Skip to comments.Wesley J. Smith: Case of Rom Houben Should Prompt Renewed Look at Terri Schiavo's Death
Posted on 12/26/2009 6:22:59 PM PST by wagglebee
click here to read article
It’s been awhile. My memory isn’t the best. And those memories are awful.
You are absolutely right.
The people who literally 'pulled the plug' are not haunted. And yes, agree; we have much to fear given Obamacare - an 'oxymoron'- if there ever was one.
I think your memory is pretty accurate about that. I just wanted to clarify that one point.
I will say now that I see us sliding closer and closer to the Nazis we once fought against. We still have a ways to go, but we’re moving exponentially faster in that direction.
Thanks for the ping!
We are fighting Powers and Principalities.
But they’ve been around a long time - as in at least since the beginning of time as we know it - and they’ve been fighting us (humans generally and the US and Israel in particular) for as long as we have existed.
Can we stand up to Powers and Prinicpalities? Nope. Not alone. Only God can.
So, if we stand with God, we will prevail. If we (continue as a nation to) try to stand on our own, we will fail.
It’s really pretty straight forward...
Bush wasn't a coward, he was complicit. HE signed into law that it was ok to remove feeding tubes from PVS patients; that's why they "diagnosed" Terri as "PVS". Charlie Crist was also complicit as he NEVER made any effort to investigate the matter.
Yes. They played people.
Bush had the power and obligation to rescue Terri. He vowed to do so. He chickened out. When I see, hear, or think of the word “coward,” Jeb Bush comes to mind.
That’s the truth. We sat here cheering because we actually thought he was going to keep his word. Then he whined that he didn’t have the authority.
We will never move on until the evil trio - Schiavo, Greer and Felos -
Praying it will be in my lifetime!!!
I’ve tried to find some difference between Governor Jeb Bush and Governor Pontius Pilate. All I can come up with is that they lived a couple thousand years apart, and one turned his back on Jesus Christ while the other turned his back on Terri Schiavo. But those are just differences in their circumstances, not in the men themselves or in their actions. I still can’t find anything abut Jeb Bush which makes him any different from Pontius Pilate. They both succumbed to the call of “crucify, crucify, crucify.”
“Colorado RTL is informing pro-lifers, politicians and candidates of a crisis among the federal judiciary. For 35 years, pro-lifers have hoped that by electing pro-life presidents such as Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and George W. Bush, America would get judges who support the God-given right to life of the unborn. Justices, who we all hoped were pro-life, have made it increasingly clear that they are not.
Antonin Scalia has publicly stated that he would strike down any law that prohibited abortion in all fifty states, and Clarence Thomas has ruled that the public has the right to decide to legalize the killing of unborn children. Sadly, not even one of the seven current U.S. Supreme Court Justices nominated by Republican presidents support the right to life of the unborn.
Further, our pro-life presidents have nominated sixty percent of the U.S. federal judiciary, and yet the judiciary utterly rejects the right to life of the unborn. Also we should remember that the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade decision was written by a Republican Justice and passed by the Republican majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, and abortion was legalized in Colorado by Republican governor John Love in 1967.
Colorado RTL is educating pro-life politicians and candidates to the sobering judicial crisis because it tells us that the status quo strategy of regulating abortion over the last decades is leading to a judicial culture exactly the opposite of what the pro-life movement had expected. When we ask judges to uphold abortion regulations, that very request moves “our own” judges to accept that the government has the right to regulate the killing of children, which they do by upholding the pro-life movement’s own initiatives.
Thus Colorado RTL advocates enforcement of the God-given right to life and promotes the Personhood strategy to end legalized abortion in America!”
The Republican judges also voted to kill Terri.
Yup. They put “self” ahead of doing what was right.
That needs to be said louder, and more often. I don't think many people get it. Yet.
To the best of my knowledge nobody has EVER presented any evidence to suggest that Terri had an eating disorder.
We do know that on the day Terri had her injury she spent more money having her hair styled than Mikey thought she should and he was angry. We do know that she had told friends that she was thinking about leaving him. And we do know that her injuries are totally inconsistent with what would normally happen when a person collapses.
