The problem with transcription is you lose SO much that's conveyed by the speaker's tone of voice--I'll just say my impression was that Abrams was just barely up to speed on the case--kept pronouncing Schiavo "skee-AH-voh"--but at least he was acknowledging that there were two sides to this. He seemed mostly worried about the "constitutional" aspects of the case, which I took to mean the FL legislature's actions and not Terri's rights. However, he did not seem to be overly hostile or dismissive towards the Schindlers, so that was good--my impression is he just hasn't paid much attention to it. (I admittedly could be way off here, since I seldom see his show.)
Remember to keep any e-mails succinct, they just put a few sentences on the screen when they read them--they're looking for punchy soundbites, essentially. IMHO, this is a good opportunity to get the word out a bit more. Here's the transcript, it's as accurate as I could make it at 4am:
Monday, November 3, 2003
MSNBC
The Abrams Report
"Closing Argument" Segment
Dan Abrams"My closing argument: Why the Schiavo right-to-die case sometimes feels more like a family feud, laced with mutual distrust, than it does a broader disagreement about these constitutional and moral questions. Sure, the case has brought a number of important issues to the forefront, but when you look at the facts and the family history, it seems this dispute exploded when the families started quarreling about other issues.
"The question is whether she can be taken off of life support. Her husband and the courts have said "yes." That Terri is in a persistent vegetative state, and that she had expressed a desire not to live like this. While Terri's parents say she does recognize faces, and now the Florida legislature has stepped in to try to ensure the feeding tube stays in.
"But the real fights began almost three years after Terri collapsed, in 1993, when the Schiavos received a million-dollar judgment from her doctors for failing to diagnose her health problems. The parents saying the dispute was over the type of treatment Schiavo should pursue with the money, Schiavo saying the parents wanted a cut of it. The family now says they believe Terri and Michael had a violent argument the night she went unconscious, and they say nursing home aides heard him expressing hope that she would die.
"The courts have not found that testimony credible, good reason for him to distrust his in-laws. But they have a reason to distrust him as well. Schiavo did not tell them of Terri's wish to not be kept alive artificially until 1997 -- after he had a new girlfriend. So when Schiavo went to court in 1998 to remove the feeding tube, it's not that surprising that the family challenged him.
"But you have to wonder, are her parents fighting so hard because they believe that she can recognize faces, etcetera, that she actually does understand, or is it that they just don't believe Schiavo about what Terri said? Could a novel legal and constitutional fight have been precipitated by an old-fashioned feud between parents and a husband? Less about the sort of moral questions that have divided the country and more about simple mistrust? If true, what a shame that would be for everyone involved.
"All right, I've had my say, now it is time for Your Rebuttal...."
[He then reads viewer's letters responding to subjects from the previous show. Presumably they will read e-mails regarding the above editorial on Tuesday night's show, 11-4-03. Here's the address:]
abramsreport@msnbc.com
Thanks! /sarcasm Just which of Ayn Rand's books promotes '"the right to die", drugs, pornography, prostitution and illegal immigeration should be legalized.'? I have only read Atlas Shrugged but I didn't see that in there anywhere.