Congress Pushes for Federal Review of Schiavo

You mean we agree? I did not know these 'other' items. I am getting worried as the press (mainline) is not reporting these vital facts.

I dont understand how everyone ignores the fact that most of her cerebral cortex is gone.
Image of Mrs. Schiavos CAT scan

That large black spot in the middle isnt supposed to be there. Thats empty hollow space thats been filled in with spinal fluid.

This has been through court people.
Acredited proffesionals have stated on multiple occasions that most of Mrs. Schiavos brain is gone or nonfunctional. Read the court transcripts its all there.
The "experts" hired by the Schindlers and the ProLife lobby dont even make an effort to dispute this fact.

www.google.com...

[edit on 21-3-2005 by MattMarriott]

It is now law!



President Bush Monday signed legislation allowing a federal court to review whether Terri Schiavo should be kept alive via a feeding tube. State courts have so far ruled in favor of Schiavo's husband, Michael, who says his wife would not want to continue living in her state, and against her parents, who want to keep her alive.

[edit on 21-3-2005 by edsinger]

ATSNN has a submitted article about the House ruling:

House Passes Bill

There is a real problem with the job the media has been doing for the last 3 decades or more. They intentionaly mislead their audience, intentionally misrepresent the facts, and continue to play us for fools.

I agree Edsinger, there's a lot about this case that is just not right. The media's handling of the issue in the court of public opinion is not the least of the mishaps.

They are sowing the seeds of discord, to be sure.

Ed, we've disagreed many times in the past. But I know one thing we can agree on, the truth is important to all of us. If we don't have the facts, how can we make educated decisions?

On top of that, and most importantly, if our supposedly elected officials are allowed to overturn the wishes of the majority and the rule of law, just to placate their political and religious allies, how are we any different than, say, Syria or Iran?

It's disturbing that this issue made the national stage, because it's a private matter. But, now that the issue is here, we have to make sure it isn't used to tighten the vise of federal control.

Edit: Whoops..too late. The government criminals have once again flown in the face of the wishes of the American people. Add another stain to lady liberty's rotting robe.

[edit on 21-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]

I just want to know is the woman capable of thought and feelings?

It cant be that hard.

I used to find really different "takes" on current events here. But this is getting irritating. SO needs to add another black band I think. I am a lazy
person and dont like working enough to provide the "different" take, except most boards I have seen tonight are beginning to look like this topic development.
So irritated that I will throw something out and see if it sticks. References as required.

For those that feel that Congress cannot do this special law stuff, have a read of The US Constitution, Article II, Section 2. Quote:

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. "

There, that should have filtered all the dancing bananas. Anyone still here ? Ok, ignore the right-to-life issue, the public appeals, the he said - she said media drama. Congress is in session
tonight. Ignore the politics. Is there ANY other possible reason for this level of attention?

I submit that there is a Sea Change in law going on that is happening on a level beyond the
general public, and the legal orientation of Congress means they are aware but politics prohibits direct public disclosure. Most people would either fall asleep or change the channel
anyway.

Simply put, our rule of law as you put it, can be categorized in modern terms as Criminal and Civil Law. This law evolves over time by precedants. A monstrous change is very bad.
The Schiavo case looks to be a Sea Change. In Civil Law, neither side is treated as a criminal and damages awards may involve restitution but NEVER personal, criminal penalty.
I.E. without malice. In Criminal Law, (with malice) convictions carry personal, criminal penalty. While the penalties for criminal convictions continue to erode, we can note that personal penalties are being sneaked into Civil Law. So legally speaking, we have the Schiavo precedant, in CIVIL Law, with a peanut judge ordering THE DEATH SENTENCE of a Citizen without
Miranda rights, trial by jury, etc.. in the Bill Of Rights. Ignore the living will stuff, there aint one, so the precedant will be to grant a non-constitutional power to Civil Law Judges in a
town near you. Yes, I know, the Roe Vs Wade thingy could be said to have already done that, but it is well disguised behind the facade of the definition of life. Legally therefore
and to borrow a phrase from one of Gazrok's posts, a fetus isnt even "talking meat". And neither is Terri, she is, I keep hearing, in a "vegitative" state. Next will be the infirm ?
Elderly ? Those who gleefully deny ignorance to avoid acknowledgment and correction of same ?


References:
www.law.cornell.edu...
Criminal law involves prosecution by the government of a person for an act that has been classified as a crime. Civil cases, on the other hand, involve individuals and organizations seeking to resolve legal disputes. In a criminal case the state, through a prosecutor, initiates the suit, while in a civil case the victim brings the suit. Persons convicted of a crime may be incarcerated, fined, or both. However, persons found liable in a civil case may only have to give up property or pay money, but are not incarcerated.

en.wikipedia.org...
Unlike criminal law, Civil law regulates relationships amongst persons and organizations. Civil law, in this sense, is usually referring to redress to civil law courts (as opposed to criminal courts) and is often used as a means to resolve disputes involving accidents (torts such as negligence), libel and other intentional torts, contract disputes, the probate of wills, and trusts, and any other private matters that can be resolved between private parties. Violations of civil law are considered to be torts or breaches of contract, rather than crimes.


