| Hey
Tod,Wow did I just go back to school! lol! I thought about how many
times I said I'd rather die than be in my position in the past and in the
hospital on the vent asked my brother to turn it off a couple of times
although I can't remember it. This was just something that bothered
me because of IVF was attacked so hard about protecting the life that might
or might not exist in a petri dish and then here we have Terri's
husband that loved her so much he put her in a nursing home to begin with
and now wants to just let her starve to death, heck we treat death row
inmates more humane than that! I just wondered where was Bush today?
Didn't he say we must preserve human life at all cost?My only point is
that Terri is more alive than anything in a petri dish. Mark
-------Original Message-------
Date: 03/18/05 23:09:49
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L]
Bush Morals
Mark,
I read over the posts on this... You asked about why Bush 43 hasn't
given any of his time in defense of Terri Shiavo. Trouble is, we
have no idea how much influence Jeb Bush has received from his brother
in DC.
Pres. Bush would look much too obviously conspicuous if he were to begin
meddling in the laws of his brother's state... but not those of others.
The Florida State Appeals Courts and State Supreme Court (twice) decided
against Terri's parents and Jeb, and effectively determined it was not
a "mercy killing" but her husband abiding by her verbal wishes and equating
them to a living will as though she had recently been injured... even though
her alleged desire was expressed 15+ years ago. And these decisions
are instead being made many years post injury. (15 yrs ago, was before
living wills were as enforcable in many places as
they are today.)
The mostly conservative US Supreme Court (particularly in right-to-life,
assisted suicide, disability-related cases) has twice refused to hear the
case. The Constitution gives the SCOTUS the ability, primarily, to
hear cases where matters of Constitutional law are at issue. This
is a state law issue of marriage & guardianship, living wills, and
verbal "contracts" of sorts, etc... all matters not covered by the Constitution.
And according to the 10th Amendment, those things are "off-limits" for
the Feds -- SCOTUS included -- unless Congress finds a reasonable bill
that can pass and become law in the best interest of All the People (i.e.
to promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity) through the Due Process clause of the 14th
Amendment where Congress shows it's necessarry to permanently override
the laws of all 50 states. Otherwise, if or until that happens, anything
not expressly granted to the Federal government in the Constitution is
reserved for the States or the People. Amendment X - Powers of
the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.It isn't really Pres. Bush's morals to worry about in
this case... It's the fact that a severely disabled woman is having decisions
made for/about her by her husband and the courts based on:
* Michael Schiavo's statements about something Terri might have said
prior to collapsing in 1990
(How many people have you
heard say they think they's rather be dead than in our shoes? How
many of us even thought that before our injuries? How many of them/us
might change their minds once in our shoes?)
* Quickly drafted, sudden laws based on one person's circumstances
that will apply to everyone from that point on, written for political posturing
and/or based on someone else's moral beliefs (Were Jeb Bush's, the whole
FL legislature's, and Terri Schiavo's moral beliefs all identical?)
* Congress entertaining passing an emotional reaction bill without
due process that says:
- a State Court determines if you are incapacitated,
and when you are
- a State Court determines whether you are capable
of testifying on your behalf
- intended for a person presently incapacitated
(I was once incompacitated and unable to decide for a few weeks)
- a person's advance directive must specifically
include the witholding/withdrawal of food, fluids, or treatment
in the "applicable circumstances" (Does your advance directive specifically
say this? This is for Terri, only.)
- the person authorized to make a decision (a guardian)
will have to seek vourt approval prior to having the action taken (at this
point, advanced directives have to be violated in order to complete
court proceedings)
I can't take a position on Terri Schiavo. I've thought about it
a lot but still can't... I'm just not there, and it's not my case
to judge. But I can take a position on the state of the laws being
used to jerk these people around.
Feb. 2000 - it can be removed, (Judge Greer)
March, 2001 - wiill be removed April 20 (Greer)
Apr. 20, 2001 - can't be removed until appeals are exhausted (District
Judge Richard Lazzara)
April 24, 2001 - tube removed (SCOTUS refused to hear)
April 26, 2001 - reinsert tube (Circuit Judge Frank Quesada)
Oct 3, 2001 - removal delayed indefinitely (2nd District Court)
Nov. 22, 2002 - tube will be removed Jan. 33, 03
Dec. 13, 2002 - removal must wait (Greer) until another court hears
it
June 6, 2003 - removal upheld by 2nd District Court
Oct. 15, 2003 - tube removed
Oct. 21, 2003 - New Florida Law requires tube to be reinserted
Today - tube removed again
Best we can do is hope the best for Both families and make sure
our own affairs are in order.
Best!
Tod
(Glad to be back - if only temporarily) |
