Posted on 10/25/2007 4:05:19 PM PDT by wagglebee
He says they would be more likely to support the actions Congress and the Florida legislature took to try to help his family prevent her former husband from subjecting her to a painful euthanasia death if they knew more about her case.
"I want to personally talk with them about Terri's case," Bobby Schindler told the Boston Globe. "They need to be fully informed. There obviously exists a lot of confusion about my sister's situation."
Schindler told the newspaper that he plans to write each candidate a letter about Terri's circumstances and the painful 13-day starvation and dehydration death her former husband Michael made her endure.
He says Terri's case was not an end-of-life one because she wasn't dying and that his family took their lawsuit to federal courts because state courts had mandated that she be killed.
Thompson responded to questions about Terri Schiavo on Monday and said he didn't think that government should intervene in cases like hers. He says government should stay out and let families decide.
“It should be decided by the families — the federal government and the state government too, except for the court system, ought to stay out of those matters as far as I am concerned," he said.
One leading pro-life advocate who spoke with LifeNews.com about the comments on the condition of anonymity said the media is making too much of Thompson's comments in an attempt to show a divide between him and the pro-life movement or the Schindler family.
The pro-life leader said Thompson's view that government shouldn't make end-of-life decisions fits into the pro-life perspective but that government had to intervene in Terri's case because her family was split over her care.
However the pro-life community views Thompsons' remarks, the Schindler family has found a reason to be disappointed with the comments most of the candidates have had on the case.
The family endorsed pro-life Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, but he dropped out of the race last week.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has come under fire for his comments, as have ex-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and Senator John McCain of Arizona.
Even former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who is considered one of the better candidates left in the race from the pro-life perspective, told the St. Petersburg Times earlier this year, "I wasn't sure how the federal government had a role in all that."
In cases like Terri's the problem for the above general law is that dying is seen as a right and thus it becomes the right to live vs. the right to die.
Alberto Gonzalez didn’t get any hush money.
Too bad Terri’s ordeal and death have opened up the cheap shot artists to go hog wild.
I was 100% in her corner, her family’s corner and against Greer and Michael Schiavo. I also thought higher level gov’t action was warranted when I saw the way a fix was in place in the corrupted FL system.
Plenty of people tried what they thought was the legally correct course and it naturally failed because Greer wouldn’t abide by it, but none of them thought the state LE or Fed guns should be called in. The Fed Courts didn’t even do what they were supposed to do with the case and became part of the corrupted process.
At the time when Jeb and George were savaged, I wrote that they did exactly as they had been brought up to do by their parents and grandparents. They believed the system should rule even when the system went wrong. They did not view themselves as super actors in that system, rather as one cog in the wheel. Jeb kept saying he acted within what he believed the executive could do and so did George.
Others disagreed. They made their points but Jeb and George didn’t accept them, then those on the other side (Terri’s, at any cost) morphed into cheap shot artists and been there ever since. So we get: Jeb and George are cowards and damned to hell for eternity, and Alberto Gonzalez must have been paid hush money. I shrug. Here they go again.
I take a back seat to nobody in my heartfelt championing of Terri’s cause.
I’ve just been through a bit similar nightmare with my own elderly and ill Mother, and I chose life even though it meant a very hard life for me in extending her care. Doctors were telling me to give it up and not treat her, not feed her, not give her a tube, let her go, etc. To go on with her as I chose to was and is hard, but to let her starve and dehydrate was unconscionable per Terri’s case.
That means I believe what I do with all my heart and soul. Not everyone will agree with me on the legalities per Terri. But I’m not a cheap shot artist, either.
Plenty of people tried what they thought was the legally correct course and it naturally failed because Greer wouldn’t abide by it, but none of them thought the state LE or Fed guns should be called in. The Fed Courts didn’t even do what they were supposed to do with the case and became part of the corrupted process.
