Posted on 03/20/2005 2:15:46 PM PST by Jean S
.
TERRI = Breathes, Eats, Speaks / MICHAEL = "When is that B-TCH gonna die?" ..per Nurses
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1366750/posts
.
I visited both the ACLU's website and NOW's, and you would think from some of the material on their websites about the disabled that they would be the first to defend Mrs. Schiavo.
For instance, at the ACLU website I found:
High Court Rules That Executing the Mentally Retarded Is "Cruel and Unusual" Punishment
June 20, 2002
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WASHINGTON–In a landmark victory for death penalty opponents, the Supreme Court today ruled that executing people with mental retardation violates the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment.
"The Supreme Court's decision reflects a growing national concern over the fairness of the death penalty," said Diann Rust-Tierney, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Capital Punishment Project, which had filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing execution of people with mental retardation.
"We hope that the Supreme Court's decision today will encourage lawmakers in Virginia and elsewhere to consider the other systemic problems with the death penalty, including racial bias, lack of competent counsel and procedural barriers that prevent courts from insuring that the death penalty is applied fairly," she added.
Today's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, No. 00-8452, invalidates the 20 state laws that currently allow such executions, including Virginia, where 24-year-old Daryl Renard Atkins was scheduled to be executed.
As the Court noted, lawmakers in Virginia who in the past had opposed death penalty reform this year came close to approving a bill banning the execution of mentally retarded persons.
When the Supreme Court first considered execution of the mentally retarded in 1989, it concluded that because only two states then explicitly outlawed the practice, no national consensus existed to invalidate such executions. Since then, 18 states and the federal government have banned the practice, offering an opening to attorneys for Atkins and advocates for death penalty reform.
Ultimately, Rust-Tierney said, a federal moratorium on the death penalty is needed until states address the wide range of systemic problems that have now been so widely documented and publicized.
The Supreme Court's decision is online at
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-8452.ZS.html.The ACLU's brief in Atkins v. Virginia (which was originally submitted in McCarver v. North Carolina and refiled after that case was dismissed by the Supreme Court) can be found at:
http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty.cfm?ID=9108&c=63.
Since Mrs. Schiavo hasn't even been convicted of a capital crime, it's hard to see how her execution could pass muster with the Supreme Court just on this simple cognitive disabilities test.
Don't starve her, eh? Just put her down?
The husband has ordered no autopsy. Find that troubling?
nothing new under the sun, it looks like.
Wonderful analysis. Well done.
Thing is she is not the only one this has happened to nor will she be the last. This happens every day without the mass hysteria.
Not if it's reviewed "DE novo".
The standards and laws applicable is what the Federal Supreme Court has ruled to have been observed in this case already by their refusal to hear it. Every court in every jurisdiction has held that the trial court did not exceed it's authority. Do you even think a Federal District Court will even hear a case that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear?
What you posted is pure ignorance. A Federal Court would be hearing the case for an entirely different reason that the one the SC passed on.
It's actually pretty unusual to have a conflict like this between relatives. And even more unusual to have the relative who wants to withdraw life support, have a laundry list of conflicts of interest and inconsistencies in his story. Michael Schiavo fought in court for a big cash award for Terri's care, then conveniently remembered AFTER it was awarded that she clealy said she wouldn't want to be kept alive like this, and somewhere along the line took up with a new girlfriend and started having children with her, seriously weakening his claim to be her "husband" which is the only thing giving him any say in the matter at all.
Terri WILL die; to keep ABORTION 'safe' for millions of American women.
If Terri is has a life worth 'value', then, because to take it (or 'allow' it) to be removed from her simply because she 'cannot speak for herself', will cause GREAT HARM to abortion 'providers'.
After all, the 'fetus' can't speak for ITSELF, either!
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.