You might be a fake liberal if...

b. You feel that the right to slowly starve said woman is a states rights issue, yet you feel that the federal government has not only a right, but a responsibility to dictate the terms of life in many other areas.

Shouldn't that read 'ANY other areas'?

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Tuesday, March 22, 2005b. You feel that the right to slowly starve said woman is a states rights issue, yet you feel that the federal government has not only a right, but a responsibility to dictate the terms of life in many other areas.Shouldn't that read 'ANY other areas'?

yep "any" they support it's ok.

Good stuff, Gid!!

- GX

Hypocrisy isn't the exclusive domain of the right, king

of course it isn't. but that's the side of the aisle that's falling all over itself to use this tragedy as a way to scam the activists who put them in office. what have they accomplished? what did they think they'd accomplish?

the party's 'talking points' pretty much tell the story:


S. 529, The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act

Teri (sic) Schiavo is subject to an order that her feeding tubes will be disconnected on March 18, 2005 at 1p.m.

The Senate needs to act this week, before the Budget Act is pending business, or Terri's family will not have a remedy in federal court.

This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.


This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.

The bill is very limited and defines custody as "those parties authorized or directed by a court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment."

There is an exemption for a proceeding "which no party disputes, and the court finds, that the incapacitated person while having capacity, had executed a written advance directive valid under applicably law that clearly authorized the withholding or or (sic) withdrawl (sic) of food and fluids or medical treatment in the applicable circumstances."

Incapacitated persons are defined as those "presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding or withdrawl (sic) of food fluids or medical treatment under applicable state law."

This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy.

reread that a couple times and then try to tell me this was a mission of mercy.

you might also want to read the report of terri schiavo's guardian ad litem. be warned that it's long--of necessity. Link

jay wolfson (the gal who is on neither side since he was charged to speak for terri) reports michael schiavo was encouraged by the schindlers to date.

of course it isn't. but that's the side of the aisle that's falling all over itself to use this tragedy as a way to scam the activists who put them in office. what have they accomplished? what did they think they'd accomplish?

Maybe, just Maybe, it is not a scam, but a deep underlying respect for life and dignity. Neither is present in your arguement. Nor is this really a left right issue.

it is about Death with dignity versus cruel and unusual punishment.

If you stop thinking of it as left right, you would be able to see that.

Pretty good list Gid...

Here's a couple more:

You believe that death row murders have rights, but Terri Schiavo doesn't.

You cry over a dog starving to death and demand it of Terri Schiavo.

Let me get this straight.

Liberals and the ACLU have no problem starving a woman to death.

However, they do have a problem with putting panties on the heads of terrorists, and they also have a problem with executing terrorists and criminals.

As I've said, I do support letting her go in peace, I just don't approve of the method being used.

This was an excellent article, Gideon, and one that brings up many, many good points.
The Left will always politcize anything it doesn't agree with; it makes moral issues easier to handle for people who have such a weak moral copmpass.

The Left will always politcize anything it doesn't agree with; it makes moral issues easier to handle for people who have such a weak moral copmpass.

are you truly unable to see the politicizing isnt being done by those on the right or the left (really on either side) but by a group of human vultures using the issue to scam the activists who put them in office?

nobody's happy with the method. why hasnt anyone addressed that before now? there's absolutely no reason it has to go this way. 6 months from now things will be back to business as usual. terri who?

what do you think was meant by this?

This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue. This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.

how many mentally retarded individuals have been executed by the states of texas and virginia?

Maybe, just Maybe, it is not a scam, but a deep underlying respect for life and dignity. Neither is present in your arguement. Nor is this really a left right issue. it is about Death with dignity versus cruel and unusual punishment. If you stop thinking of it as left right, you would be able to see that.

the point of my article (the one to which gideon alludes in his title) was exactly that. nothing about that midnight session was even remotely 'right'--nor politically principled--for that matter.

i invite you as well to read the report of ms schiavo's guardian ad litem. this is by no means the cut-n-dry good vs evil matter it has been proclaimed to be the majority party in its talking paper.

Link

nothing about that midnight session was even remotely 'right'--nor politically principled--for that matter.

That point, kingbee,we can agree upon wholeheartedly. Regardless of your feelings on this issue,the congressional action was pretty ridiculous. But I still feel it has pointed out hypocrisies on BOTH sides of the fence, not just one (which is why I didn't refute your initial article).

I don't think of it as a scam....that's just the Left's skewed take on it.
I think those Washingtonians involved (though I wish they wouldn't be) truly wish to save a life. Call me naive.
The Right is normally pro-life at any cost and this is just another gut-level reaction from that side.
The Left, in its usual paranoiac rage, sees it as yet another power grab by the GOP.

When Democrats listen to the outrage of their constituants, they are "activists". When Republicans listen to the outrage of their constituants, they are being "political".

Anyone who thinks that the Democratic leadership doesn't think in terms of PR and votes is more brain-dead than Terri Schiavo. You can make that out to be "playing politics" all you like, but you are just making the glass half empty.

They are put there to react to our concerns. They don't go back if they don't. Is that playing politics, or is that doing their job?

i invite you as well to read the report of ms schiavo's guardian ad litem. this is by no means the cut-n-dry good vs evil matter it has been proclaimed to be the majority party in its talking paper.

I would not believe spit that that particular scumbag said or alluded to.

I would not believe spit that that particular scumbag said or alluded to

why doesnt that surprise me? since i highly doubt you have any idea whom this particular scumbag is...and being familiar with your reluctance to educate yourself...i took the 5 seconds required to locate his bio.

Jay Wolfson is Professor of Public Health and Medicine, Director of the Florida Health Information Center, Director of the Suncoast Center for Patient Safety at USF; Professor of Health Law at Stetson University College of Law; and Professor of Medicine at Florida State University.

