Lots of guys are outraged over government trampling over their personal family matters.
Posted on 03/20/2005 9:49:13 AM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Congressional Republicans denied on Sunday that political motivations were behind legislative efforts to reconnect Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.
"I hope we're not ... making this human tragedy a political issue," said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz. "We've got plenty of other issues that are political in nature for us to fight about."
Leaders of both parties agreed Saturday on legislation that they said would allow Schiavo's feeding tube, which was disconnected Friday afternoon, to be reinserted while federal courts review her case.
The bill, "for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo," gives the parents the right to file suit in federal court relating to the withdrawal of food and medical treatment needed to sustain the life of their daughter.
The bill states that the U.S. District Court, after determining the merits of the suit, "shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights" of the woman. Injunctive relief in this case could mean the reinserting of feeding tubes.
The House planned to meet Sunday afternoon in hopes of approving the measure. If any congressman objected to the bill being taken up on an expedited basis, a vote would have to wait until Monday. The Senate would have to act after the House completes work.
President Bush (news - web sites) was planning to return to Washington from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, because of the Capitol Hill developments.
McCain was asked on ABC's "This Week" about a memo suggesting GOP lawmakers could use the case to appeal to Christian conservative voters.
"I think that the motivation of my colleagues is that we want to give this young woman's family a chance to care for her for as long as she lives," McCain said. "I don't think it's any more complicated than that."
He also pointed out, "The Democrats did not disagree with the unanimous voice vote in the Senate implementing this."
But some House Democrats were objecting to congressional involvement. Rep. Robert Wexler (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla., said he plans to make an objection Sunday in an effort to stop the vote.
"The Republicans in Congress do not like the results that the Florida courts have reached and they are going to this extraordinary remedy of now stripping the Florida court of its jurisdiction so that maybe there can be another outcome," Wexler told NBC's "Today" show.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore., said in a statement, "The assault by ideologues and intolerant people who would impose government on these most personal decisions continues."
Schiavo's husband, Michael, criticized congressional leaders Sunday for intruding in the fight.
"I'm outraged, and I think that every American in this country should also be outraged that this government is trampling all over a personal family matter that has been adjudicated in the courts for seven years," he told CNN. "I think that the Congress has more important things to discuss."
Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., was asked on "Fox News Sunday" if the GOP was "just trying to score points with the right-to-life movement."
"Nothing could be further from the truth," Martinez said. "We've had great cooperation from many, many Democrats and Republicans, coming together. ... I think that this has really been a coming together of people on both sides of the aisle in a rare show of bipartisanship."
Idiots on Parade..
But some House Democrats were objecting to congressional involvement. Rep. Robert Wexler (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla., said he plans to make an objection Sunday in an effort to stop the vote.
"The Republicans in Congress do not like the results that the Florida courts have reached and they are going to this extraordinary remedy of now stripping the Florida court of its jurisdiction so that maybe there can be another outcome," Wexler told NBC's "Today" show.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore., said in a statement, "The assault by ideologues and intolerant people who would impose government on these most personal decisions continues."
Poster Child for The Problem.
Lots of guys are outraged over government trampling over their personal family matters.
I don't give a damn if Republicans have "political motivations" or not, as long as she isn't murdered by that ruthless bastard they call her "husband".
It started out with the first case of mercy killing, the "Baby Knauer." The little boy's father made ... request to his physician Karl Brandt. In 1938, permission was granted. ..."
And here is another quote (from amazon.com from another book about this same reign of doctors who inaugurated and justified these eugenic killings in Nazi Germany) that explains the details of the situation and the analogy I am trying to make, a little better,
Excerpt from page 122 of "Ethics and Extermination : Reflections on Nazi Genocide" by Michael Burleigh "... mixer, and from the parents of a handicapped infant called Knauer, languishing blind and without a ... in a Leipzig clinic. 33 Hitler despatched Karl Brandt, the emergency accident surgeon attached ... to Leipzig to authorise the death of this child. He them commissioned Brandt and Philipp Bouhler, ..." See more references to Dr. Brandt, Hitler's doctor and the Knauer Baby's Death in Nazi Germany. in any of these books.
Why has this become a legal issue in the first place? If this person's "blood related" are willing to care and support this woman's life in her condition, who is to say she should die?
Of course in this day of age with all the medical advancements, I feel this case is only in the courts to support all other ambiguous "life" questions (when does life begin, when is a live person brain dead, therefore "dead", when is the quality of life so diminished that "death" would be better, etc.)that ultimately (in this country)the decisions will end up coming from the courts anyway, because we can not agree as one nation on a set of basic human moral values.
I really hate to see our legal system and judges, lead us to travel "down" the same road the Nazi Germans led the German people.
I'd prefer they not trample on the Constitution in the process. I'm not sure they are authorized to do what they are now doing, and I am a bit concerned that this could set a VERY bad precedent if it passes the congress.
Kind of stupid. Everyone has motives, especially politicians. There is no crime in that. The motive should be respect for life, even the life of a disabled woman. A "husband" should not retain the right as spouse to decide life and death matters when he is clearly living as though he were married to another woman. You can't have two wives (yet).
It's just another case of the federal government not liking what a state is doing, and taking away rights from the states as a result. Conservatives are happy this time because it brings about the result they want, but they'll be furious when the Dems are in control of the federal government again and do the same thing.
With no party willing to truly stand up for states' rights even when the state doesn't agree with them, I wouldn't be surprised if 100 years from now the state and local governments only have control over dog catching and trash collection.
I think it's absolutely GREAT if the Republicans do have a political motive. It's about time they realized that life is more popular with the voters than death.
If that's wrong, too bad. It's called majority rule. But it accords well with the underlying principle on which our country is based, the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Bob Schindler has said under oath that he encouraged Michael Schiavo to date other women. Do you think that was wrong of him?
I agree with you. Both parties are driven by political motivation and will gladly trample on their principles if it means getting re-elected, this latest budget demonstrates that. Government needs power taken away from them, not allow them to take more.
I can not believe what I have been reading,Terri dose have leagle rights dosent she?Her so called husbund lives with some other woman and has had kids with her.He is not her spouse.He won a settlement of 1 million dollors to help keep her alive.Where has that money gone to? Terri? I think not.What about the rights of a disabled person?
"I'd prefer they not trample on the Constitution in the process. I'm not sure they are authorized to do what they are now doing, and I am a bit concerned that this could set a VERY bad precedent if it passes the congress."
Wait till 'evolution' gets a second look!
that is my assessment of this phase of the situation, as well.
this is a thorough-going mess, and so far as I can see just about any legal precedent set at this point has a high potential for causing later disastrous consequences.
Maybe tomorrow it'll be "Republicans Deny They Are The Party of Racism and Greed."
hrmn?
I don't know. But it does mean that his allegiances are elsewhere. He is able to make the decision for Terri by law because the law sees husband and wife as one. I see Michael as one with his new longtime live-in girlfriend with whom he has two young children. He hasn't been one with Terri in a very long time. He can't be one with both of them under current law. So who is he one with? Is it the woman he has shared a bed with for years and has fathered children with? Or is it Terri, the woman he wishes would die so that he can marry his live-in girlfriend and mother of his children?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.