Thread by mlizzy.
My son stood larger than life, the sun dancing on his hair, his eyes sparkling as he laughed with his teammates in all the bravado only teammates can share. Grinning from ear to ear, ahead in a major semi-pro football game, my son was radiant with the joy of it, and I thanked God for days such as this.
I once had the RIGHT to kill him. For a second I imagined him not there.
That thought shot through my body like ice and anger at women like Nancy Pelosi welled up inside. What kind of monster would fight to kill innocents? What sick and twisted people are these to campaign that our tax dollars be used to MURDER men like my son, to confuse young teens carrying children, to convince them they aren't children at all but worthless cells. Those poor teens and young women have no idea what they're doing and how they would regret it for the rest of their lives.
From the moment of conception it is determined what color eyes they will have, what color hair, whether or not they have freckles. As my son smacked his teammate in brotherly affection, overwhelmed with the glory of the day, it bristled me to know I could have ignorantly killed him thanks to the efforts of abortion-crazed politicians. . .
Thread by abb.
The Ronald Reagan U.C.L.A. Medical Center, one of the nations most highly regarded academic hospitals, has earned a reputation as a place where doctors will go to virtually any length and expense to try to save a patients life.
If you come into this hospital, were not going to let you die, said Dr. David T. Feinberg, the hospital systems chief executive.
Yet that ethos has made the medical center a prime target for critics in the Obama administration and elsewhere who talk about how much money the nation wastes on needless tests and futile procedures. They like to note that U.C.L.A. is perennially near the top of widely cited data, compiled by researchers at Dartmouth, ranking medical centers that spend the most on end-of-life care but seem to have no better results than hospitals spending much less.
Under the House health care legislation pending in Congress, the Institute of Medicine would conduct a study of the regional variations in Medicare spending to try to determine how to reward hospitals like Mayo for providing more cost-effective care. Hospitals identified as high-cost centers might even be penalized, perhaps receiving lower payments from the government. The Senate bill calls only for studies of Medicare spending variations, so it will be up to House-Senate negotiators to resolve the matter in the final legislation. . .
Thread by me.
Last weekend while you were preparing for the holidays with your family, Harry Reids Senate was making shady backroom deals to ram through the Democrat health care take-over. The Senate ended debate on this bill without even reading it.
That and midnight-weekend votes seem to be standard operating procedures in D.C.
No one is certain of whats in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients also known as rationing.
Apparently Reid and friends have changed the rules of the Senate so that the section of the bill dealing with this board can't be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote. Senator DeMint said:
This is a rule change. Its a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I'm not even sure that its constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.
In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing death panel from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they're so concerned about protecting this particular provision. Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to bend the cost curve and keep health care spending down?
The Congressional Budget Office seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost.
In a letter to Harry Reid last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted (with a number of caveats) that the bills calculations call for a reduction in Medicares spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker:
It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.
Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call death panels the lie of the year, this type of rationing what the CBO calls reduc[ed] access to care and diminish[ed] quality of care is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.
This health care bill is one of the most far-reaching and expensive expansions of the role of government into our lives. We're talking about putting one-seventh of our economy under the governments thumb. We're also talking about something as intimate to our personal well-being as medical care.
This bill is so unpopular that people on the right and the left hate it. So why go through with it? The Senate is planning to vote on this on Christmas Eve. Why the rush? Though we will begin paying for this bill immediately, we will see no benefits for years. (Thats the trick that allowed the CBO to state that the bill won't grow the deficit for the next ten years.)
The administrations promises of transparency and bipartisanship have been broken one by one. This entire process has been defined by midnight votes on weekends, closed-door meetings with industry lobbyists, and payoffs to politicians willing to sell their principles for sweetheart deals. Is it any wonder that Americans are so disillusioned with their leaders in Washington?
This is about politics, not health care. Americans don't want this bill. Americans don't like this bill. Washington has stopped listening to us. But we're paying attention, and 2010 is coming.
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.