He is the Co-Director of the Consortium for Law and Medicine, University of South Florida/Stetson University College of Law; was named by Congress as a member of the Medicare Competitive Pricing Review Committee through 2004, serves as Associate Director of the National Patient Safety Center of Inquiry, Veterans Health Administration, VISN 8, and served as a trustee, vice chair and chair of finance of Tampa General Hospital for 12 years.

Wolfson conducts research and writes about health care law, policy and finance, relationships between physicians and other health care provider/institutional interests, the role of employers in health cost management and health status promotion, and he is actively involved in the local, statewide and national processes of policy analysis, legislative advisement, and regulatory development/management. Wolfson holds a doctorate in public health from the University of Texas, a law degree from Stetson University College of Law, a master’s degree in public health from Indiana University, a master’s degree in history of thought from New York University, and an undergraduate degree in history from the University of Illinois.

now what was it you do again when youre not giving yourself apoplexy over the latest outrage worldweeklynewsdotnet dreamed up?

I would not believe spit that that particular scumbag said or alluded to why doesnt that surprise me? since i highly doubt you have any idea whom this particular scumbag is...and being familiar with your reluctance to educate yourself...i took the 5 seconds required to locate his bio. Jay Wolfson is Professor of Public Health and Medicine, Director of the Florida Health Information Center, Director of the Suncoast Center for Patient Safety at USF; Professor of Health Law at Stetson University College of Law; and Professor of Medicine at Florida State University. He is the Co-Director of the Consortium for Law and Medicine, University of South Florida/Stetson University College of Law; was named by Congress as a member of the Medicare Competitive Pricing Review Committee through 2004, serves as Associate Director of the National Patient Safety Center of Inquiry, Veterans Health Administration, VISN 8, and served as a trustee, vice chair and chair of finance of Tampa General Hospital for 12 years. Wolfson conducts research and writes about health care law, policy and finance, relationships between physicians and other health care provider/institutional interests, the role of employers in health cost management and health status promotion, and he is actively involved in the local, statewide and national processes of policy analysis, legislative advisement, and regulatory development/management. Wolfson holds a doctorate in public health from the University of Texas, a law degree from Stetson University College of Law, a master’s degree in public health from Indiana University, a master’s degree in history of thought from New York University, and an undergraduate degree in history from the University of Illinois. now what was it you do again when youre not giving yourself apoplexy over the latest outrage worldweeklynewsdotnet dreamed up

Maybe you'd be better off reading a little more and typing less. *According* to the COURT, Michael Schaivo is her guardian. NOT Mr. Wolfson. And what do you do when your not using your brain for a hat rack? So what I said before I stand by!This is an excerpt from CNN:

Seven years ago, Schiavo's husband and her parents began a legal tug-of-war over whether to have her feeding tube removed and allow her to die. The case has drawn national attention and rallied activists on both sides of the right-to-die debate.

Link

If Wolfson is her guardian like *you* claim then why are her parents and the scumbag having a legal battle? Also if wolfson was her guardian, scumbag would have NO say over whether Terri lives or dies. Wolfson would. Next time do a little better on your research.

wolfson was appointed guardian ad litem for 30 days last winter by a judge of the 6th florida circuit to speak for ms schiavo. you're surely not gonna start questioning matters of fact? you never heard of a guardian ad litem? pull your nose outta the worldweeklynewsdotnet site and take off your foil helmet doc.

THE TERRI SCHIAVO CASE continues to take dramatic twists and turns. Even as Michael Schiavo attempts to have Terri's Law declared unconstitutional, pursuant to the law's requirements, a judge has appointed a guardian ad litem--Professor Jay Wolfson, of the College of Public Health at the University of South Florida in Tampa--to represent Terri's interests. There has been some confusion as to whether Wolfson replaces Terri's quasi-estranged husband Michael Schiavo as guardian of Terri's person. (I use the term "quasi-estranged" because Schiavo effectively shattered the sanctity their marriage years ago by entering a committed relationship with another woman and starting a family with her.) He does not. Wolfson's sole responsibilities are to determine whether Terri should be allowed a swallow test, whether she should be provided rehabilitation, and to write a report with his recommendations about these matters--all within 30 days. In the meantime, Schiavo remains fully in control over Terri' life and care (or the lack thereof)--with the exception that he cannot, for now, remove her tube-supplied food and water.

Nice try. Now try again!Link So Michael scumbag is STILL the defacto guardian!

stop smokin so much crack doc. i never said he was in contol. you were the one calling wolfson a scumbag. better not go to texas...they might decide you were futile and boom boom out go da ad litems. oh. bush signed that texas bill into law.

stop smokin so much crack doc. i never said he was in contol. you were the one calling wolfson a scumbag. better not go to texas...they might decide you were futile and boom boom out go da ad litems. oh. bush signed that texas bill into law.

WRONG! I was/ am still calling Michael the scumbag.

So Michael scumbag is STILL the defacto guardian!

If Wolfson is her guardian like *you* claim then why are her parents and the scumbag having a legal battle?

I missed the part where you said "ad litem" about Wolfson. Sorry.

Just for the record, personal experience leaves me no respect for guardians ad litem. They serve the interests of the state, almost without exception. I watched in one case as a guardian ad litem attempted to usurp the authority of the guardian and of all of a client's caregivers by removing her from her home, where she had been as stable as she EVER had in her life (knowledge of her history would have shown that when the state tried moving her before, it met with DISASTER).

As a child and ward of the state, I had several guardians ad litem over the years. Not ONE of them spoke to me at any point except for short 5 minute discussions prior to court hearings.

So, frankly, I have about as much respect for these bozos as I have for public defenders.