Skip to comments.Bob Schindler (father of Terri Schiavo) Live Interview 8pm February 18
Posted on 02/18/2005 12:53:30 PM PST by NYer
Raymond Arroyo will be discussing Terri Schiavo's situation with her father, Bob Schindler tonight at 8pm.
EWTN is available through most cable and satellite dish network providers. Or, go to the above link, click on Television, Live TV - English, to watch this program via the internet.
fv, thanks for the info in #34 about legislation defining cohabitation/de facto marriages.
And #20. As you noted, "Whose faith isn't stronger since they've been helping Terri?" -- for several reasons.
Thanks for that verse. How appropriate!
I wish Michael would take your advice. Thanks.
September 27, 1999 Deposition:
Q. Have you considered turning the guardianship over to Mr. and Mrs. Schindler?
SCHIAVO: No, I have not.
Q. And why?
SCHIAVO: I think that's pretty self explanatory.
Q. I'd like to hear your answer.
SCHIAVO: Basically I don't want to do it.
Q. And why don't you want to do it?
SCHIAVO: Because they put me through pretty much h*** the last few years.
Q. And can you describe what you mean by h***?
SCHIAVO: The litigations they put me through.
Q. Any other specifics besides the litigation?
SCHIAVO: Just their attitude towards me because of the litigations. There is no other reason. I'm Terri's husband and I will remain guardian.
After his attorney "talked" with him, Michael added, "Yeah. Another reason would be that her parents wouldn't carry out her wishes."
Sure, forgot to attribute the NLT, though...
Goodnight Terri prayer!
Unlike most who have discussed the Terri Schiavo case, my interest and concern in the case is not the outcome of the case as a priority, but the process by which that outcome has been reached.
My observation is that Terri has not been afforded fundamental due process of law--- the right to the protection of a jury, and the right to be represented in court by counsel in a case in which that state has been called upon to end her life.
Some have stated Terri is not entitled to the above mention constitutional protections, and I have attempted to rationalize such thinking. My only conclusion is that those who make such a claim believe Terri is a piece property and its fate is being litigated by two opposing parties, her parents and her husband, in which case the property in question would indeed have no right to the protection of a jury, nor a right to be represented in court by counsel.
But Terri is not property! She is not the property of her husband, nor the property of her parents, and therefore, because the state has been called upon to exercise its power to end Terris life, Floridas constitutional guarantees are set into motion and provide protection to Terri against arbitrary government action.
The protections that are afforded are: No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability, and, No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. And, what due process is guaranteed? "The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate."
Some have suggested that the right to the protection of a jury is not applicable in Terris case because it is not a criminal case. But Floridas own Supreme Court in Case No. 79,396 _B.J.Y., Petitioner/Appellant, vs. M.A., Respondent/Appellee. [April 29, 1993], has made it quite clear the protection of a jury is a vital part of Floridas due process and is not to be narrowly construed.
Fact is, the protection of a jury was waived in Terris case by her adulterous husband and her parents, and done so without Terris knowing or willing consent. And yet, there is no provision in Floridas constitution allowing Terris right to the protection of a jury to be waived without her knowing or willing consent in a case in which the state has been called upon to end her life.
Had Terri left a legally recognizable written end of life directive as in the Browning or Bludworh Case, or an oral end of life directive as in Satz v. Perlmutter, in which the Court accepted oral testimony from the patient taken at a bedside hearing, [a hearing in which the patient expressed a carefully thought out and deliberate end of life directive], the court would have concrete evidence from the patients own lips or hand and merely be authenticating such wishes prior to enforcing those wishes.
But in Terris case there is no evidence from Terris own lips or hand expressing her wishes. There is only the questionable testimony given by her adulterous husband that Terri wants to be left to die, and, the testimony given by a brother of Michael Schiavo, and a sister-in-law of Michael __ in each case the testimony alleged nothing more than random and inconsequential remarks were made by Terri, none of which could be legally construed to be a carefully considered and intentional end of life directive!
And what has the state decided to do? Ignore Terris right to be represented in court by counsel, and a judge, Judge Greer, has taken it upon himself to act as a judge for Terri, decision maker for Terri, counsel for Terri, jury for Terri, and then, issued a court order to end Terris life, and has sided with Terris adulterous husband in his Star Chamber Court proceeding rather than provide Terri with the protection of a jury whose constitutionally assigned duty is to sort out the facts of the case and to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power -- to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the over-zealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge." -- see:Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 US 522 , 530 (1975)
In the Browning case it was noted that:
"The Ethics and Advocacy Task Force, as amicus curiae, raises a very legitimate concern that the "right to die" could become a license to kill. There are times when some people believe that another would be "better off dead" even though the other person is still fighting vigorously to live. Euthanasia is a crime in this state. 782.08, Fla.Stat. (1987). See 765.11(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). Despite the tremendous advances achieved in this century, the world has witnessed the extermination of retarded and mentally disturbed persons for whom a foreign government decided that death was the proper prescription. Thus, it cannot be overemphasized that the remedy announced in this opinion and the procedures designed to safeguard that remedy are based upon the patient's right to make a personal and private decision and not upon other interests. Browning, 543 So.2d at 269
In view of the fact there was no evidence from Terris own lips or hand expressing a carefully decided end of life directive, it is obvious Judge Greer and the states judicial system has issued an order to end Terris life based upon Terris medical condition, and not upon clear and convincing evidence [ Floridas required legal threshold to be met] documenting what her wishes are.
