Posted on 03/30/2005 4:40:57 PM PST by tutstar
"...so I don't think my brush was that broad..."
no no no sun, i wasn't talking about you with that, i meant the other poster when i inferred that, i'm sorry... and frankly, you are absolutely right about checking and double-checking facilities where we would bring loved ones..
this may be my total inexperience and ignorance speaking here but i was always of the understanding that hospice was brought in, more or less when all hope has been lost... when everything that can be done, has been done...
and sun, please don't get me wrong, i am a strong advocate of prayer!!! many a prayer was said for me by family, as well as myself for.... well, let's just say my own "jaded" past... :) and the fact that i'm "still around" is quite a miracle in and of itself...
I don't have any pull with Jim Robinson. It would really be great, if we could talk Jim into leading it.
He's probably more familiar with your tag, since you started some of the Daily threads. Also, like others, my organizational skills are lacking, but if some of us get together, I think we could accomplish something.
First, we need a vision statment. I had two things, I wanted to see:
1) a law passed to protect the disabled.
2) an investigation
Both of these would need to be expanded.
For instance on the first one, we need to expand it to include some of the things some of us have already identified:
a) Look at the House Bill for protecting the disabled
b) We need to look at "what is due process in the case of the disabled". As it stands now, one judge can condemn someone to die that is disabled. This is outrageous. A criminal is given a jury trial and the courts bend over backwards to protect his rights.
c) how so we get "due process" changed. For criminals this had been interpreted by the courts with actual cases, such as the right to a speedy trial, etc. Do we need an amendment to change "due process for the disabled" or can it be done in a bill? Seems like a bill would be good enough, since they can pass things like advance directives without any problem. An amensment would take a long time.
d) Talk to the consitutional attorneys that have spoken out for Terri to look at helping us pass a bill/amendment and how to make it foolproof ( or should I say Judgeproof).
e)would be nice to get Mel on Board, as spokesman.
We may want to add two more vision statements:
3) End judicial tyranny.
4) Make congress and the President take back the powers invested in them.
I guess these would have to be voted on or something. I would back all four. There may be other points we would want to add. But I think we would have a better chance of getting something accomplished if we limited what we want to do.
We could formulate a vision statement in our new activist thread.
Can you repost this on the new April thread for Terri?
Good idea to organize a boycott.
Remember how successful the boycott of the terrible Reagan movie was. They did show it, but it was regulated to Showtime, I believe. We might be able to get whoever started that boycott to help us get started. They did a good job.
Sure!
As you say, there will be many more shows like that in the future. All of those who were not heard while she was dying will get to tell their story now!
Maybe they should take another poll in a few months!
Michael will be ostracized for years to come Phil.
Amen.....
Some points that are being held against the Schindlers are...
They were unable to care for Terri at home
They asked for Wolfson
They didn't want a PET scan....wanted something else
They agreed that Terri was PVS
They supposedly would amputate her limbs to keep her alive
They urged Mikey to find a new life
and the usual....they were mean to poor Mikey
This is just a smattering of the arguements against the Schindlers from various posters.
"Talk to the conditional attorneys that have spoken out for Terri to look at helping us pass a bill/amendment and how to make it foolproof ( or should I say Judgeproof)."
There was Jay Sekulow (Sp?) and one other whose name I could never seem to catch. On Hannity, he was particularly sympathetic to Terri's parents and said he couldn't as a parent, imagine this being done to his child. They are BOTH excellent and have a GOOD knowledge of the law.
Mel Gibson would be an EXCELLENT spokesman, I totally agree. He is sharp and surprisingly articulate. Also, Patricia Heaton.
I would probably make goals one and two equal. That is my humble suggestion.
Limiting the power of judges is an excellent goal. We might be taking on enough with goals one and two, I don't know.
It must a coalition across the board of conservatives, and supporters of Terri in the middle and on the left. This cannot be perceived as an effort on the part of people on the religious right ONLY or it will FAIL. That would be my strongest point.
It should be an open endeavor and everyones opinions and ideas should be encouraged. No person or group should feel alienated or left out.
The investigation MUST be kept out of the hands of Florida officials or it will be a WASH.
I guess I'm the type that would not want to go to even a pro-life hospice, because as Terri said: "Where there's life, there's hope."
I think having a spark of hope keeps one's spirits up.
A couple of years ago, the doctor was talking to my mother about DNR re: my dad, half the family thought he was dying, and two years later, thankfully, he is still with us. :)
Then when my dad recovered a head therapist said that he would never walk again, even with a walker. My brother did not accept that, and now my dad can walk the distance of one-half block, hanging on to a railing, and the distance of around four blocks, with a walker.
Ridiculous RUBBISH. I KNOW we all KNOW that.
Boycotts are a GOOD idea.
Thanks I just noticed this post. I will call them tomorrow.
Another was Judge Roy Moore. Also need to contact Mark Levin.
I have no problem at all making it more than the religious right. To me that is a non issue, but if you think we need to spell it out, that's fine with me.
We could probably get Laura Ingraham to back us too. I have been listening to Mike Savage. He certainly isn't very religious, but I liked the way he handled Terri's case better than everyone else. I could yell and scream right along with him. One caller said she had stopped listening to him, because he was always calling people names. She said in htis case, he wasn't calling Mike S. and Felos nasty enough names.
At the vigil there were other groups there. "Not Dead Yet", "Non-Christians for Terri", etc. Actually, I was surprised that there weren't more religious groups there. The leaders all seemed to be ignoring what happened to Terri.
The Schindler's were naive in the beginning . . . and trusting . . . and loving and kind and hopeful.
That's why their record is skewed. They had to change their minds when they realized what Michael was up to.
I agree. I think your analysis is absolutely correct.
That boycott was led by Merv Griffin and Nancy Reagan: they meant business.
http://www.theempirejournal.com/0225057_chiavo_parents_to_appeal.htm
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.