Skip to comments.FL lawyer says Giuliani, Romney, McCain wrong on Schiavo case
Posted on 05/28/2007 9:33:12 AM PDT by wagglebee
The Christian attorney who fought to keep Terry Schiavo alive says the three leading GOP presidential candidates don't understand the important disability issues involved in the widely publicized 2005 case.
During a recent Republican presidential debate in California, the candidates were asked whether Congress was right to intervene in the Terry Schiavo case by attempting to prevent the state of Florida from removing the disabled woman's feeding tube. The answers varied.
Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, said he thought it "was a mistake" for Congress to get involved and the matter should have been left at the state level. Senator John McCain said Congress "probably acted too hastily." And former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani called the case a "family dispute."
David Gibbs III of the Christian Law Association says the United States gives greater due process to convicted murderers than to innocent disabled people. The former attorney for Schiavo's parents argues that Congress did the right thing when it intervened to provide her those rights.
"Many of the candidates are following the political wind, if you will, instead of showing leadership and saying, 'You know what? That was good public policy back then. We need to stand up for the disabled. We need to stand up for the senior citizens,'" Gibbs says. "We need to have that compassion for vulnerable people as opposed to taking the mindset that those people that just don't matter," he notes.
It is disingenuous, the Christian attorney contends, for candidates to claim they are pro-life but not be willing to grant due process rights to the disabled. "If you're pro-life, you have to be pro-life at every step," he says.
"Please understand: our founding fathers understood that you don't have any liberty, our Constitution doesn't matter, if you don't protect the innocent life of the citizens," Gibbs explains. "That's why they talked about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- your free speech, your freedom of religion, your right to own a gun or [receive] due process of law," he says. "If the government can kill you, you have no true liberty."
When Rudy Giuliani visited Florida he initially said he was in favor of assisting Terry Schiavo but later backpedaled from those comments, Gibbs points out. And in the recent GOP presidential debate, he says, only Kansas Senator Sam Brownback and Congressman Duncan Hunter of California got the issue right when they were asked about the Schiavo case.
Whether he did was living with this other person in the beginning or not does not matter. He did and still maintained control over Terri which is probably a conflict of interest. He should have relinquished control. I do have a question though, how can you expect an immoral person to make a moral decision?
I comprehend that this was a difficult and controversial case, influenced by particular religious beliefs and legal opinions - both of which being not always the best way to solve a problem.
Our medical technology is developing to the point of keeping a great many brain injured, etc. patients alive for extended periods of time. The consideration here is that the cost of doing this will prevent medical care from being available to those who could use it more practically. How do you decide who rates the excessive cost of staying alive with no normal life activity and who gets healed and returns to a normal productive life. At some point that decision will have to be made. The more the government gets involved in this, the more socialized medicine will result. If this is what you want, Hillary is your candidate. Try comprehending that.
I don’t know what the newest anti-FReepers are calling themselves, nor do I really care, but WAckos seems appropriate.
My mother had the same argument, and my husband agreed with it. I told them both that if the only things keeping me alive were food and water (like right now), they'd better not decide that I don't need 'em.
Um, you're facts are in error. You need only check for how long the adulterous husband has known Jodie to see that you are spreading a false premise. [HINT: as soon as the monies form the court case were awarded, the sleazy husband had an 'investment' arrangement with a Jodie connected insurance/annuity program.]
Your willingness to post such a false notion is disturbing. If you don't know the fatcs, just read along without posting.
I've got a newsflash for you, FOOD AND WATER IS NOT "MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY" AND WE ALL NEED IT.
I tend to agree, hence my ROFL.
But that doesn't count because her husband actually went on with his life and neglected to sit by her side and grieve over her condition for years on end, expecting that any minute she would regain consciousness.
I had just volunteered on the Romney for President website the day before he made these remarks. He lost my vote in the primary and my active support if he makes it to the general election. Liberals and RINO's don't comprehend the depth of this issue or it's lasting implications for the disabled and our nation, or for their own political futures.
You mean like when Michael showed up and asked the nurses, "when will this bitch die?"
You are even getting snotty at us before anyone says hello.
Obviously, artificial administration of food and water is not the extent of our medical technology. My point involved more than just this individual case.
So, if she can be tortured, you acknowledge that her brain injuries probably weren't permanent?
You might want to decide these matters for others but I do not.
No, I think God alone should decide when and how we die. Denying a person food and water is little different than putting a bullet in their head.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Terri was very happy right up to the moment when they stopped feeding her and giving her drink. You must not have read the other posts to you. Eating and drinking are not artificial, although my sandwich tasted like it.
She was conscious and aware of her surroundings.
She may have liked to decide for herself, too, actually tried to, but they killed her anyway.
Show me ONE place where I was in favor of a "right to kill" absent the right to die. I am STRONGLY against involuntary euthanasia, etc., because I care about each individual's RIGHTS and PREFERENCES, not just look at them like some statistic for whom I know best (Life-At-All-Cost'ers).
but I suppose demonizing my support of the Constitution and people's rights is easier than addressing my points, eh?
WAckos? WAaaaaaaa.... What do we call the salty river or whatever it is? I heard reference to it but do not want to think of things like that on a beautiful day.
And there is SO MUCH ROMNEY pimpin’ going on the supposed “Conservative/Republican Media” that I can’t tell if it PAID, or truely grass-roots supported. If anything the debate showed me Romney is only willing to touch on “surface-isses” realted to cultural/traditional/social conservaitves, BOTTOM LINE: I don’t trust him (any farther than I can throw him, and I am not saying this as a ‘hit on him), but as a fact, untill proven otherwise: I DON’T TRUST Gov. ROMNEY, and WILL NOT SUPPRT/Vote for Him!
Can’t take a joke?? Terri’s killing was very involuntary euthanasia. I was outside on the grounds when Terri was inside and she screamed in horror when she found out they were about to snuff her. Right-to-die in liberal lingo means right-to-die.