Perhaps Terri would want to be left to die and Judge Greers decision is what Terri would want, but, one thing is certain, the process by which a court order has been issued to end Terris life is not within the four corners of our constitutional system until Terri is represented in court by counsel and afforded the protection of a jury to evaluate the testimony alleging Terri wants to be left to die.
Judge Greer ignored the fundamental separation of powers in our constitutional system when he decided to act as a judge for Terri, decision maker for Terri, counsel for Terri, jury for Terri, and then, issued a court order to end Terris life. A fundamental separation of powers between judge and jury was eloquently pointed out by the SCOTUS in Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 106, (1895):
The trial was thus conducted upon the theory that it was the duty of the court to expound the law, and that of the jury to apply the law as thus declared to the facts as ascertained by them. In this separation of the functions of court and jury is found the chief value, as well as safety, of the jury system. Those functions cannot be confounded or disregarded without endangering the stability of public justice, as well as the security of private and personal rights.
Apply the process by which the State of Florida has issued a court order to end Terris life in all future cases in which the state is called upon to end a persons life and we are left with a Star Chamber Court system in which the state is free to render arbitrary decisions and ignore the fundamental safeguards our founding fathers provided in a written constitution.
The honorable Governor of Florida has called for the protection of a jury in Terris case. Perhaps it is now time for him to go a step further and file a 14th Amendment due process appeal in the SCOTUS asserting Terri has not been afforded the right to be represented in court by counsel, nor afforded the protection of a jury by Floridas Judicial system in a case in which the state has been called upon to end her life. Since there is no case law which addresses these rights as could be applied in Terris case, an appeal limited to these two fundamental and basic rights is an appropriate question for the SCOTUS to address.
John William Kurowski, Founder,
American Constitutional Research Service
Thanks JWK.. your the best. I have gotten your message to the pertinent parties. I hope it helps.
Wonderful Idea to increase the bursting of the blogosphere for Terri from News
From the Backporch
A Blog For Terri
Make a blog for Terri Schindler
go to http://www.blogger.com
Make a blog in 3 easy steps
Link to other Blogs for Terri at
The link to join the Blogburst is
Protect Terri from those who
are trying to kill her.
They want to start killing her as
early as February 22nd, 2005. This coming Tuesday.
"I don't want anyone trying
to feed that girl...
the law of the case is
that she is going to die"
-- pseudo judge George W. Greer
from the bench in 2001.
Terri ping to 56! Lots of info! Please keep numbers handy!
If anyone would like to be added to or removed from my Terri ping list, please let me know by FReepmail!
Statement of the Catholic Medical Association : Regarding the provision of artificial nutrition and hydration in the case of Mrs. Terri Schindler-Schiavo.
The mission of the Catholic Medical Association (CMA) is to uphold the truth of the Catholic Faith in the science and practice of medicine. In July 2003, the CMA published a statement regarding the provision of artificial nutrition and hydration in the case of Mrs. Terri Schindler-Schiavo. The circumstances surrounding this case have been widely publicized. In 2003, after summarizing the ethical directives found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care, we concluded that based upon the current teaching of the Church the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration could not be justified.
Two subsequent events compel us to update our former statement to uphold the truth and defend the life of Mrs. Schindler-Schiavo.
In March 2004, Pope John Paul II addressed an international congress of health care professionals convened in Rome to discuss the scientific advances and ethical dilemmas in the vegetative state. In the statement by the Vicar of Christ, Life Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State, he declares clearly and unequivocally that the sick person in a vegetative state still has the right to basic health care the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act Its use furthermore, should be considered in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.
This papal statement makes it absolutely clear that the withdrawal of food and water from Mrs. Schindler-Schiavo constitutes euthanasia, a gravely immoral act. We would add furthermore, that it represents a violation of her constitutionally protected right to life and a violation of her religious freedom as a Catholic.
Second, recently published data in the journal Neurology indicates that magnetic resonance imaging can be a very powerful tool in the evaluation of awareness in patients with severe neurological injury. The findings were so remarkable Dr. Joy Hirsch, director of the Functional MRI Research Center at Columbia University Medical School and an author of the study, said, The most consequential thing about this is that we have opened a door, we have found an objective voice for these patients, which tells us they have some cognitive ability in a way they cannot tell us themselves. The patients are more human than we imagined in the past, and it is unconscionable not to aggressively pursue research efforts to evaluate them and develop therapeutic techniques.
These two events, the definitive papal statement and the scientific evidence of new diagnostic techniques required to adequately assess the severely brain injured patient, support our former conclusion in July 2003. There is no rational justification, moral or medical, to withdraw food and water from Mrs. Terri Schindler-Schiavo.
Finally, we recognize that many will not agree with our conclusion. In a country that legally justifies the destruction of innocent human life in its most vulnerable stage of development, within the womb of the mother, it will come as no surprise that our courts have failed to defend her right to life. The darkness of death shrouds the conscience of America.
Therefore, we conclude this statement by making a sincere appeal to all who do agree with us. Please join us in prayer on behalf of Terri, her family and our country; that by the Grace of Almighty God some intervention will save her life and save us from the inevitable consequences if she were euthanized.
I pinged you to the thread about this. Here's a link in case you overlooked the ping, which seems to happen to me a lot lately!