[Homestead] Scumbag Jeb Bush and his scumbag biblethumpers loseSciavo case on Constitutional Grounds

Tvoivozhd tvoivozd at infionline.net
Fri Sep 24 01:50:21 EDT 2004


Lynda wrote:

>Tvo, I can understand the majority of your verbocity but why the rant about
>this woman?
>
>And while I think JEB Bush is a pile of dog doo, let's stick to the facts.
>He couldn't have been responsible for keeping her alive for 14 years, he's
>only been the gov in FL for 6 years.
>  
>

tvoivozhd---yes, let's stick to the facts, Jeb Bush is responsible for 
keeping the poor animal alive the past two years---now over---the 
Florida Supreme Court ruled he tried to make an end run around prior 
court decision and the Florida Supreme Court brought a final end to the 
Jeb Bush atrocity and the parent atrocity too..

>The woman is only in the news because the husband finally got the $1 million
>dollar settlement and would like to get on with his life with his new
>squeeze.
>
>If he gets his way and Terri starves to death, he gets the money.
>  
>

tvoivozhd---I repeat WHAT GODDAMNED MONEY?? Husbands are responsible for 
medical bills for their wives---it is probable that he has not filed for 
bankruptcy only because the bills are still accumulating and if he filed 
now, he could not file for another seven years---a huge cloud hanging 
over his head, bill collectors pounding on the door, phone ringing 
constantly. Will the wonderful parents volunteer to pay any part of his 
obligation?---HELL NO!!

>Lynda
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Tvoivozhd <tvoivozd at infionline.net>
>To: <homestead at lists.ibiblio.org>
>Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 3:35 PM
>Subject: [Homestead] Scumbag Jeb Bush and his scumbag biblethumpers
>loseSciavo case on Constitutional Grounds
>
>
>  
>
>>But not before the scumbags kept this poor vegetable alive for FOURTEEN
>>YEARS.  They should be dragged through the steets behind a pickup truck
>>to experience similar misery---fourteen years of dragging would be nice.
>>    
>>
World Net Daily is a looney religious rag I read daily---sometimes it 
has a non-religious topic that has some importance.

WHAT GODDAMNED MONEY?? READ THE NUMBERS---IT IS ALL SPENT ON HOSPITALS, 
DOCTORS AND ATTORNEYS!!!---and to keep a poor beast alive FOR FOURTEEN 
GODDAMNED YEARS LAYING HELPLESS IN BED. If a judge sentenced her to such 
a fate, all the religious looneys would scream to high heaven about what 
a terrible monster he was.

What swine would visit this fate on anybody??---well the parents who are 
not liable for a dime of payment and sure as hell will not volunteer to 
cover any part of her expenses.






As WND reported, $1.2 million was placed in a medical-care fund for 
Terri in 1992. Schiavo says only about $50,000 remains in the fund and 
that the money was spent on Terri's medical needs.

WorldNetDaily has reported Felos has received reimbursement for attorney 
fees totaling $358,434 from Terri's fund and another Schiavo attorney, 
Deborah Bushnell, has received about $80,000. Bushnell also filed a 
petition last year seeking authorization of pre-payment for Terri's 
cremation and burial expenses out of the fund.

The Schindlers' petition accuses Schiavo of "wasting, embezzlement, or 
other mismanagement of the ward's property" by spending the money in 
Terri's medical-care fund on attorneys' fees.

"While exhausting Terri's money for the purpose of killing her, not one 
red cent could be found by Schiavo to enhance the quality of her life 
after receipt of the malpractice award. ... [A]nd the expenditure of 
nothing for therapy that would reduce the pain of contractures, enhance 
Terri's ability to swallow, or facilitate recovery of basic abilities is 
the grossest form of asset mismanagement," the Schindlers' attorney, Pat 
Anderson, stated in the petition.

"The charge of embezzlement ... is ludicrous given that the payment was 
done per order of the court," Felos countered.