Guess:
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And the dancing bananas sing in chorus : "The Patriot Act is Bad but we love Judge Greer"

This isn't about judge greer, this IS about due process. If the state has some sort of beef with the judge they've had 15 years to resolve it. This is about the elevation of a private medical matter onto the public stage for the benefit of those who would seek to challenge states' autonomy.

It's a circus, three ring style.

Edsinger
My interpretation of her condition is that she is vegetative. The evidence seems to support that insofar as she has lost conscious control, and her body is effectively running on auto-pilot. There are cases where even the dead come back to life, but given the precedent in cases like this, waiting indefinitely doesn't make sense, and in the end, it is the decision of the legal guardian whether or not to continue care, not the state. If the definition of a soul is a metaphysical concept, then science can never TRULY corroborate it, but the standard accepted definition of a soul in medical terms is frontal lobe neuronal activity. :shrug: It's really the only measuring stick we have that comes close to answering the question.

And yet we are led to believe that she IS aware of her surroundings, if this is not the case then that is a different matter.

All I wish to know is : Does SHE KNOW what is going on and that she has been sentenced to death? If she could speak, blink, cry, or grunt then we would know.

There are those that say she can and some are doctors.

Shouldn't we all just step back a second and think about this one a bit more before assuming anything?

Starvation is NOT what Terri asked for ...

transcripts.cnn.com...

Transcript from the Larry King Show

Michael Schiavo admits that he doesn't now,
and never did, know what Terri wanted in this
situation. All his talk about Terri claiming
that she didn't want a feeding tube ... he
made it all up just to kill her off. He admits
that it is what 'we' (he and his partner in
adultery) want.

EXCERPT from the show -

"I won't give it up," he said. "Terri is my life. I'm going to carry out her
wishes to the very end. This is what she wanted. It's not about the
Schindlers. It's not about me, not about Congress. It's about Terri."

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. ..."

We didn't know what Terri wanted,
but this is what we want...

She is capable of thought and feeling until it can be proven that
she isn't capable. She has them until proven otherwise and it has
never been proven because her husband won't let it be investigated.

So ... as of right now she is capable of thought and feeling AND she
is probably capable of eatting without a feeding tube .... check this
out!

A nurse who took care of Terri Schiavo signed a legal affidavit
stating that Terri could eat normally through the mouth but that her 'husband' wouldn't allow it. He only wanted the feeding tube,
and then he wanted the feeding tube cut off ....

www.newsmax.com...

That is incorrect she did get rehab and help even a cat scan contrary to what the parents are saying

Wow this is absolutely shocking!!!! This is nothing other than murder. If you don't feed your baby you'd be sent to jail but the Florida courts are mandating starvation.

Sorry, but that quote is from Michael Schiavo. He's been
proven to be a liar. Heck ... he even got caught telling a
whopper in the Larry King interview that you just quoted.
He admitted at the end of the interview that he didn't know
what Terri wanted and that starvation is what 'we' (he and
his mistress) wanted ... even though he's been telling the
world that Terri told him that she didn't want a feeding tube.

If you can pull info from somewhere else ... from a hospital
that supposedly did the CAT scan ... from a doctor that
looked at the alleged CAT scan ... someone OTHER than
the proven liar Michael Schiavo .... then I'll buy it.

You can believe her if you want but, I question Where has she been for the past 8 years? Coming forward at this time is suspecious to me.

But you don't find Michael Schiavo waiting 7 years to reveal Terri's wish to be taken off life support suspicious?

boogyman posted a link to the catscan above it is in the 2nd post from the top.

Read what he said in his post.

I also hear a hearing will take place at 3pm Eastern regarding the order to reinsert the feeding tube.

[edit on 3/21/2005 by djohnsto77]

My problem with all these, "right to live" deal, is the way in which the government got involve.

This was a problem on the state level, federal government has not business.

I will call it pursue of hidden agendas and the benefits that now the "few" got from it.

It's very convenient that this happen in Florida and that the "Governor" step aside for the "congress" and the "president" itself get involved.

But nobody did anything when another life was terminated in another state just 2 weeks ago.

If you people are not noticing how the media circus was played for the benefit of the a "few" as to get the government and the president itself involve then something is wrong in our society.

Does the color of the skin comes into play now? or it was all about politics and what the repercussions of these actions by the congress is going to bring to us the citizens of this country.

Look around you and see what is going on, is what's not about saving the life of a woman is about agendas and how the federal government is going to take away the power from the local government.

If the life of a human being was so important why the baby in Texas was allowed to die?

Is a reason, the woman was conveniently located in Florida, president's bush own brother's state.





[edit on 21-3-2005 by marg6043]