Well, it looks to me like the Dems have decided that their obstructionism extends to obstructing the protection of life. They truly are the party of death. In addition to the elected dems, you also have Oliver Willis and the other Lefties calling for her death.

St Wendeler
Another Rovian Conspiracy

Sad that a family tragedy attracts such nauseating political gamesmanship from both sides.The best evidence has been presented in court and the husband has been empowered to make the decisions. It's one thing to say that life should never be taken...I could respect that view even if I disagree with it. Transferring this matter to a Federal court for more review is cynical at best.

Easy for you to say, Mike: it's not your daughter.

Mr. Adamson: You say "Transferring this matter to a Federal court for more review is cynical at best."

When the convicted rapist/murderer of a young girl has his case transferred to a Federal court for review (and endless appeals) will that be cynical?

ABC News obtained talking points circulated among Senate Republicans explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them, that it is an important moral issue and the "pro-life base will be excited," and that it is a "great political issue — this is a tough issue for Democrats."

According to an ABC News poll released earlier this week, 87 percent of those surveyed said they would not want to be kept alive if in Terri Schiavo's condition, and 65 percent said a spouse should have the final say in what happens to a patient, as opposed to parents.

Sorry Mike,

This is all the manipulation of the Republicans for political gain!

And tell me Paul, when are you going to start calling the overwhelming majority of Americans, killers?

How low can you stoop?

Disgusting.

Wow, unreal...

The repercussions of the "Dems" winning this battle and allowing, nay, FORCING Terri's murder could be extreme.

And they should be.

Thanks for liveblogging this, I'm really disappointed in Charles Johnson and LGF for avoiding this whole issue... it could set a precedent that we *really* don't want set.

I am sorry, but if a man takes up with another woman, and makes babies with her, he no longer is in a position to make life and death situations, especially when he stands to get a lot of money.

The civil rights issue in this case is her right to live and the fact that she hasn't ever had any type of continuous representation. And the GAL in the case actually recomended against removing the tube.

Terri is no longer a person to the people who want her to die, and it makes me cringe to think at what point they will start deciding who else among the disabled shouldn't get to live either.

Paul, your rhetoric here is *really* obnoxious. It's entirely possible to have a principled position on this -- for example, Jonah Goldberg's federalism objection. I think Jonah's 100% right.

I agree with you that abortion is the ulterior motive in many minds and I assure you that if I were a member of the Fla. state legislature I'd have sided with the pro-life camp. But to say that a legislative action that subordinates human life to some other interest is tantamount to murder is as lame as Oliver Willis dismissing the Iraq war and its supporters as "filthy" because of the number of U.S. troops killed in action. (Query: Does Willis, who, if memory serves, backed the war in Afghanistan to the hilt, consider himself responsible for Pat Tillman's death? An issue for another thread, I guess.) Long story short, you're demagoguing this issue big time.

[Paul Replying to Allah] Ok then why is the Dems always are on the side of death? I'm not being a smart ass... It is a legitimate question. You say: "But to say that a legislative action that subordinates human life to some other interest is tantamount to murder is as lame I NEVER called it murder. Here is why I disagree with this point.... This is NOT a right to die issue... This is an issue where one human being is going to actively take an action to kill another. I don't care which side of the issue you are on... They want her killed, not allowed to die That is a fact not just me being a demigod er uh demagog.

Note also that I never got involved until the Dems tried to play procedural games... see previous posts.

Hold the phone:

DRUDGE RADIO to present audio of Terri Schiavo responding to her father on Friday, immediately following the removal of her feeding tube.... Check local listings...

Word is that she mouthed a strained "no" when told that they were going to remove the tube.

This woman is NOT in a PVS. Too much evidence to the contrary.

By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.

SHE IS NOT BEING KILLED - SO CUT THE CRAP!!!

Cindy

Gee Cindy, what a compelling argument.

also she is not being starved to death either.

FOR ALL THOSE OF YOU WHO DO NOT KNOW WHAT BRAIN DEATH, VEGETATIVE STATE AND BRAIN STEM DEATH IS, CONTACT ME. I'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS PERSOLLY MYSELF AND IF THEY REINSERT THAT FEEDING TUBE AGAIN, THEY ARE DOING HER AND UNJUSTICE.