A couple non-religious-looney articles follow:


Florida Supreme Court hears arguments over right-to-die case

By JACKIE HALLIFAX

Associated Press Writer

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Florida’s Supreme Court justices Tuesday 
questioned whether the Legislature tried to do an end run around the 
court system by passing a law that let Gov. Jeb Bush order the 
reinsertion of a brain-damaged woman’s feeding tube.
Terri Schiavo's brother Bobby Schindler speaks at a news conference 
prior to Tuesday's hearing by the Florida Supreme Court concerning 
Terri's Law on Monday , Aug. 30, 2004 in Tallahassee, Fla. The seven 
justices will not be asked whether the 40-year-old brain-damaged woman 
should be allowed to live or die. Instead, the question before the court 
is whether the law that Gov. Jeb Bush signed in October to keep her 
alive violates her constitutional right to privacy and the separation of 
powers between thebranches of Florida's government. (AP Photo/Steve Cannon)

The high court heard arguments in the case of Terri Schiavo, who is at 
the center of one of the nation’s longest and most bitter right-to-die 
battles. This is the first time the Florida Supreme Court has agreed to 
take up any aspect of the 14-year-old case.

Justice Charles Wells said he was troubled because he had to conclude 
that "Terri’s Law," passed last October, was designed to sidestep a 
trial court ruling that found "clear and convincing evidence" Schiavo 
would not want to be kept alive artificially.

Bush attorney Robert Destro, a law professor at Washington’s Catholic 
University of America, said the Legislature was simply trying to protect 
the woman.

"The Legislature gave this power to the governor because the governor 
... is the ultimate defender of people’s civil rights in the state," 
Destro said.

Another Bush lawyer, Ken Connor, said the courts do not have the 
"exclusive domain" of protecting the rights of disabled people.

The high court did not indicate when it would rule on the case.

Schiavo, 40, suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped 
beating, a condition brought on by an eating disorder. She left no 
written instructions in the event she became incapacitated. Some medical 
experts have declared she is in a persistent vegetative state with no 
hope of recovery.

Her husband, Michael, has argued that she would not want to be kept 
alive in this way. But her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, dispute that 
and argue that she could someday regain some of her faculties.

Last year, her feeding tube was removed with court approval at the 
request of her husband. But six days later, the governor ordered the 
feeding to resume, invoking a law that was drafted specifically to apply 
to the Schiavo case and rushed through the Legislature.

Michael Schiavo has challenged the constitutionality of the law. The 
feeding tube remains in place in the meantime.

"The violation here is taking from the patient and giving to the state 
the power to make medical treatment choices," said George Felos, Michael 
Schiavo’s attorney.

Felos also said the role of the courts was trampled on, calling it 
"absolutely extraordinary for the governor to argue that the Legislature 
in 18 hours and the governor in a matter of hours somehow possess some 
wisdom regarding the matter of Terri Schiavo that could not have been 
ascertained by the justices of this state in six years."




Schiavo, 40, suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped 
beating, a condition brought on by an eating disorder. She left no 
written instructions in the event she became incapacitated. Some medical 
experts have declared she is in a persistent vegetative state with no 
hope of recovery.

Her husband, Michael, has argued that she would not want to be kept 
alive in this way. But her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, dispute that 
and argue that she could someday regain some of her faculties.

Last year, her feeding tube was removed with court approval at the 
request of her husband. But six days later, the governor ordered the 
feeding to resume, invoking a law that was drafted specifically to apply 
to the Schiavo case and rushed through the Legislature.

Michael Schiavo has challenged the constitutionality of the law. The 
feeding tube remains in place in the meantime.

"The violation here is taking from the patient and giving to the state 
the power to make medical treatment choices," said George Felos, Michael 
Schiavo’s attorney.

Felos also said the role of the courts was trampled on, calling it 
"absolutely extraordinary for the governor to argue that the Legislature 
in 18 hours and the governor in a matter of hours somehow possess some 
wisdom regarding the matter of Terri Schiavo that could not have been 
ascertained by the justices of this state in six years."





Bulletin Time: Thu Sep 23 2004 22:15:46 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

Ultra-Conservatives should butt out of Florida case


Perhaps the saddest tale of personal tragedy to make the national news 
radar of late is the case of Terri Schiavo, a 39-year-old Florida woman 
who has been in a "persistent vegetative state"; Schiavo has been on a 
feeding tube since 1990, when her heart stopped due to a chemical 
imbalance following a massive heart attack. Schiavo's eyes are open, but 
doctors say she has no consciousness.

The case is one of the longest and most combative right-to-die cases in 
our nation's history--with members of the same family opposing one 
another, as Schiavo's parents have waged a brutal and bitter war against 
her husband, who says that Schiavo is being kept alive despite her 
wishes to the contrary.