At the time when Jeb and George were savaged, I wrote that they did exactly as they had been brought up to do by their parents and grandparents. They believed the system should rule even when the system went wrong. They did not view themselves as super actors in that system, rather as one cog in the wheel. Jeb kept saying he acted within what he believed the executive could do and so did George."
Excellent analysis! Really well done.
Because of the system of checks and balances, and also because at the time, we were in a constitutional crisis (just my opinion), President Bush HAD the authority to step in. Politically, though, it may have devastated his presidency, which in a time of war, would not have been wise. Therefore, the burden rested on Jeb's shoulders. It would have taken a great deal of courage to do in this age of Democrat control of the MSM, what needed to be done, and Jeb didn't have it.
After standing up to Greer, he most tragically backed down. It WAS cowardly. But you are also right, the harsh names he was called, were, and are harmful to Terri's cause and the cause of other's like her.
Thanks for all the links. I wish that GOP candidates would talk to Bobby Schindler. Bobby’s a American and his message is important to our future.
Ditto.
Every human being who ends up being a patient deserves medical treatment, rehabilitation and if they are terminally ill, they should be made comfortable. If someone is truly brain dead, their heart will stop. There's no reason to starve and dehydrate people. Whosoever checks the boxes to be starved and dehydrated, they will suffer and likely be morphed out so they won't really be able to say goodbye to their loved ones cuz they'll be out of it. Wills to Live are better than Living Wills.
Taking someone off of a respirator if that is all that is keeping them clicking, is not euthanasia. I never said it was.
And freepers, it's a hard road when parents become elderly, decline and are at the end. If an adult child does everything they can to care for and comfort their parents at the true end of life, there's no need to feel guilty. That is how love works. Nobody that is for Terri is condemning adult children who lose their parent after a short or long illness. For gosh sakes, we are against euthanasia-murder, whether it's Dr. Kevorkian or state sponsored like Terri's death in Florida, The Starvation State. If Fred Thompson had to cut off his daughter's respirator, well, okay. He should not be so hypersensitive that he cannot discuss such things ever again. Fred Thompson shows a total disregard for children with special needs, for disabled adults and for senior citizens.
Then he ended up agreeing with what they did to Terri. She was murdered and THAT was okay w/him as of October 25, 2007. It's because he's a Bushbot, PTL. He's going to tow that line. Shame on him.
Fregards, floriduh voter
Loyalty trumps all.
108.
The culture of death has convinced HBO to make a movie about Jack Kevorkian, I can only imagine how distorted it will be.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917370/posts
For someone who was let out early for alleged medical reasons, he has been rather active.
#108 bump!
This is one of those times when I’m glad I don’t have cable.
Before the Tenth Amendment is the Fifth Amendment.
And no where in the Tenth Amendment does it say to ignore all of the other Amendments.
The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists, that the constitution was intended to secure the people of the several states against the undue exercise of power by their respective state governments; as well as against that which might be attempted by their general government. It support of this argument he relies on the inhibitions contained in the tenth section of the first article. We think, that section affords a strong, if not a conclusive, argument in support of the opinion already indicated by the court. The preceding section contains restrictions which are obviously intended for the exclusive purpose of restraining the exercise of power by the departments of the general government. Some of them use language applicable only to congress; others are expressed in general terms. The third clause, for example, declares, that 'no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.' No language can be more general; yet the demonstration is complete, that it applies solely to the government of the United States.---Barron v. Baltimore, 1833.
Once more for those that seem to be stuck on the short bus in the crowd. Before the ruling in 1898 (a full 30 years after passage of the 14th), under the original intent of the Constitution no part of the Bill of Rights applied to the separate and sovereign states.
You can post all day long. It doesn’t justify murder.
Terri died for the war. Now I’ve heard everything.
What part of “..nor be
deprived of LIFE (emphasis mine), liberty, ..” don’t you understand?
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
Even if you applied it which you really shouldn't as this was a medical case (and a family issue at that) it has no business being in the court system, especially the federal one.
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.