SO GROW UP PEOPLE AND LEARN THE LEGALITIES OF THE TERMS - IT'S BEEN 20 YEARS TOO LATE.

Cindy

Well, it looks to me like the Dems have decided that their obstructionism extends to obstructing the protection of life

Are you kidding? Bush created a law in Texas that states feeding tubes MUST be removed from people in the same condition if they don't have the means to pay for it.

And, how is the party of small government actually backing INTERVENING into a one human's life by creating a law that goes against their express wishes. They subpoenaed a brain dead woman. Seriously. Usually I can buy the stupid blind party following, but this is too far.

I have thought a great deal about this case. Based on the facts as I know them I likely would transfer guardianship to the parents were I in the husband's place. I would do so based on the knowledge that my wife has no environmental awareness and thus would feel neither happy nor sad should her life end today. Her parents are clearly distressed and that distress would outweigh whatever promise or "indication" I gave my wife before the tragedy occurred.

I'm not in his place though and he has to do what he thinks best. What I resent is the misappropriation of her case for political/ideological considerations and its this misappropriation that turns people off of the political process.

As a member of the "right" I find myself on the "other side" on this issue.

I just don't see it. She's simply not going to recover. All she is doing is placing an emotional and financial strain upon her husband and those around her (even those trying to keep her alive are emotional invested in the issue) and death will bring about closure and allow all the parties involved a chance to grieve and more importantly to move on.

Given that it is possible that it is her wish not to be kept alive, I see no harm in allowing her to die. Further, I see a great deal of harm in the government forcing her to live.

I'm an avid motorcyclist and I have a DNR that I carry with me in my wallet (and a copy in my helmet) that says if I'm going to end up a vegetable, don't bring me back. My wife is also aware of my wishes, and should anything happen to me and my DNR's become lost I would fully expect her to be believed.

I have a good life insurance policy (I've often joked that I'm worth more to my family dead than I am alive) that will set up trust funds for my wife and my children in the advent of my death.

I would never wish the emotional and financial burned upon my family of having to keep me alive. My larger concern is that if the government does get involved suddenly the insurance company can claim my DNR is "murder or suicide" and not have to pay on my policy further contributing to my families difficulties.

I want the right to die when my brain does, and not be trapped in some parasitical state.

"SHE IS NOT BEING KILLED - SO CUT THE CRAP!!!"

Cindy

No, she is being denied life.

Looks like DU sent a bus load of trolls over here. Yuk!

Allah- good to see you-- I was so happy I put my reply in your post.

She is not in a PVS, that has never been established, nor is she "brain dead". She smiles, eats, has demonstrated congitive function, and according to a broadcast tonight, she actually mouthed "no" as they were pulling the tube.

Enough for a recount. Case closed.

Shortly after saying his determination to end Terri's life was about her wishes, Schiavo changed his story in the King interview. Asked if he understood her family's feelings, he said: "Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want. ..."

hmmmm, changed his story, "We didn't know what Terry wanted"....

Here's what Jonah Goldberg really said:

"I have to say I'm disgusted with the faux moral outrage from liberals who are stunned by the idea that the federal government might get involved in issues like this. This is the party which danced a jig over the Violence Against Women Act and which has defined a vast swath of its political raison d'etre around the idea that the federal government should jealously guard the right to abortion and the right to appeal a death sentence in federal courts. And it is now scandalized that the Republican Party is trying to prevent a state court from killing a woman. It's okay for Washington to meddle when a husband slaps his wife, but it's outrageous when Washington tries to stop a husband from killing his wife? It's mandatory that a federal judge make sure a minority isn't passed-over for a promotion, but it's a rejection of the rule of law for a federal judge to make sure that a woman isn't wrongfully starved to death? Thanks to the hard work of Democrats states can't set their own drinking age or voting age, but suddenly state judges should be The Word of God when it comes to slowly killing citizens. I don't get it."

I don't get it either. Rape and murder a young girl and you get a lifetime full of endless appeals. Gimme a break .

I find your attacks on Cong. Schultz to be highly anti-semetic. To claim a Jew wants to kill a Christian, especially duing Holy Week, is blood libel Shame!