For the past 13 years, Terri Schiavo has been fed through a tube 
inserted into her abdomen at the behest of her parents, Bob and Mary 
Schindler, while her husband, Michael Schiavo, says his wife has been 
mistreated in attempts to keep her alive. Michael Schiavo requested--and 
received from a Circuit Court judge in Clearwater, Florida--the right to 
dehydrate Terri to death by removing her feeding tube.

This request was made despite widely-publicized financial and personal 
battles and a feud as to what is truly best for Terri, a feud that 
nearly had Michael Schiavo removed as his wife's guardian. The parents 
are understandably upset that Schiavo has moved on with his life while 
still looking after Terri. He is engaged to a woman with whom he has a 
child and who is pregnant with a second. Now, the Baptists will tell you 
that he will surely go to hell for that act alone--and he may very well 
do just that.

But the real conflict between Michael Schiavo and his in-laws, the 
Schindlers, is Schiavo's refusal to allow efforts at rehabilitation that 
might allow her to eat without the feeding tube, all despite promises to 
a medical malpractice jury that he would attempt to rehabilitate her.

Michael Schiavo says that pursuing those efforts is against his wife's 
wishes. The Schindlers, however, cannot simply leave it at 
that--neither, it seems, can the Sunshine State's swarm of 
ultra-conservatives or President Dubya's brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush.
It was ultra-conservative radio talk show hosts who first horned in on 
this family matter; evidently, the group that sharply divides the 
country at any given opportunity, not only wants control of our bodies 
and minds, and want to control what we read, they now want to control 
when we die.

Ultra-conservatives will tell you that the "liberal mainstream media", a 
fictional conspiracy on which most ultra-conversatives tend to blame 
when their own shortcomings are pointed out, hid this story for years. 
The ultra-conservatives will tell you that it is all a vast cover-up by 
those who fight for the rights of the disabled, most of whom are 
liberal--which means they have compassion for others. But compassion has 
never been a part of the ultra-conservative agenda. Neither is minding 
their own business.

The radio talking heads in the Land Of Limbaugh soon threw the story up 
to the majors, handing it off to such conservative commentators as Sean 
Hannity from the Fox News Channel. Soon, a grass-roots movement yielded 
thousands of letters, e-mails, and phone calls, to Governor Jeb Bush's 
office, begging him to intervene to save Terri's life.

Governor Bush was clearly moved by the tragedy. Who wouldn't be? Between 
a rock and hard place--knowing he really had no authority to 
intervene--Bush wrote to the Circuit Court judge who granted Michael 
Schiavo's request, but the Governor's request to reopen the matter was 
denied.

A lawyer representing Terri Schiavo's parents soon filed a federal civil 
rights lawsuit seeking an injunction against the court order--and 
Governor Bush filed an amicus brief in support of the Schindlers' 
request. There is "a critical distinction between removing life support 
and the deliberate killing of a human being by starvation and 
dehydration," said Governor Bush.

The first is protected by Florida's right to privacy, he advised the 
court. But, he stated, "the removal of the feeding tube without first 
determining by medically accepted means whether the plaintiff can ingest 
food and water on her own, with or without rehabilitative therapy, 
constitutes the deprivation of her life without due process of law.”

Whether his philosophy is right or wrong, Governor Bush truly 
overstepped his bounds, as have numerous ultra-conservatives who worship 
at the feet of a portly Missouri drug addict. They have no need to know 
or even consider the wishes of a once-vibrant woman who has lived for 
over a decade as a vegetated invalid--a nightmarish life not to be 
wished upon your worst enemy. For the ultra-conservative, all that 
really matters is that their point of view prevail. Period.

Yes, what has happened to Terri Schiavo is a tragedy in the truest sense 
of the word--but it is a family affair, and is no one else's business. 
Yes, it's a tangled mess and could conceivably go on forever--but, let 
me repeat, it is a family affair, and is no one else's business.

But as ultra-conservatives has become this nation's nosy neighbor, they 
seem to have a compulsion to butt into these affairs.

There's no need to think of what might be best for Terri Schiavo, for it 
isn't any one of them staring at a wall all day without even knowing it, 
without ever being able to think or communicate, and to be so far gone 
that the abilities aren't even missed. It isn't any one of them watching 
a loved one face the ultimate decline, a horrifying ongoing limbo that 
is simply a prelude to death.

