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.
This is no doubt done to avoid addressing the morality of what is right and what is wrong. Some would afford a condemned murderer more legal rights than an innocent woman.
Right - the nurses couldn’t testify about what they saw because of the patient confidentiality aspect - great protection for ol’ Michael. So, they went public and took huge heat.
Terri’s best friend also was not allowed to testify by Greer about Terri’s negative feelings about Karen Ann Quinlan’s parents taking her off the respirator. Greer denied that Terri was old enough to know about that case. He was wrong, but oh well, too late now.
Due process is not a legal technicality. The rights contained in the U.S. Constitution are not not forfeited just you don’t like the outcome of a case. Show me the Schindlere exception to our due process rights. None of your other buddies want to answer, but maybe you can tell me why Iyer didn’t testify at the trial.
Testimony in court is an exception the patient confidentiality.
Ironically, if she had testified in court, she would have had greater protections.
Whose constitutional rights are you referring to? Where in the Constitution does it say that any private citizen or state judge has the right to ignore a congressional subpoena?
You see, it really doesn't matter why Iyer didn't testify. What matters is that YOU and your ilk feel that it is proper to kill a person, who was not charged with any crime, based on a legal technicality.
Are you licensed to practice law in Florida?
You have the right to confront your accusers under the U.S. Constitution ie: cross examination in a trial. Yes, it does matter that Iyer did not testify. She was never questioned under oath. Why she did not testify puts her credibility in question. Our forefathers gave us that protection in the Bill of Rights. I am sorry you and your ilk have such low regard for the Bill of Rights.
No, I am not licensed in Florida. If you doubt my statement, look up the Florida rules of evidence.
Terri’s case was always in Probate court, which is where Guardianship issues are handled in Florida. Numerous abuse complaints were filed, but the Protective Services unit was not allowed to pursue anything thanks to Greer (and gutless Jeb Bush). Greer never laid eyes on Terri in all the years this case went on. He was proud to declare finally “This girl is going to die.” No one was allowed to even let her have ice chips during the death watch. The agenda was never about justice for Terri. It’s all about legalizing euthanasia for the old & disabled. Just ask George Soros - you are aware of his national efforts in this arena?
Michael Schiavo could not of said that any better.
Yes, it does matter that Iyer did not testify. She was never questioned under oath. Why she did not testify puts her credibility in question.
Greer could've allowed her to testify at any time. In fact, he could've ordered her testify. Could you show me where he ordered her to testify in light of her new evidence? And of course, the 'bone scan' was also deemed "entertaining", but it also was not allowed into evidence.
Our forefathers gave us that protection in the Bill of Rights. I am sorry you and your ilk have such low regard for the Bill of Rights.
You seem to be only concerned about "us". Did you have anything to do with the Schiavo case? You seem to talk like a guilty person.
That was not the posters question. We all know congress didn't take any action, but subpoenas were ignored. In fact, Terri herself was subpoenaed, but they murdered her before she could appear. I see you have high regard for the law.
He said as much himself, earlier in this thread. But please be generous in spirit. There is hope for every human soul, and there is no telling what inspiring idea or kind word might lead to the needed change of heart.
That's gibberish.
She was not permitted to testify. She was willing to testify, so you cannot fault her on that. The other nurses likewise were not permitted to testify. They all had hands-on, personal experience with Terri. None of their armchair critics can gainsay their stories.
If anyone's credibility is in question, it is the judge who suppressed their testimony. The judge obviously did not want the truth to be heard. But it will be heard. Count on it.
You didn't hear it here. See, that's not the Freeper take on things. Freepers naturally wonder why you've been hanging out with alien life forms who do take that view.
And exactly what crime was Terri accused of?
Judge Greer would not allow Terri to take holy communion. He and his ilk obviously had no regard for the First Amendment.
My take is that he is concerned about Michael and what we or Carla says about him How weird is that : ) ?
This is precisely why I have said many times on this thread that I don't feel I can judge her wishes. I don't know the legalities (and am not interested) and I don't know who of the conflicting family members is accurate and who is not about other than the medicine. And I'm not interesting in wading through the charges and counter charges to find out.
I've said before that both sides have spun the facts. I understand and am interested in the medicine.
You tell me. Was your mother trying to commit suicide by starvation, or was she just not hungry from chemotherapy?
She wasn't on chemotherapy at the time. I also wouldn't say that she was trying to commit suicide, just the body's natural mechanism that she wasn't hungry and didn't want to eat.
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.