Excuse me, but why is this any of Congress's business?
The woman has no Cerebral Cortex.
She cannot swallow.
Her brain continues to deteorate.
She does not smile or talk or laugh or any of those things you have been fed - she cannot. She has no brain to do that.
Short of involuntary moans, she says nothing.
Please do better research before believing tripe.
And, I'll be DAMNED if I want to let Congress tell me how to take care of my family, particularly after they've cut anyway in which to do it.
Go ahead and blog about the "liberal bloggers," but, please, try to explain the facts of the case when you do.
This isn't about one woman - it's about Congress overstepping its bounds and playing judge, jury and non-executioner.

I'm not surprised that all of you ignored my comment posts, although I know you read them!!

Because you all spend your daily existence in the CEC and only watch Fox, I can understand you're failure to grasp how such transparent, partisan bad planning really hurts your President and your Party.

On behalf of the Democrats, I thank you.

Clive so you expect me to jump up and down and say that was a good law just because Bush signed it as governor?

If I was a citizen of Texas I would have opposed the law no matter who was signing it.

Clive so you expect me to jump up and down and say that was a good law just because Bush signed it as governor?

Acknowledging the fact that he's a hypocrite will do, Just Me!

There are societies in the world (or there have been) where a husband had the right to terminate his wife when she became "inconvenient". (Read, e.g., Browning's "My Last Duchess" for a European perspective, or review the history of certain Eastern cultures.) There was a time when we prided ourselves on not being one of those.

There are societies today where the starving of an animal that is "of no futher use" is regarded as acceptable animal husbandry. We pride ourselves (or I thought we did) on not being one of those.

There are congessmen who believe we should not realign ourselves with those morally rejected experiments in human behavior, and there are those who do not.

How come the Dems don't want to give this woman a day in Federal court? goodness knows they are always whining that criminals should get every appeal but Terri should not? hmmmm

Every appeal has already been made, that's the point. Congress wants to reject the judicial process and engage in trial by legislation.

Old Coot -- Yes, and Jonah's absolutely right about that. They're rank hypocrites. But he's also right on the federalism point that you didn't quote. This is a matter for the Florida legislature, not Congress.

Paul -- You're right, you haven't used the word "murder" but you have used the word "killing" and implied pretty strongly that the killing being done here is wrongful and intentional. Those are the standard legal components of murder.

As for why liberals are always on the side of death, I'm sure Willis would respond that he wasn't on the side of death when it came to Iraq. (Although, by that logic, he *was* on the side of death with respect to Afghanistan. But I digress.) I think it's less a question of supporting death than supporting choice -- specifically, the choice of one person to extinguish another's life in the interest of convenience so long as the victim's cognitive ability (esp. their ability to feel pain) is sufficiently impaired. It's entirely consistent with with their position on abortion, which is what this case boils down to. It's really just a debate over whether Michael Schiavo has the right to abort what is, for all intents and purposes, an adult fetus.

The point is, if Schiavo turned around and said, "You know what? I do want her to live," I'm pretty sure the Dems who are on his side right now wouldn't suddenly shift their positions. They're committed to giving choice precedence over life, and if he exercises his choice in favor of life, so be it. I think those priorities are despicable, but I also think it's a stretch to say they're pro-killing.

[Paul Replies Again] I see your point, but I hope you see mine... This is a commissive act that will take the life of another human being. This is, by any definition, called killing. It's a dirty word but that is because it is a dirty task.

You know as well as I that under no other circumstance would the Dems agree to staving someone to death... What if we put people on death row to death by starvation? What if a prisoner in Guantanimo misses lunch? The Libs would want Bush drawn and quartered.

Starvation would be found against the 8th amendment in a heartbeat.... but it is OK to kill Terri via starvation? This is no less killing than lethal injection... In fact it is far more barbaric.

Seems to be a lot of similarities between your posts on this subject and my conversation over the past weeks. Only difference being that my posts were a couple of hours or days earlier than yours ...

Let me know if you'd like to combine our efforts instead of duplicating... and highlight the cruelty that is the illiberal Democratic party today.

St Wendeler
Another Rovian Conspiracy

The Party of Death, Part II
Schiavo
The Party of Death

I think John Conyers is on life support. Jeeze this man sounds like he has had about 5 gin and tonics.

Between this and Chris Shays who is arguably even more repugnant than Kerry i need to vomit. Visual and Audio Ipecac.

I also agree, Barney Frank is enjoying this way too much.

Between this and Boston Legal tonight I feel like I need a shower after listening to all this shit.