As long as their beliefs, which they do love to ram down our throats at 
any given opportunity, are the dominant beliefs, then everything is 
fine. The rest of you: sit down and shut up, for there is an 
ultra-conservative hand upon the throttle. Do you think any of those 
oh-so compassionate ultra-conservatives will pitch in to pay for 
hospital bills or even come to visit Terri Schiavo?

Between this case and issues closer to home, like Intelligent Design, 
the ultra-conservatives are keeping busy--and should adopt a new 
ultra-conservative theme song: "Everybody Wants To Rule The World".



Previous Story Next Story

Friday, November 7, 2003

Right-to-die cases shouldn't pit parents against spouses

By Ellen Goodman
Ellen Goodman

Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery

It wasn't the volume of mail that surprised me when I protested "Terri's 
Law." After all, the case of Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman back on a 
feeding tube, had been put before a national jury. The vast majority of 
my e-mailers seemed to believe the few minutes of edited video 
represented the 24/7 reality of her last 13 years.

Nor was it the villain that surprised me. What prompted most writers to 
put fingers to keyboard, add vitriol and send, was the certainty that 
her husband Michael was an untrustworthy, unfaithful, would-be killer.

What surprised me were the people who simply sided with parents over 
spouses. "Spouses often go on with their lives; parents cannot 'replace' 
the kids," wrote one. Another said, "As a parent I cannot imagine not 
having a say in the care of my children."

Of course, much of the sentiment was loaded by lopsided coverage. 
Terri's parents and an entire industry of supporters have told and sold 
their side. Michael, to his credit and debit, has made only one national 
appearance before a woefully unprepared Larry King.

Unlike most of my correspondents, I don't pretend to know the real 
family story except for the enmity between husband and parents. The 
much-demonized Michael was tenacious in her care and, for many years, in 
the search for a cure. His refusal to divorce her and give up 
guardianship, as more than one reader suggested, doesn't make him less 
loyal in my view. As for his portion of any leftover malpractice money, 
it is nearly all gone to lawyers.

But the story was cast as a set of opponents: parents desperate to save 
their child versus a husband eager for her to die. It was not cast as a 
set of questions: Would Terri want to live this way and who gets to 
speak for her?

Nevertheless, what intrigues me most is the debate prompted by the 
Schiavo case about which family should hold sway over our life and 
death: the one we were born into or the one we chose?

Each of us can cite someone who married away -- escaped -- the family 
that never shared their point of view. Each of us has a friend whose 
husband or wife never understands them. There is no 
one-size-fits-all-families answer.

The law around this issue grew out of the tragic fate of two other young 
women, Karen Ann Quinlan and then Nancy Cruzan, whose case went before 
the Supreme Court the very year that Terri Schiavo began her long ordeal.

In 1990, Nancy's parents fought the state of Missouri to remove a 
feeding tube from their daughter. The justices ruled that a person has 
the right to refuse therapy. Then they went further. Realizing how few 
young people think about these matters, they ruled that if someone is 
incompetent, the right to refuse treatment goes to a legally authorized 
surrogate.

Since then, every state has a passed a law saying in general that the 
decision-making passes first to a spouse, then to an adult child, then 
to the parents. This is the ruling the Florida Legislature overturned so 
casually when it made Jeb Bush her judge, doctor and guardian.

It's said the Schiavo story is the perfect lesson for a living will. If 
Terri had written down what she wanted, we wouldn't have families 
squabbling over her fate. But it's not that simple. Medicine, as 
ethicist George Annas says, "is getting better at resuscitating and 
bringing people part-way back. It's better at starting than stopping."

No one can craft a personal statement to cover every possibility. So in 
tune with a living will, we need a health-care proxy to pick the person 
we trust to make the decisions we would make. And we have to talk about it.

Terri's story pricks our end-of-life anxieties. For me, the terror of 
years in a state of "wakefulness without awareness" surpasses the fear 
of death. And while, as a mother, I wholly understand the desire to 
decide a daughter's fate, as a wife, I chose my husband as my proxy. It 
may be different for others.

But the irony of the Florida debacle is that a dispute over which family 
member decides -- husband or parents -- has ended up with a governor 
deciding. A governor who never even met her.

Let everyone pick your own decision-maker. Otherwise it could be a 
stranger named Jeb


>
>
>  
>





More information about the Homestead mailing list