However, I find it interesting that conservatives talk about being pro-life and then want to make it as easy as possible to execute someone convicted of a crime, even if there is evidence that they didn't do it.

acludem

Name the case you are talking about

 

[acludem]

This site has 182 cases of people who nearly were wrongly convicted, and some cases nearly murdered, by the state for crimes they didn't commit: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

acludem

 

[Avatar4321]

This site has 182 cases of people who nearly were wrongly convicted, and some cases nearly murdered, by the state for crimes they didn't commit: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

acludem

And you know what, the system worked and got them released. What do you know?

Meanwhile those who deserved to be put to death have been.

You guys are such hypocrites. You have no problem with a woman killing her child. You have no problem with a husband killing his handicap wife so he can marry his mistress. Both without due process. But you cant stand that guilty criminals might actually be put to death after being given due process of law.

Its things like these that really bug me about the left.

 

[red states rule]

And you know what, the system worked and got them released. What do you know?

Meanwhile those who deserved to be put to death have been.

You guys are such hypocrites. You have no problem with a woman killing her child. You have no problem with a husband killing his handicap wife so he can marry his mistress. Both without due process. But you cant stand that guilty criminals might actually be put to death after being given due process of law.

Its things like these that really bug me about the left.

I remember years ago, TIME had a cover that read :This Man Is To Be Executed - He May Be Innocent (they had a picture of a man in the electric chair)

I do not recall the slimeballs name, but in Virginia he raped and murdered his sister in law

The libs were all in a tizzy defending him. He was put put in the electric chair and fried anyway.

A few months ago DNA proved he was guilty.

Time did not run the story nor a retraction of its cover

With DNA I do not see how innocent people can be put to death for capital crimes

Unless the left wants to say the lab techs are racist or biased

 

[Gunny]

I take great exception to this as my father is a person with a disability (he has a spinal cord injury and is paralyzed from the chest down). I dont' want to rehash the entire Terri Schaivo debate, it's been done. However, I find it interesting that conservatives talk about being pro-life and then want to make it as easy as possible to execute someone convicted of a crime, even if there is evidence that they didn't do it.

acludem

What exactly is there for YOU to take exception to? The facts speak for themselves. You lefties are more than willing to play God when it comes to the indigent and/or anyone else that cannot defend itself (unborn human beings); yet, you want to whine about the penalty for some crimes being the forfeture of the right to life.

At least those criminals have a choice, and a say in the matter. They make a choice to commit the crime(s).

Indigent people and unborn children cannot speak for themselves and are in circumstances they have no control, nor even a say over.

The difference is "choice," something you lefties calim to be all for.